Good clinical practice and the use of hypofractionation radiation schedules as weapons to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infections in radiation oncology unit: A mono-institutional experience.

BACKGROUND: After coronavirus disease outbreak emerged in 2019, radiotherapy departments had to adapt quickly their health system and establish new organizations and priorities. The purpose of this work is to report our experience in dealing with COVID-19 emergency, how we have reorganized our clinical activity, changed our priorities, and stressed the use of hypofractionation in the treatment of oncological diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients' circuit of first medical examinations and follow-up was reorganized; a more extensive use of hypofractionated schedules was applied; a daily triage of the patients and staff, use of personal protective equipment, hand washing, environment sanitization, social distancing and limitations for the patients' caregivers in the department, unless absolutely essential, were performed; patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were treated at the end of the day. In addition, the total number of radiotherapy treatment courses, patients and sessions, in the period from February 15 to April 30, 2020, comparing the same time period in 2018 were retrospectively investigated. In particular, changes in hypofractionated schedules adopted for the treatment of breast and prostate cancer and palliative bone metastasis were analyzed. RESULTS: Between February 15, and April 30, 2020, an increased number of treatments was carried out: Patients treated were overall 299 compared to 284 of the same period of 2018. Stressing the use of hypofractionation, 2036 RT sessions were performed, with a mean number of fractions per course of 6.8, compared to 3566 and 12.6, respectively, in 2018. For breast cancer, the schedule in 18 fractions has been abandoned and treatment course of 13 fractions has been introduced; a 27% reduction in the use of 40.5 Gy in 15 fractions, (67 treatments in 2018-49 in 2020) was reported. An increase of 13% of stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer was showed. The use of the 20 Gy in 4 or 5 sessions for the treatment of symptomatic bone metastasis decreased of 17.5% in favor of 8 Gy-single fraction. Three patients results COVID-19 positive swab: 1 during, 2 after treatment. Only one staff member developed an asymptomatic infection. CONCLUSIONS: The careful application of triage, anti-contagion and protective measures, a more extensive use of hypofractionation allowed us to maintain an effective and continuous RT service with no delayed/deferred treatment as evidenced by the very low number of patients developing COVID-19 infection during or in the short period after radiotherapy. Our experience has shown how the reorganization of the ward priority, the identification of risk factors with the relative containment measures can guarantee the care of oncological patients, who are potentially at greater risk of contracting the infection.

Variations in Head and Neck Treatment Plan Quality Assessment Among Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists in a Single Radiotherapy Department.

BACKGROUND: Agreement between planners and treating radiation oncologists (ROs) on plan quality criteria is essential for consistent planning. Differences between ROs and planning medical physicists (MPs) in perceived quality of head and neck cancer plans were assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five ROs and four MPs scored 65 plans for in total 15 patients. For each patient, the clinical (CLIN) plan and two or four alternative plans, generated with automated multi-criteria optimization (MCO), were included. There was always one MCO plan aiming at maximally adhering to clinical plan requirements, while the other MCO plans had a lower aimed quality. Scores were given as follows: 1-7 and 1-2, not acceptable; 3-5, acceptable if further planning would not resolve perceived weaknesses; and 6-7, straightway acceptable. One MP and one RO repeated plan scoring for intra-observer variation assessment. RESULTS: For the 36 unique observer pairs, the median percentage of plans for which the two observers agreed on a plan score (100% = 65 plans) was 27.7% [6.2, 40.0]. In the repeat scoring, agreements between first and second scoring were 52.3% and 40.0%, respectively. With a binary division between unacceptable (scores 1 and 2) and acceptable (3-7) plans, the median inter-observer agreement percentage was 78.5% [63.1, 86.2], while intra-observer agreements were 96.9% and 86.2%. There were no differences in observed agreements between RO-RO, MP-MP, and RO-MP pairs. Agreements for the highest-quality, automatically generated MCO plans were higher than for the CLIN plans. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-observer differences in plan quality scores were substantial and could result in inconsistencies in generated treatment plans. Agreements among ROs were not better than between ROs and MPs, despite large differences in training and clinical role. High-quality automatically generated plans showed the best score agreements.