Ablative Radiation Therapy to Restrain Everything Safely Treatable (ARREST): A Phase 1 Study of Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy for Polymetastatic Disease.

PURPOSE: This phase 1 study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of SABR therapy delivery to all sites of polymetastatic disease (>10 metastases). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 3 + 3 study design was used with 5 dose levels from 6 Gy (6 Gy × 1) to 30 Gy (6 Gy weekly × 5). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as any grade 4 or 5 toxicity or more than 3 grade 3 toxicities within 6 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was the maximal tolerated dose, defined as the dose level where ≥2/6 of patients experienced DLT. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General and European Quality of Life 5 Dimension 5 Level) at 6 weeks posttreatment, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were accrued: 12 Gy (n = 3), 18 Gy (n = 3), 24 Gy (n = 4), and 30 Gy (n = 3), and 207 lesions were treated. Nine patients (69%) had acute toxicity: grade 1 (n = 6, 46%), grade 2 (n = 2, 15%; n = 1 pneumonitis and n = 1 fatigue), and grade 3 (n = 1, 7.7% neutropenia). There were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Mean ± SD quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General and European Quality of Life 5 Dimension 5 Level health state) was 80.4 ± 21.9 and 77.4 ± 20.9 at baseline versus 76.4 ± 21.8 and 68.0 ± 24.2 at 6-week follow-up, respectively (p = .009 and p = .055, respectively). With a median follow-up of 8.7 months posttreatment (IQR, 2.4-24 months), 8 of 13 patients had disease progression (62%). The median and 12-month progression-free survival were 3.6 months and 11.3%, respectively. The median and 12-month overall survival were 13.8 months and 62%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1 trial, SABR therapy for polymetastatic disease was technically feasible with acceptable acute toxicity at dose levels up to 30 Gy (6 Gy weekly × 5). DLT was not observed.

Evaluating Peer Review of Palliative Radiation Plans at a Canadian Tertiary Care Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review (PR) of palliative-intent radiation plans is an important but understudied component of quality assurance. This retrospective review aims to improve our understanding of palliative PR by examining the characteristics of reviewed plans and peer feedback along with the associated time burden of two different types of PR processes. METHODS: This single-institution, quality assurance project assessed palliative PR between 2018 and 2020. Initially, the PR involved a multi-disciplinary team PR. Subsequently, it transitioned to independent PR by a single physician. Characteristics of reviewed plans and feedback on PR were captured and abstracted. Time requirements of PR were based on self-reported estimates and attendance records. RESULTS: A total of 1942 cases were reviewed, representing 85.7% (1942/2266) of all palliative-intent plans between 2018 and 2020. A total of 41.1% (n=799) were simple (2D/3D) radiation plans while 56.0% (n=1087) were complex (volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or tomotherapy) plans. Approximately one-third (30.4%, n=590) of all plans were stereotactic treatments. The rate of any peer feedback was 2.3% (n=45), while the rate of a specific recommended or implemented change was 1.2% (n=24) and 0.9% (n=18), respectively. PR before the start of treatment was associated with more frequent recommended (p=0.005) and implemented changes (p=0.008). Most other factors, including plan complexity and use of stereotactic radiation, were not predictive in this analysis. Comparing the independent versus team PR approach, there was no significant difference in recommended or implemented changes. The mean±standard deviation (SD) staff time required per plan reviewed was 36±6 and 37±6 minutes, including 21±6 and 10±6 minutes of physician time, for team and independent PR, respectively. CONCLUSION: This work highlights the high frequency of complex and stereotactic radiation in the palliative setting, along with the importance of timely PR and the potential benefit of reviewing even simple, 2D/3D radiation plans. Additionally, from a process perspective, our work showed that independent PR may require less dedicated physician time.

Diagnostic CT-Enabled Planning (DART): Results of a Randomized Trial in Palliative Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Using diagnostic computed tomography (dCT) scans instead of CT simulation (CTsim) scans can increase departmental efficiency and reduce patient burden. The goal of the DART trial was to assess the efficacy and acceptability of dCT-based planning workflows with a focus on patient experiences, plan deliverability and adequacy of target coverage, and workflows. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients undergoing same-day CTsim and treatment for palliative radiation therapy to thoracic, abdominopelvic, or proximal limb targets with a recent dCT (within 28 days) in a reproducible position were eligible. After stratifying by target type (bone or soft tissue vs. visceral), participants were randomized (1:2 ratio) between CTsim-based (CTsim arm) vs. dCT-based planning (dCT arm). The primary endpoint was time in center (TIC), defined as total time spent in the cancer center on first day of treatment, from first radiation department appointment to first fraction completion. Secondary endpoints included plan deliverability, adequacy of target coverage, and stakeholder acceptability. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (42 treatment sites) were enrolled between June 2022 and April 2023. The median age was 72 (interquartile range [IQR]: 67-78), 73% were male, and the most common primary cancers were lung (33%), prostate (24%), and breast (12%). The most common dose and fractionations were 8 Gy in 1 and 20 Gy in 5 fractions (50% and 43% of plans, respectively). TIC was 4.7 ± 1.1 hours (mean ± SD) in the CTsim arm vs. 0.41 ± 0.14 hours in the dCT arm (P < .001). All dCT plans were deliverable. All plans in both arms were rated as "acceptable" (80% CTsim; 81% dCT) or "acceptable with minor deviation" (20% CTsim; 19% dCT). Patient perception of acceptability was similar in both arms with the exception of time burden, which was rated as "acceptable" by 50% in the CTsim arm vs. 90% in the dCT arm (P = .025). CONCLUSION: dCT-based radiation planning substantially reduced TIC without detriment in plan deliverability or quality and had a tangible impact on patient experience with reduced patient-reported time burden.

DART: diagnostic-CT-enabled planning: a randomized trial in palliative radiation therapy (study protocol).

BACKGROUND: Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) is an effective treatment for managing symptoms of advanced cancer. At least half of all radiation treatments are delivered with palliative intent, aimed at relieving symptoms, such as pain or shortness of breath. Symptomatic patients must receive PRT quickly, therefore expeditious treatment planning is essential. Standard radiation planning requires a dedicated CT scan acquired at the cancer centre, called a 'CT simulation', which facilitates treatment planning (i.e. tumor delineation, placement of radiation beams and dose calculation). However, the CT simulation process creates a bottleneck and often leads to delays in starting treatment. Other researchers have indicated that CT simulation can be replaced by the use of standard diagnostic CT scans for target delineation and planning, which are normally acquired through the radiology department as part of standard patient workup. The goals of this feasibility study are to assess the efficacy, acceptability and scalability of diagnostic-CT-enabled planning, compared to conventional CT simulation planning, for patients receiving PRT to bone, soft tissue and lung disease. METHODS: This is a randomized, phase II study, with 33 PRT patients to be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between conventional CT simulation (Arm 1), and the diagnostic CT enabled planning workflow (Arm 2). Patients will be stratified by treatment target volume (bone and soft tissue metastasis vs. primary or metastatic intrathoracic disease targets). The primary endpoint is the amount of time the patient spends at the cancer centre. Secondary endpoints include efficacy (rate of plan deliverability and rate of plan acceptability on blinded dose distribution review), stakeholder acceptability (based on patient and clinician perception of acceptability questionnaires) and scalability. DISCUSSION: This study will investigate the efficacy, acceptability and scalability of a "sim-free" PRT pathway compared to conventional CT simulation. The workflow may provide opportunity for resource optimization by using pre-existing diagnostic imaging and requires minimal investment due to its similarity to current PRT models. It also offers potential benefit to patients by eliminating an imaging procedure, reducing the amount of time spent at the cancer centre, and expediting time to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05233904. Date of registration: February 10, 2022; current version: 1.4 on April 29, 2022.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Metastases in Long Bones.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cumulative incidence of fracture and local failure and associated risk factors after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for long bone metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from 111 patients with 114 metastases in the femur, humerus, and tibia treated with SBRT in 7 international centers between October 2011 and February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using a competing risk regression model. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 21 months (range, 6-91 months). All but 1 patient had a Karnofsky performance status ≥70. There were 84 femur (73.7%), 26 humerus (22.8%), and 4 tibia (3.5%) metastases from prostate (45 [39.5%]), breast (22 [19.3%]), lung (15 [13.2%]), kidney (13 [11.4%]), and other (19 [16.6%]) malignancies. Oligometastases accounted for 74.8% of metastases and 28.1% were osteolytic. The most common total doses were 30 to 50 Gy in 5 daily fractions (50.9%). Eight fractures (5 in the femur, 2 in the tibia, and 1 in the humerus) were observed with a median time to fracture of 12 months (range, 0.8-33 months). In 6 out of 8 patients, fracture was not associated with local failure. The cumulative incidence of fracture was 3.5%, 6.1%, and 9.8% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. The cumulative incidence of local failure (9/110 metastases with imaging follow-up) was 5.7%, 7.2%, and 13.5% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. On multivariate analysis, extraosseous disease extension was significantly associated with fracture (P = .001; subhazard ratio, 10.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-41.9) and local failure (P = .02; subhazard ratio, 7.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-44.7). CONCLUSIONS: SBRT for metastases in long bones achieved high rates of durable local metastasis control without an increased risk of fracture. Similar to spine SBRT, patients with extraosseous disease extension are at higher risk of local failure and fracture.

Implementation and evaluation of an online anatomy, radiology and contouring bootcamp for radiation therapists.

BACKGROUND: As new treatments and technologies have been introduced in radiation oncology, the clinical roles of radiation therapists (RTs) have expanded. However, there are few formal learning opportunities for RTs. An online, anatomy, radiology and contouring bootcamp (ARC Bootcamp) originally designed for medical residents was identified as a prospective educational tool for RTs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an RT edition of the ARC Bootcamp on knowledge, contouring, and confidence, as well as to identify areas for future modification. METHODS: Fifty licensed RTs were enrolled in an eight-week, multidisciplinary, online RT ARC Bootcamp. Contouring practice was available throughout the course using an online contouring platform. Outcomes were evaluated using a pre-course and post-course multiple-choice quiz (MCQ), contouring evaluation and qualitative self-efficacy and satisfaction survey. RESULTS: Of the fifty enrolled RTs, 30 completed the course, and 26 completed at least one of the post-tests. Nineteen contouring dice similarity coefficient (DSC) scores were available for paired pre- and post-course analysis. RTs demonstrated a statistically significant increase in mean DSC scoring pooled across all contouring structures (mean ± SD improvement: 0.09 ± 0.18 on a scale from 0 to 1, p=0.020). For individual contouring structures, 3/15 reached significance in contouring improvement. MCQ scores were available for 26 participants and increased after RT ARC Bootcamp participation with a mean ± SD pre-test score of 18.6 ± 4.2 (46.5%); on a 40-point scale vs. post-test score of 24.5 ± 4.3 (61.4%) (p < 0.001). RT confidence in contouring, anatomy knowledge and radiographic identification improved after course completion (p < 0.001). Feedback from RTs recommended more contouring instruction, less in-depth anatomy review and more time to complete the course. CONCLUSIONS: The RT ARC Bootcamp was an effective tool for improving anatomy and radiographic knowledge among RTs. The course demonstrated improvements in contouring and overall confidence. However, only approximately half of the enrolled RTs completed the course, limiting statistical power. Future modifications will aim to increase relevance to RTs and improve completion rates.

Intrafraction motion monitoring to determine PTV margins in early stage breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant partial breast SABR.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To quantify intra-fraction tumor motion using imageguidance and implanted fiducial markers to determine if a 5 mm planning-target-volume (PTV) margin is sufficient for early stage breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A HydroMark© (Mammotome) fiducial was implanted at the time of biopsy adjacent to the tumor. Sixty-one patients with 62 tumours were treated prone using a 5 mm PTV margin. Motion was quantified using two methods (separate patient groups): 1) difference in 3D fiducial position pre- and post-treatment cone-beam CTs (CBCTs) in 18 patients receiving 21 Gy/1fraction (fx); 2) acquiring 2D triggered-kVimages to quantify 3D intra-fraction motion using a 2D-to-3D estimation method for 44 tumours receiving 21 Gy/1fx (n = 22) or 30 Gy/3fx (n = 22). For 2), motion was quantified by calculating the magnitude of intra-fraction positional deviation from the pretreatment CBCT. PTV margins were derived using van Herkian analysis. RESULTS: The average ± standard deviation magnitude of motion across patients was 1.3 ± 1.15 mm Left/Right (L/R), 1.0 ± 0.9 mm Inferiorly/Superiorly (I/S), and 1.8 ± 1.5 mm Anteriorly/Posteriorly (A/P). 85/105 (81%) treatment fractions had dominant anterior motion. 6/62patients (9.7%) had mean intra-fraction motion during any fraction > 5 mm in any direction, with 4 in the anterior direction. Estimated PTV margins for single and three-fx patients in the L/R, I/S, and A/P directions were 6.0x4.1x5.9 mm and 4.5x2.9x4.3 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a 5 mm PTV margin is sufficient for the I/S and A/P directions if a lateral kV image is acquired immediately before treatment. For the L/R direction, either further immobilization or a larger margin is required.

Practical Considerations for the Implementation of a Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Program for Oligo-Metastases.

PURPOSE: With multiple phase 2 trials supporting the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in oligo-metastatic disease, we evaluated practices that could inform effective implementation of an oligo-metastasis SBRT program. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using a context-focused realist methodology, an advisory committee of interprofessional clinicians met over a series of semistructured teleconference meetings to identify challenges in implementing an oligo-metastasis SBRT program. Consideration was given to 2 models of care: a subspecialist anatomic expertise model versus a single-practitioner "quarterback" model. RESULTS: The advisory committee structured recommendations within a context-mechanism-outcome framework. In summary, the committee recommends that during patient workup, a single practitioner arranges the minimum number of necessary tests, with case presentation at an appropriate multidisciplinary tumor board, including careful review of all previous treatments, and enrollment on clinical trials when possible. At simulation, common patient positions and immobilization on a single simulation scan for multiple sites is recommended. During radiation planning, dose-fractionation regimens should safely facilitate cumulative dose calculations, a single isocenter should be considered for multiple close targets to reduce treatment time, and adherence to strict quality assurance protocols is strongly recommended. Treatment duration should be minimized by treating multiple sites on the same day or choosing shorter dose fractionations. Team communication, thorough documentation, and standardized nomenclature can reduce system errors. Follow-up should aim to minimize redundant clinical appointments and imaging scans. Expert radiology review may be required to interpret post-SBRT imaging. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines inform best clinical practices for implementing an oligo-metastasis SBRT program. Iterations using a realist approach may further expand on local contexts.

Phase III Randomized Pair Comparison of a Barrier Film vs. Standard Skin Care in Preventing Radiation Dermatitis in Post-lumpectomy Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Adjuvant Radiation Therapy.

Introduction Patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy to the breast often experience radiation dermatitis ranging from mild erythema to moist desquamation. In post-lumpectomy patients, the axilla and inframammary fold are at an increased risk for friction dermatitis. Dermatitis can impact patients' quality-of-life and may require treatment break/cessation. Our objectives are to assess the efficacy of 3M Cavilon Barrier Film (BF) in preventing and/or delaying the onset of grade-two dermatitis and reducing patient-reported sensation scores. Methods A total of 55 patients were randomized to receive BF on the medial or lateral breast. BF was applied twice weekly during treatment. Skin toxicity was evaluated weekly by a blinded clinical investigator using the Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool (STAT) and the modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Visual Assessment Score (RTOG VAS). On day one, baseline photographs were taken; seven-to-ten days post-treatment, patients returned for photographs, the STAT/RTOG VAS, and patient-opinion questions in the form of the global questionnaire. Results The paired analysis found BF did not significantly reduce dermatitis either during or post-treatment. However, the unpaired analysis found significantly reduced RTOG VAS on the lateral compartment during treatment (BF:0.91 vs. Control:1.21, p = 0.0408). This difference resolved post-treatment. Additionally, BF was able to reduce pruritus (p = 0.047) on the medial components and burning sensations on the lateral components (p = 0.035). There was no significant difference between the time-to-onset or proportion of patients who developed grade-two dermatitis. Conclusion In an unpaired analysis, BF significantly reduced dermatitis on the lateral compartment during treatment. Additionally, BF significantly reduced pruritus and burning sensations. A larger study using a more reliable scoring method is required to clarify the effect of BF on radiation-associated skin toxicity.