Palliative radiotherapy versus best supportive care in patients with painful hepatic cancer (CCTG HE1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Palliative treatment options for painful hepatic cancer can be restricted due to patients eventually becoming refractory to standard treatment. The aim of this study was to determine whether radiotherapy improves hepatic pain from cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (CCTG HE1) done in nine cancer centres across Canada, we included patients aged 18 years or older with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases, who were refractory to standard treatment, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-3, with life expectancy of more than 3 months, and pain or discomfort at its worst in the past 24 hours on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) of at least 4 out of 10, which was stable for up to 7 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via a minimisation method after stratification by centre and type of cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma vs liver metastases), to single-fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy) to the liver with 8 mg ondansetron (or equivalent) orally and 4 mg dexamethasone orally given 1-2 h before radiotherapy plus best supportive care (including non-opioid or opioid analgesia, or dexamethasone, or a combination of these) or best supportive care alone. The primary endpoint was improvement in patient-reported liver cancer pain or discomfort of at least 2 points on worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month after randomisation. All patients with both baseline and 1-month assessments were included in the primary endpoint analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02511522, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between July 25, 2015, and June 2, 2022, 66 patients were screened and randomly assigned to radiotherapy plus best supportive care (n=33) or best supportive care (n=33). Median age was 65 years (IQR 57-72), 37 (56%) of 66 patients were male, 29 (44%) were female, 43 (65%) had liver metastases, and 23 (35%) had hepatocellular carcinoma (data on race and ethnicity were not collected). As of data cutoff (Sept 8, 2022), median follow-up was 3·2 months (95% CI 3·0-3·4). 24 (73%) of 33 in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group and 18 (55%) of 33 in the best supportive care only group completed baseline and 1-month assessments. An improvement in hepatic pain of at least 2 points in worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month was seen in 16 (67%) of 24 patients in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group versus four (22%) of 18 patients in the best supportive care group (p=0·0042). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events within 1 month after randomisation were abdominal pain (three [9%] of 33 in the radiotherapy group vs one [3%] of 33 in best supportive care group) and ascites (two [6%] vs one [3%]). No serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Single-fraction radiotherapy plus best supportive care improved pain compared with best supportive care alone in patients with liver cancer, and could be considered a standard palliative treatment. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligoprogressive Cancers: Results of the Randomized Phase 2 STOP Trial.

PURPOSE: This trial examined if patients with ≤5 sites of oligoprogression benefit from the addition of SABR to standard of care (SOC) systemic therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We enrolled patients with 1 to 5 metastases progressing on systemic therapy, and after stratifying by type of systemic therapy (cytotoxic vs noncytotoxic), randomized 1:2 between continued SOC treatment versus SABR to all progressing lesions plus SOC. The trial was initially limited to non-small cell lung cancer but was expanded to include all nonhematologic malignancies to meet accrual goals. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), lesional control, quality of life, adverse events, and duration of systemic therapy postrandomization. RESULTS: Ninety patients with 127 oligoprogressive metastases were enrolled across 8 Canadian institutions, with 59 randomized to SABR and 31 to SOC. The median age was 67 years, and 39 (43%) were women. The most common primary sites were lung (44%), genitourinary (23%), and breast (13%). Protocol adherence in the SOC arm was suboptimal, with 11 patients (35%) either receiving high-dose/ablative therapies (conflicting with trial protocol) or withdrawing from the study. The median follow-up was 31 months. There was no difference in PFS between arms (median PFS 8.4 months in the SABR arm vs 4.3 months in the SOC arm, but curves cross and 2-year PFS was 9% vs 24%, respectively; P = .91). The median OS was 31.2 months versus 27.4 months, respectively (P = .22). Lesional control was superior with SABR (70% vs 38%, respectively; P = .0015). There were 2 (3.4%) grade 3 and no grade 4/5 adverse events attributable to SABR. CONCLUSIONS: SABR was well-tolerated with superior lesional control but did not improve PFS or OS. Accrual to this study was difficult, and the results may have been impacted by an unwillingness to forgo ablative treatments on the SOC arm. (NCT02756793).

A Systematic Review of Prognostic Factors in Patients with Cancer Receiving Palliative Radiotherapy: Evidence-Based Recommendations.

(1) Background: Prognostication in patients with cancer receiving palliative radiotherapy remains a challenge. To improve the process, we aim to identify prognostic factors in this population from the literature and offer evidence-based recommendations on prognostication in patients undergoing palliative radiotherapy for non-curable or advanced cancers. (2) Methods: A systematic review was performed on the medical literature from 2005 to 2023 to extract papers on the prognosis of palliative radiotherapy patients with advanced cancer. The initial selection was performed by at least two authors to determine study relevance to the target area. Studies were then classified based on type and evidence quality to determine final recommendations. (3) Results: The literature search returned 57 papers to be evaluated. Clinical and biological prognostic factors were identified from these papers to improve clinical decision making or construct prognostic models. Twenty prognostic models were identified for clinical use. There is moderate evidence supporting (i) evidence-based factors (patient, clinical, disease, and lab) in guiding decision making around palliative radiation; (ii) that certain biological factors are of importance; (iii) prognostication models in patients with advanced cancer; and that (iv) SBRT or re-irradiation use can be guided by predictions of survival by prognostic scores or clinicians. Patients with more favorable prognoses are generally better suited to SBRT or re-irradiation, and the use of prognostic models can aid in this decision making. (4) Conclusions: This evaluation has identified several factors or tools to aid in prognosis and clinical decision making. Future studies should aim to further validate these tools and factors in a clinical setting, including the leveraging of electronic medical records for data availability. To increase our understanding of how causal factors interact with palliative radiotherapy, future studies should also examine and include prediction of response to radiation as an outcome.

Determining the destination: a co-designed chronic advanced cancer rehabilitation conceptual framework for engagement of individuals with lived experience in rehabilitation research.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with chronic advanced cancer (CAC) often face distinct physical, functional, and cognitive issues. Their rehabilitation needs are not yet routinely met, warranting further CAC-specific rehabilitation-based research. Given the complexity of functional and symptom presentations, engagement of individuals living with CAC as partners in the research process is encouraged to better understand the lived perspective. Formal engagement requires both structured approaches and iterative processes. The aim was to co-design a conceptual framework to develop and integrate engagement strategies into rehabilitation research focused on CAC populations. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of authors, including two individuals with lived experience, conducted an implementation-focused descriptive study to inform future research design, including: interviews and follow-up, review of current models and approaches, and development of a co-designed conceptual framework for engaging individuals with lived experience into CAC-specific rehabilitation research. RESULTS: Emergent themes include shared understanding, transparent appreciation, iterative processes and unique partnership needs. A definition, guiding principles and tools for engagement were identified. In consultation with individuals with lived experience, and application of the emergent themes in context, a conceptual framework to guide the engagement process was developed. CONCLUSION: A novel conceptual framework for engaging individuals with lived experience with CAC as partners in rehabilitation research is proposed to facilitate implementation-focused team-based approaches for this population.

Living with chronic advanced cancer (CAC) affects all parts of a person's life. Rehabilitation, such as physiotherapy, can be necessary. Healthcare data shows that rehabilitation needs of people with CAC are not yet being regularly met and that more research in this area is needed. Because CAC is complex and impacts each person differently, having people with CAC included as partners on the research team will likely help researchers better understand and explain rehabilitation needs of people with CAC.Our group of authors include different healthcare professionals, researchers, and two individuals with lived experience. Together, we carried out an implementation study and designed a framework to guide other researchers in including individuals living with CAC on research teams.We found that important themes for individuals with lived experience were: shared understanding, transparent appreciation, iterative processes (such as back and forth communication) and unique partnership needs.We titled the conceptual framework a "Co-designed Chronic ADVanced CANCer Rehabilitation" or "Co-ADVANCE" for short.

An Analysis of Clinical and Systemic Factors Associated with Palliative Radiotherapy Delivery and Completion at the End of Life in Alberta, Canada.

Radiotherapy (RT) is often utilized for symptom control at the end of life. Palliative RT (pRT) may not be taken to completion by patients, thus decreasing clinical benefits and adversely impacting resource allocation. We determined rates of incomplete pRT and examined predictors of non-completion using an electronic questionnaire. Methods: A questionnaire was embedded within the RT electronic prescribing system for all five cancer centers of Alberta, Canada, between 2017 and 2020. Prescribing radiation oncologists (ROs) were tasked with completing the questionnaire. Treatment variables were collected for 2040 patients prescribed pRT. Details on pRT courses delivered and completed were used to determine rates of incomplete RT. Electronic medical records of a subset of 367 patients randomly selected from the 2040 patients were then analyzed to examine for association of non-completion of RT with patient, disease, and therapy-related factors. Results: Overall, 10% of patients did not complete pRT. The rate of single fractions prescribed as a proportion of all RT fractions increased from 18% (pre-2017: pre-study era) to 29% (2017-2020: study era) (p < 0.0001). After conducting multivariate analysis on the overall group, multiple lifetime malignancies (OR:0.64) or increasing the number of pRT fractions (OR:0.08-0.17) were associated with non-completion. Being selected for stereotactic RT (OR:3.75) or survival > 30 days post-RT prescription (OR:2.20-5.02) were associated with greater rates of RT completion. The ROs' estimates of life expectancy at the time of RT prescription were not predictive of RT completion. In the multivariate analysis of the 367-patient subset, the presence of hepatic metastases (OR 2.59), survival 30-59 days (OR 6.61) and survival 90+ days (OR 8.18) post-RT prescription were associated with pRT completion. Only increasing pRT fractionation (OR:0.05-0.2) was associated with non-completion. Conclusion: One in ten patients prescribed pRT did not complete their treatment course. Decreasing pRT fractionation and improving prognostication in patients near the end of life may decrease rates of incomplete RT courses.

Triage for palliative radiotherapy by clinical specialist radiation therapists: A scoping review.

Patients who could benefit from palliative radiotherapy (PRT) may be in different phases of the cancer journey: they may have minimal symptoms and preserved functional status, or could be near end of life, with multiple complex care needs. Efficient triage at PRT referral is crucial to match patients with an appropriate provider and care setting as quickly as possible. Many centres have a dedicated PRT clinic, for which triage occurs by a Palliative Clinical Specialist Radiation Therapist (PCSRT). We performed an English-language literature search of 15 databases, without date limits, based on the PICO framework. After independent screening of titles and abstracts by two authors, relevant full text papers were reviewed. Twenty studies (15 publications and five abstracts) and one government report met inclusion criteria. Studies were published over a 21-year period by investigators from four countries. By identifying bottlenecks, screening out inappropriate referrals, and assessing patients in advance of consult, PSCRT triage decreased wait times by approximately 50%, on average, compared to standard pathways (range 30-82%). Increasing efficiency by pre-booking and coordinating appointments increases patient volumes and optimizes use of resources. A triage PCSRT serving a navigator role improves continuity of care, and in decreasing the number of handoffs, safety as well. Shifting triage to a PCSRT allows multidisciplinary team members to work to their maximum scope. In one clinic, after incorporation of PCSRT triage, use of on-call services decreased, as more patients were seen during daytime appointments, contributing to cost-savings.

Prevalence of palliative radiotherapy abstracts presented at the annual scientific meetings of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology: 2003-2021.

PURPOSE: Approximately half of all radiotherapy (RT) is delivered with palliative intent. Clinical research in palliative RT aims to manage symptoms, improve quality of life (QoL), evaluate supportive care, and determine optimal dose-fractionation schedules. Our aim was to describe the prevalence of palliative research at the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM) over time and compare this analysis to previously published work which evaluated the years 1992-2002. METHODS: Published abstracts (2003-2021) were independently reviewed by two authors who categorized each as curative-intent; palliative-intent; pertaining to both populations; or neither. Abstracts were considered palliative if they described incurable malignancy and interventions primarily for symptom control or QoL. Type of study, primary, site treated, and symptoms palliated were recorded. Descriptive and summary statistics were calculated including one-way ANOVA test for trend. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-nine out of 4566 abstracts (7.4%, range 2.4-13.9% per year) were classified as palliative. 7.7% (26/339) described phase I-III trials. The main primary site was the lung (39/339) and the most common metastatic site was the bone (34.2%). QoL, symptom and toxicity outcomes were reported in 31.6% (107/339), 37.8% (128/339) and 17.7% (60/339), respectively. The most common symptom investigated was pain (38/339). The proportion of abstracts classified as curative, palliative or reporting toxicity endpoints demonstrated significant change over time (all p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: While proportion of palliative themed abstracts has increased with time, there remains a significant gap before equivalence with the prevalence of palliative RT in clinical practice is achieved.

Effects of Exercise on Motivational Outcomes in Rectal Cancer Patients During and After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: A Phase II Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding exercise motivation in rectal cancer patients during and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy is important to improve adherence and achieve potential benefit. We report the motivational effects of exercise from the Exercise During and After Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Treatment trial. DATA SOURCES: We randomized 36 rectal cancer patients to supervised high-intensity interval training during neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by unsupervised moderate-to-vigorous exercise after therapy, or usual care. Using the theory of planned behavior, we assessed motivation, perceived benefits/harms, and perceived barriers for exercise during and after therapy. Supervised exercise during neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy was experienced as meaningfully (d≥0.33) more controllable (p=0.08, d=0.60), more enjoyable (p=0.25, d=0.45), and less difficult (p=0.45, d=-0.38) than anticipated. Unsupervised exercise after therapy was experienced as meaningfully more enjoyable (p=0.047, d=0.50) and less difficult (p=0.43, d=-0.36), but also less controllable (p=0.14, d=-0.80) than anticipated. Common self-reported benefits of exercise both during and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy were cardiovascular endurance, physical functioning, and quality of life. Common self-reported harms were exacerbation of treatment side effects. Frequently reported barriers to exercise during therapy were side effects of treatment, whereas exercise barriers after therapy were lack of motivation and lingering side effects. CONCLUSION: Exercise during and after therapy generally had positive effects on exercise motivation, however, perceived harms and barriers related to treatment side effects were identified. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses can help rectal cancer patients initiate and maintain exercise during and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation by discussing the potential benefits, harms, and barriers to exercise.

Do Radiation Oncology Residents Have a Preferred Radiation Treatment Planning Review Format?

In an era of increasing virtual communication, we aimed to investigate current formats used by radiation oncology residents for reviewing radiation treatment plans with attendings, preferences for formats, and reasons contributing to preferences. Residents enrolled in Canadian radiation oncology programs received questionnaires examining training level, typical review formats, preferred format, and reasons for preference. Analysis excluded PGY-1s due to insufficient exposure. Fifty-two residents participated. National response rate was 55%. Overall, hybrid review was the most used format (77%). Virtual review was the most preferred format (44%). Preference for virtual review was most common among junior residents (57%), while in-person review was most preferred by senior residents (45.4%). Few residents typically use their preferred format (35%). Reasons for preference varied between groups in convenience (p < 0.01), interactivity (p < 0.01), and teaching quality (p = 0.04). The persistence of e-learning suggests that virtual treatment planning education will continue to some degree. Junior residents prefer virtual review, while a clearly preferred review format was less apparent among senior residents. Preferences are multifactorial, and the trends seen in reasons for preference between formats may reflect advantages inherent to each. Progress is still needed in optimizing treatment planning education, as suggested by few residents using their preferred format. Residents and staff should collectively decide which educational format for treatment planning best meets educational needs.

Effects of exercise during and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation on symptom burden and quality of life in rectal cancer patients: a phase II randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We previously demonstrated that exercise during and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACRT) for rectal cancer may improve the rate of pathologic complete/near complete response. Here, we report the effects of exercise on symptom management and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Rectal cancer patients (N = 36) were randomized to a supervised high-intensity interval training program during NACRT followed by unsupervised continuous exercise after NACRT or usual care. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-NACRT, and presurgery including symptom burden (M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory) and QoL (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ- C30 and -CR29). RESULTS: During NACRT, exercise significantly worsened stool frequency (adjusted between-group difference, 25.8; 95% CI, 4.0 to 47.6; p = 0.022), role functioning (adjusted between-group difference, -21.3; 95% CI, -41.5 to -1.1; p = 0.039), emotional functioning (adjusted between-group difference, -11.7; 95% CI, -22.0 to -1.4; p = 0.028), and cognitive functioning (adjusted between-group difference, -11.6; 95% CI, -19.2 to -4.0; p = 0.004) compared to usual care. After NACRT, exercise significantly worsened diarrhea (adjusted between-group difference, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 2.3; p = 0.030) and embarrassment (adjusted between-group difference, 19.7; 95% CI, 7.4 to 32.1; p = 0.003) compared to usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise exacerbated some symptoms and worsened QoL during NACRT; however, most negative effects dissipated after NACRT. Larger trials are necessary to confirm these findings. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: If the clinical benefit of exercise is confirmed, then the modest symptom exacerbation during NACRT may be considered tolerable. However, in the absence of any clinical benefit, exercise may be contraindicated in this clinical setting.

A phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of preoperative versus postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with surgically resectable brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a standard management option for patients with resected brain metastases. Preoperative SRS may have certain advantages compared to postoperative SRS, including less uncertainty in delineation of the intact tumor compared to the postoperative resection cavity, reduced rate of leptomeningeal dissemination postoperatively, and a lower risk of radiation necrosis. The recently published ASCO-SNO-ASTRO consensus statement provides no recommendation for the preferred sequencing of radiotherapy and surgery for patients receiving both treatments for their brain metastases. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized controlled trial aims to recruit 88 patients with resectable brain metastases over an estimated three-year period. Patients with ten or fewer brain metastases with at least one resectable, fulfilling inclusion criteria will be randomized to postoperative SRS (standard arm) or preoperative SRS (investigational arm) in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization will be stratified by age (< 60 versus ≥60 years), histology (melanoma/renal cell carcinoma/sarcoma versus other), and number of metastases (one versus 2-10). In the standard arm, postoperative SRS will be delivered within 3 weeks of surgery, and all unresected metastases will receive primary SRS. In the investigational arm, enrolled patients will receive SRS of all brain metastases followed by surgery of resectable metastases within one week of SRS. In either arm, single fraction or hypofractionated SRS in three or five fractions is permitted. The primary endpoint is to assess local control at 12 months in both arms. Secondary endpoints include local control at other time points, regional/distant brain recurrence rates, leptomeningeal recurrence rates, overall survival, neurocognitive outcomes, and adverse radiation events including radiation necrosis rates in both arms. DISCUSSION: This trial addresses the unanswered question of the optimal sequencing of surgery and SRS in the management of patients with resectable brain metastases. No randomized data comparing preoperative and postoperative SRS for patients with brain metastases has been published to date. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT04474925; registered on July 17, 2020. Protocol version 1.0 (January 31, 2020). SPONSOR: Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, Canada (Samir Patel, MD).

Tumor Volume Predicts for Pathologic Complete Response in Rectal Cancer Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation.

OBJECTIVES: Nonoperative management (NOM) of locally advanced rectal cancer is an emerging approach allowing patients to preserve their anal sphincter. Identifying clinical factors associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) is essential for physicians and patients considering NOM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 412 locally advanced rectal cancer patients were included in this retrospective analysis. Tumor volumes were derived from pretreatment MRI. Clinical parameters such as tumor volume, stage, and location were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis, against pCR. A receiver operator characteristic curve was generated to identify a tumor volume cut-off with the highest clinically relevant Youden index for predicting pCR. RESULTS: Seventy-five of 412 patients (18%) achieved pCR. A tumor volume threshold of 37.3 cm 3 was identified as predictive for pCR. On regression analysis, a tumor volume >37.3 cm 3 was associated with a greater than 78% probability of not achieving pCR. On multivariate analysis, a GTV <37.3 cm 3 [odds ratio (OR)=3.7, P <0.0001] was significantly associated with an increased pCR rate, whereas tumor length > 4.85 cm was associated with pCR on univariate (OR=3.03, P <0.01) but not on multivariate analysis (OR=1.45, P =0.261). Other clinical parameters did not impact pCR rates. CONCLUSIONS: A tumor volume threshold of 37.3 cm 3 was identified as predictive for pCR in locally advanced rectal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Tumors above this volume threshold corresponded to a greater than 78% probability of not achieving pCR. This information will be helpful at diagnosis for clinicians who are considering potential candidates for NOM.

Comprehensive assessment during palliative radiotherapy consultation optimizes supportive care for patients with advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) in advanced cancer improves symptom control and quality of life. PRT consultations take place in various clinical settings, including through dedicated rapid access clinics. We examined holistic assessment and PRT delivery by consultation setting. METHODS: We analyzed patients with breast cancer who died (01/04/2013-31/03/2014), after at least one lifetime PRT consultation. Data abstracted included Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised (ESAS-r) ratings, and PRT timelines. Descriptive statistics, t tests of proportions, independent t tests, and chi-square tests were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients were assessed for PRT over 224 consults, 28/224 (12.5%) in the rapid access clinic. In non-rapid access versus rapid access visits, KPS was documented in 30.1% versus 89.3%, and medication history in 53.6% versus 96.4%, respectively (both p < 0.0001). Baseline ESAS-r scores were available for 67.9% of rapid access visits, versus no non-rapid access visit. Rapid access consults had a higher proportion of subsequent supportive care referrals (46.4% versus 8.2%; p < 0.0001). Same day PRT start occurred in 37% of rapid access versus 23.4% of non-rapid access visits (p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment for PRT by a dedicated multidisciplinary team provides a comprehensive picture of patient needs and streamlines PRT delivery, essential to personalizing supportive care.

Addressing Pain Associated with Bone Metastases: Oncology Nursing Roles in a Multidisciplinary Rapid-Access Palliative Radiotherapy Clinic.

OBJECTIVES: We provide a review of external beam radiotherapy for pain associated with bone metastases, to summarize evidence associated with different radiotherapy fraction prescriptions, and outline the oncology nursing roles in a rapid-access palliative radiotherapy clinic. Additionally, we describe the clinical capacity contributed by a nurse practitioner working at full clinical scope. DATA SOURCES: Data derived from literary databases (PubMed, CINAHL); an ethics-approved, prospective data set; and clinical expertise. CONCLUSION: Nursing provides essential contributions in the treatment and holistic symptom management in patients undergoing radiation therapy for painful bone metastases. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The roles of nursing in radiation oncology have been poorly elucidated within the existing literature. This evaluation provided valuable insights into the contribution of oncology nursing roles in providing timely access for individuals with painful metastasis.

Palliative radiotherapy delivery by a dedicated multidisciplinary team facilitates early integration of palliative care: A secondary analysis of routinely collected health data.

BACKGROUND: Early integration of Specialist Palliative Care (SPC) with oncological care improves quality of life (QOL) of patients with advanced cancer; however, patients tend to access SPC late in their disease trajectory, if at all. Routine referral of all patients to SPC would quickly overwhelm available resources, suggesting a need for widespread accessibility of generalist PC competencies. This has been increasingly facilitated by dedicated palliative radiotherapy (PRT) clinics, such as the multidisciplinary Palliative Radiation Oncology (PRO) program at the Cross Cancer Institute (CCI). Our objectives were to estimate the proportion of patients dying with breast cancer seen in consultation for PRT, and the interaction between PRT delivery and SPC referral. METHODS: This secondary analysis of routinely collected health data examined female adults with breast cancer who died between 04/01/2013 and 03/31/2014, and had advanced disease while under the care of a CCI oncologist. Alberta Cancer Registry, electronic medical records, and Edmonton Zone Palliative Care Program data were linked. During the study period, referrals for SPC, and setting of assessment for PRT, were at the attending physicians' discretion. Clinical data were abstracted including summaries of intervals between PRT and SPC consultations, as well as from consults to death. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, independent samples median tests, t tests of proportions, independent t tests and Chi-square tests compared groups. RESULTS: Of 194 patients, median age at cancer diagnosis was 59 years (range 24-95yrs), median one-way distance from the CCI was 18.8km, and overall median survival (MS) was 4.4 years. 130/194 (67.0%) and 110/194 (56.7%) were assessed for PRT and by SPC respectively; 22/194 (11.3%) saw neither prior to death. Median time between first PRT consultation and death was 11.7 months (interquartile range 3.7-22.2 mos). Median time between first SPC consult and death was 2.9 mos (IQR 1-6.2 mos). 65.6% of those who never had PRT ultimately required SPC involvement, versus 52.3% of those receiving PRT. Of the 68/130 who had both, 91.2% were seen for PRT first, a median of 7.9 mos prior to seeing SPC. Patients who had SPC consultation without previous PRT were seen by PC a median 1.5 mos prior to death (IQR 0.6-4.9 mos). Patients seen for PRT outside of the PRO clinic had SPC consultation a median of 3.3 mos before death (IQR 1.2-6.2 mos), versus those seen by the PRO clinic team, who were referred a median of 6.2 mos prior (IQR 2.4-8.1 mos). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer advanced breast cancer patients who received PRT ultimately required SPC consultation, but those who did were referred earlier in their disease course, especially if PRT assessment and delivery had taken place in the setting of a dedicated multidisciplinary team.

Palliative Radiation for Advanced Central Lung Tumors With Intentional Avoidance of the Esophagus (PROACTIVE): A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Palliative thoracic radiotherapy (RT) can alleviate local symptoms associated with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but esophagitis is a common treatment-related adverse event. Whether esophageal-sparing intensity-modulated RT (ES-IMRT) achieves a clinically relevant reduction in esophageal symptoms remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether ES-IMRT achieves a clinically relevant reduction in esophageal symptoms compared with standard RT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Palliative Radiation for Advanced Central Lung Tumors With Intentional Avoidance of the Esophagus (PROACTIVE) is a multicenter phase 3 randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients between June 24, 2016, and March 6, 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January 23, 2020, to October 22, 2021. Patients had up to 1 year of follow-up. Ninety patients at 6 tertiary academic cancer centers who had stage III/IV NSCLC and were eligible for palliative thoracic RT (20 Gy in 5 fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions) were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to standard RT (control arm) or ES-IMRT. Target coverage was compromised to ensure the maximum esophagus dose was no more than 80% of the RT prescription dose. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was esophageal quality of life (QOL) 2 weeks post-RT, measured by the esophageal cancer subscale (ECS) of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: Esophagus questionnaire. Higher esophageal cancer subscale scores correspond with improved QOL, with a 2- to 3-point change considered clinically meaningful. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, toxic events, and other QOL metrics. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS: Between June 24, 2016, and March 6, 2019, 90 patients were randomized to standard RT or ES-IMRT (median age at randomization, 72.0 years [IQR, 65.6-80.3]; 50 [56%] were female). Thirty-six patients (40%) received 20 Gy and 54 (60%) received 30 Gy. For the primary end point, the mean (SD) 2-week ECS score was 50.5 (10.2) in the control arm (95% CI, 47.2-53.8) and 54.3 (7.6) in the ES-IMRT arm (95% CI, 51.9-56.7) (P = .06). Symptomatic RT-associated esophagitis occurred in 24% (n = 11) of patients in the control arm vs 2% (n = 1) in the ES-IMRT arm (P = .002). In a post hoc subgroup analysis based on the stratification factor, reduction in esophagitis was most evident in patients receiving 30 Gy (30% [n = 8] vs 0%; P = .004). Overall survival was similar with standard RT (median, 8.6; 95% CI, 5.7-15.6 months) and ES-IMRT (median, 8.7; 95% CI, 5.1-10.2 months) (P = .62). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, ES-IMRT did not significantly improve esophageal QOL but significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic esophagitis. Because post hoc analysis found that reduced esophagitis was most evident in patients receiving 30 Gy of RT, these findings suggest that ES-IMRT may be most beneficial when the prescription dose is higher (30 Gy). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02752126.

More Is Not Better When It Comes to Treating Rectal Cancer With Multimodal Chemoradiation Beyond the Standard Radiation Dose of 5040 cGy.

BACKGROUND: Radiation dose schedules for neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancers differ, with the most common dose schedule using 5040 cGy in 28 fractions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the benefit of higher radiation doses beyond 5040 cGy in the context of pathological response and follow-up events. SETTING: The database from a provincial tertiary cancer center in Canada was the source of information for this study. PATIENTS: Included in this study were 508 consecutive patients with rectal cancer with locally advanced disease (clinical T3/T4 or N1/N2) who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery. Of the 508 patients, 281 received the standard radiation dose of 4500 to 5040 cGy and 227 received a dose >5040 cGy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The postsurgical pathology, late toxicities, and follow-up outcomes were analyzed. The outcomes were evaluated in relation to the dose of radiation received. RESULTS: Data regarding the clinical outcomes were comparable between the 4500 to 5040 cGy and >5040 cGy radiation groups with pathological complete response rates of 20.9% and 15.4% (p = 0.104); distant recurrence rates of 17.4% and 19.4% (p = 0.36); local recurrence rates of 3.2% and 3.5% (p = 0.36); and the median overall survival rates of 61 and 60.5 months (p = 0.8). No statistically significant correlation of improvement in outcomes was noted with radiation doses beyond 5040 cGy. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective study. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that dose escalation beyond the standard dose of 4500 to 5040cGy failed to achieve meaningful clinical outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B633. MS NO ES MEJOR CUANDO SE TRATA DE TRATAR EL CNCER DE RECTO CON QUIMIORRADIACIN MULTIMODAL MS ALL DE LA DOSIS DE RADIACIN ESTNDAR DE CGY: ANTECEDENTES:En neoadyuvancia de cáncer rectal es posible encontrar muchas variaciones, en radioterapia la dosis más común que usa 5040 cGy en 28 fracciones.OBJETIVOS:El objetivo de este estudio retrospectivo fue evaluar el beneficio de dosis de radiación más altas más allá de 5040cGy en el contexto de la respuesta patológica y en su seguimiento.AJUSTE:Base de datos de un centro de cáncer terciario provincial en Canadá.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en este estudio quinientos ocho pacientes consecutivos con cáncer de recto y enfermedad localmente avanzada (clínica T3 / T4 o N1 / N2) que recibieron quimiorradiación neoadyuvante seguida de cirugía. De los 508 pacientes, 281 recibieron la dosis de radiación estándar de 4500-5040 cGy y 227 recibieron una dosis > 5040 cGy.PRINCIPAL MEDIDA DE RESULTADO:Se analizo evolucion posquirúrgica, toxicidad tardía y seguimiento. Los resultados se evaluaron en relación con la dosis de radiación recibida.RESULTADOS:Los datos con respecto a los resultados clínicos fueron comparables entre los grupos de radiación de 4500-5040 cGy y> 5040 cGy con tasas de respuesta patológica completa de 20,9% y 15,4% respectivamente (p = 0,104); tasas de recurrencia a distancia de 17,4% y 19,4%, respectivamente (p = 0,36); tasas de recurrencia local de 3,2% y 3,5%, respectivamente (p = 0,36); y la mediana de las tasas de supervivencia global de 61 y 60,5 meses, respectivamente (p = 0,8). No se observó una correlación estadísticamente significativa de mejoría en los resultados con dosis de radiación superiores a 5040 cGy.LIMITACIONES:Este es un estudio retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestro estudio mostró que el aumento de la dosis más allá de la dosis estándar de 4500-5040cGy no logró resultados clínicos significativos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B633. (Traducción-Dr. Gunther Bocic).

Clinical Learning, Didactic Education, and Research Experiences of Radiation Oncology Resident Physicians in Canada.

Changes in the field of radiation oncology (RO) impacts residency training. Assessing trainee experiences is essential to inform curriculum development. We aim to explore gaps and strengths in current Canadian RO training, as we move towards competency-based medical education (CBME). An online survey was distributed to residents at all Canadian RO training programs. Surveys consisted of 66 open-ended, Likert-scale, matrix-style, and multiple-choice questions, and assessed clinical exposure, didactic teaching, professional relationships, and research experiences. Statistics were calculated from anonymized, aggregate responses. Out of 128 eligible residents, 53 responded (41% response rate). Of these, 57% were male, and 77% were Canadian medical graduates. Senior residents (PGY-4 to PGY-5) perceived insufficient exposure to lymphoma and ocular malignancies, brachytherapy for breast and esophagus malignancies, and stereotactic radiotherapy of the pancreas, prostate, and adrenal gland. Half (51%) had training on image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) challenges, and 43% had a formal staff mentor. Most residents presented at least one research project at conferences (77%) and authored ≥ 1 publications (66%) during residency. Canadian RO residents are satisfied with their clinical training and educational experience in high-volume tumor sites and high-volume brachytherapy procedures. Areas identified for potential improvement are (1) low-volume tumor sites; (2) low-volume brachytherapy procedures; (3) low-volume stereotactic radiotherapy sites; (4) IGRT challenges; and (5) mentorship opportunities. These findings will inform future CBME curriculum revisions.

Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastases: Addressing Chronic Pain from the Perspective of the Radiation Oncology Nurse Practitioner.

OBJECTIVES: To discuss the symptom burden experienced among patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases and the role of the oncology nurse practitioner in evaluation for palliative radiotherapy. DATA SOURCES: These include PubMed, international consensus documents, and clinician experience. CONCLUSION: Men with advanced prostate cancer may live for several years after diagnosis of bone metastases; however, pain and other difficult symptoms are problematic. Pain is effectively treated with palliative radiotherapy, but careful assessment and intervention of other difficult symptoms must be addressed over time. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurse practitioners in radiation oncology should be well-versed in the disease trajectory of this patient population. Careful symptom inquiry and comprehensive physical examination is a key responsibility. Palliative radiotherapy, alongside analgesics and supportive care measures, can effectively reduce symptoms and improve quality of life in men with prostate cancer metastatic to bone.