The Patient's perspective on radiation therapy for anal cancer: Evaluation of expectations and stigma.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding anal cancer patients' perspectives on undergoing radiation therapy. Additionally, the stigma surrounding anal cancer diagnosis warrants a better understanding of the barriers to complete disclosure in patient-healthcare team interactions. METHODS: Included patients had squamous cell carcinoma of the anus treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) from 2009 to 2018. Survey questions were adapted from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and Discrimination and Stigma Scale. RESULTS: A total of 46 anal cancer patients who underwent CRT were surveyed, of which 72% responded. 73% of respondents indicated little to no pre-treatment knowledge of CRT. 70% reported overall short-term effects as worse than expected, most commonly with bowel habits (82%), energy (73%), and interest in sexual activity (64%). 39% reported overall long-term effects to be worse than expected, most commonly with changes to bowel habits (73%), sexual function (67%), and interest in sexual activity (58%). However, 94% agreed they were better off after treatment. Regarding stigma, a subset reported hiding their diagnosis (12%, 24%) and side effects (24%, 30%) from friends/family or work colleagues, respectively, and 15% indicating they stopped having close relationships due to concerns over stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients' perceptions of the severity of short-term CRT side effects were worse than expectations, the vast majority agreed they were better off after treatment. Targeted counseling on common concerns may improve the anal cancer treatment experience. A notable subset reported stigma associated with treatment, warranting further evaluation to understand the impact on the patient experience.

The patient's perspective on radiation for rectal cancer: Initial expectations versus actual experience.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare patient perceptions of radiotherapy (RT) before and after treatment to better inform future patients and providers. METHODS: Seventy-eight consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neo- or adjuvant chemoradiation, surgical resection, and adjuvant chemotherapy from 2009 to 2018 and who were without recurrence were included. Patients were surveyed ≥6 months after ileostomy reversal or ≥3 months after adjuvant chemotherapy. The survey assessed patients' baseline knowledge and fears of RT, how their short- and long-term side effects compared with initial expectations, and how their experiences compared for each modality (RT, surgery, and chemotherapy). RESULTS: Forty patient-responses were received. Before treatment, 70% of patients indicated little to no knowledge of RT, though 43% reported hearing frightening stories about RT. The most commonly top-ranked fears included organ damage (26%), skin burns (14%), and inability to carry out normal daily activities (10%). Eighty percent reported short-term effects of RT to be less than or as expected, with urinary changes (93%), abdominal discomfort (90%), and anxiety (88%) most commonly rated as less than or as expected. 85% reported long-term effects to be less than or as expected, with pain (95%), changes to the appearance of the treated area (85%), and dissatisfaction with body image (80%) most commonly rated as less than or as expected. Surgery was most commonly rated as the most difficult treatment (50%) and most responsible for long-term effects (55%). RT was least commonly rated as the most difficult treatment (13%), and chemotherapy was least commonly rated as most responsible for long-term effects (13%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients indicated short- and long-term side effects of RT for rectal cancer to be better than initial expectations. In the context of trimodality therapy, patients reported RT to be the least difficult of the treatments.

Hazards of sparing the ipsilateral parotid gland in the node-positive neck with intensity modulated radiation therapy: Spatial analysis of regional recurrence risk.

PURPOSE: The practice of deliberately sparing the ipsilateral parotid gland with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with node-positive head and neck cancer is controversial. We sought to compare the clinical outcomes among consecutive cohorts of patients with head and neck cancer who were treated with differing strategies to spare the parotid gland that is ipsilateral to the involved neck using IMRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 305 patients were treated with IMRT for node-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The first 139 patients were treated with IMRT whereby the ipsilateral parotid gland was delineated and intentionally designated as an avoidance structure during planning. The subsequent 166 patients were treated by IMRT without the deliberate sparing of the ipsilateral parotid gland. RESULTS: The 2-year estimates of overall survival, local-regional control, and distant metastasis-free survival were 84%, 73%, and 87%, respectively. The 2-year estimates of overall survival were 77% and 86% among patients who were treated by IMRT with and without the sparing of the ipsilateral parotid gland, respectively (P = .01). The respective rates of 2-year regional control were 76% and 90% (P < .001). A trend was observed between increased nodal burden in the ipsilateral cervical neck and the likelihood of regional failure for both groups. A spatial evaluation revealed a significantly higher incidence of marginal failures and true misses in the cohort of patients who underwent IMRT with the sparing of the ipsilateral parotid gland. CONCLUSION: Caution is urged when using IMRT to spare patients' parotid gland on the involved side of neck disease. Our study showed a significantly higher preponderance of regional failure, which highlights the need for careful patient selection and consideration of clinical and pathological factors that influence the likelihood of disease recurrence in the ipsilateral neck.

Precision Medicine: Genomic Profiles to Individualize Therapy.

Precision medicine is the application of genotypic and Omics biomarkers to determine the most appropriate, outcome-driven therapy for individual patients. To determine the best choice of therapy, institutions use significant information technology-enabled data from imaging, electronic medical records, sensors in the clinic/hospitals, and wearable sensors to determine treatment response. With genomic profiling, targets to affect a disease course are continuing to be developed. As clonal mutational prevalence continues to be understood, information can be communicated to patients to inform them that resistance is common, requiring collection of more genetic mutations from patients with further biopsies or blood collection.

Considerations for Quality Improvement in Radiation Oncology Therapy for Patients with Uncomplicated Painful Bone Metastases.

Background: There is an increasing need for evidence-based efficiency in providing a growing amount of cancer care. One example of a quality gap is the use of multiple-fraction palliative radiation for patients with advanced cancer who have uncomplicated bone metastases; evidence suggests similar pain outcomes for treatment regimens with a lower burden of treatments. Methods: During the first phase of quality improvement work, we used RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology to understand how radiation oncologists at one academic medical center rate the appropriateness of different treatment regimens for painful uncomplicated bone metastases. We compared radiation oncologist appropriateness ratings for radiation treatments with radiation therapy provided by these oncologists to patients with painful bone metastases between July 2012 and June 2013. Results: Appropriateness ratings showed that single-fraction (8 Gy) treatment (a low burden treatment) was consistently considered an appropriate option to treat a variety of uncomplicated bone metastases. The use of >10 fractions was consistently rated as inappropriate regardless of other factors. Eighty-one patients receiving radiation therapy for painful bone metastases during the study period had an available medical record for chart abstraction. Almost one-third of metastases were considered complicated because of a concern of spinal cord compression, a history of prior irradiation, or an associated pathological fracture. Among uncomplicated bone metastases, 25% were treated with stereotactic body radiation treatment (SBRT). Among the 54 uncomplicated bone metastases treated with conformal radiation, only one was treated with single-fraction treatment and 32% were treated with greater than 10 fractions. Conclusions: Treatment at the study site demonstrates room for improvement in providing low-burden radiation oncology treatments for patients with painful bone metastases. Choosing a radiation treatment schedule for patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases requires consideration of many medical and patient-centered factors. Our experience suggests that it will take more than the existence of guidelines to change practice in this area.