Nomogram-based estimate of axillary nodal involvement in ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance): validation and association with radiation protocol variations.

PURPOSE: A substantial proportion of patients enrolled on ACOSOG Z0011 received protocol-deviant radiation treatment. It is currently unknown whether these deviations involved the use of more extensive fields in patients at higher nomogram-predicted risk. METHODS: We used the M.D. Anderson (MDA) and Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) nomograms to estimate risk of additional positive axillary nodes using surgical pathology information. In the control arm, we compared axillary dissection (AD) findings to nomogram-predicted estimates for validation. We used logistic regression to evaluate whether nomogram-estimated higher risk of nodal involvement was associated with high tangent (HT) or supraclavicular (SCV) radiation fields for patients with known radiation field design. RESULTS: 552/856 (64.5%) had complete details for the MDA nomogram. Mean MDA risk estimate in both treatment arms was 23.8%. Estimated risk for patients on the AD arm with positive nodes was 25.9%. Higher risk estimate was associated with additional positive nodes in the AD arm (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06, p < 0.0001). We observed significant association with higher MDA nomogram-estimated risk and SCV radiation (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10, p < 0.0001) but not HT (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.02, p = 0.52) The MSK nomogram had similar associations. CONCLUSION: MDA and MSK nomogram risk estimates were associated with lymph node risk in ACOSOG Z0011. Radiation oncologists' use of differing radiation fields were associated with treating higher risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov id: NCT00003854.

Public Disclosure on Social Media of Identifiable Patient Information by Health Professionals: Content Analysis of Twitter Data.

BACKGROUND: Respecting patient privacy and confidentiality is critical for doctor-patient relationships and public trust in medical professionals. The frequency of potentially identifiable disclosures online during periods of active engagement is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify potentially identifiable content shared on social media by physicians and other health care providers using the hashtag #ShareAStoryInOneTweet. METHODS: We accessed and searched Twitter's API using Symplur software for tweets that included the hashtag #ShareAStoryInOneTweet. We identified 1206 tweets by doctors, nurses, and other health professionals out of 43,374 tweets shared in May 2018. Tweet content was evaluated in January 2019 to determine the incidence of instances where names or potentially identifiable information about patients were shared; content analysis of tweets in which information about others had been disclosed was performed. The study also evaluated whether participants raised concerns about privacy breaches and estimated the frequency of deleted tweets. The study used dual, blinded coding for a 10% sample to estimate intercoder reliability using Cohen κ statistic for identifying the potential identifiability of tweet content. RESULTS: Health care professionals (n=656) disclosing information about others included 486 doctors (74.1%) and 98 nurses (14.9%). Health care professionals sharing stories about patient care disclosed the time frame in 95 tweets (95/754, 12.6%) and included patient names in 15 tweets (15/754, 2.0%). It is estimated that friends or families could likely identify the clinical scenario described in 242 of the 754 tweets (32.1%). Among 348 tweets about potentially living patients, it was estimated that 162 (46.6%) were likely identifiable by patients. Intercoder reliability in rating the potential identifiability demonstrated 86.8% agreement, with a Cohen κ of 0.8 suggesting substantial agreement. We also identified 78 out of 754 tweets (6.5%) that had been deleted on the website but were still viewable in the analytics software data set. CONCLUSIONS: During periods of active sharing online, nurses, physicians, and other health professionals may sometimes share more information than patients or families might expect. More study is needed to determine whether similar events arise frequently and to understand how to best ensure that patients' rights are adequately respected.

COVID-19 and the "Film Your Hospital" Conspiracy Theory: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Data.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of conspiracy theories have emerged. A popular theory posits that the pandemic is a hoax and suggests that certain hospitals are "empty." Research has shown that accepting conspiracy theories increases the likelihood that an individual may ignore government advice about social distancing and other public health interventions. Due to the possibility of a second wave and future pandemics, it is important to gain an understanding of the drivers of misinformation and strategies to mitigate it. OBJECTIVE: This study set out to evaluate the #FilmYourHospital conspiracy theory on Twitter, attempting to understand the drivers behind it. More specifically, the objectives were to determine which online sources of information were used as evidence to support the theory, the ratio of automated to organic accounts in the network, and what lessons can be learned to mitigate the spread of such a conspiracy theory in the future. METHODS: Twitter data related to the #FilmYourHospital hashtag were retrieved and analyzed using social network analysis across a 7-day period from April 13-20, 2020. The data set consisted of 22,785 tweets and 11,333 Twitter users. The Botometer tool was used to identify accounts with a higher probability of being bots. RESULTS: The most important drivers of the conspiracy theory are ordinary citizens; one of the most influential accounts is a Brexit supporter. We found that YouTube was the information source most linked to by users. The most retweeted post belonged to a verified Twitter user, indicating that the user may have had more influence on the platform. There was a small number of automated accounts (bots) and deleted accounts within the network. CONCLUSIONS: Hashtags using and sharing conspiracy theories can be targeted in an effort to delegitimize content containing misinformation. Social media organizations need to bolster their efforts to label or remove content that contains misinformation. Public health authorities could enlist the assistance of influencers in spreading antinarrative content.

Brain Tumor Discussions on Twitter (#BTSM): Social Network Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Brain Tumor Social Media (#BTSM) Twitter hashtag was founded in February 2012 as a disease-specific hashtag for patients with brain tumor. OBJECTIVE: To understand #BTSM's role as a patient support system, we describe user descriptors, growth, interaction, and content sharing. METHODS: We analyzed all tweets containing #BTSM from 2012 to 2018 using the Symplur Signals platform to obtain data and to describe Symplur-defined user categories, tweet content, and trends in use over time. We created a network plot with all publicly available retweets involving #BTSM in 2018 to visualize key stakeholders and their connections to other users. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2018, 59,764 unique users participated in #BTSM, amassing 298,904 tweets. The yearly volume of #BTSM tweets increased by 264.57% from 16,394 in 2012 to 43,373 in 2018 with #BTSM constantly trending in the top 15 list of disease hashtags, as well the top 15 list of tweet chats. Patient advocates generated the most #BTSM tweets (33.13%), while advocacy groups, caregivers, doctors, and researchers generated 7.01%, 4.63%, 3.86%, and 3.37%, respectively. Physician use, although still low, has increased over time. The 2018 network plot of retweets including #BTSM identifies a number of key stakeholders from the patient advocate, patient organization, and medical researcher domains and reveals the extent of their reach to other users. CONCLUSIONS: From its start in 2012, #BTSM has grown exponentially over time. We believe its growth suggests its potential as a global source of brain tumor information on Twitter for patients, advocates, patient organizations as well as health care professionals and researchers.

The autoimmunity-associated BLK haplotype exhibits cis-regulatory effects on mRNA and protein expression that are prominently observed in B cells early in development.

The gene B lymphocyte kinase (BLK) is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and several other autoimmune disorders. The disease risk haplotype is known to be associated with reduced expression of BLK mRNA transcript in human B cell lines; however, little is known about cis-regulation of BLK message or protein levels in native cell types. Here, we show that in primary human B lymphocytes, cis-regulatory effects of disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms in BLK are restricted to naïve and transitional B cells. Cis-regulatory effects are not observed in adult B cells in later stages of differentiation. Allelic expression bias was also identified in primary human T cells from adult peripheral and umbilical cord blood (UCB), thymus and tonsil, although mRNA levels were reduced compared with B cells. Allelic regulation of Blk expression at the protein level was confirmed in UCB B cell subsets by intracellular staining and flow cytometry. Blk protein expression in CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells was documented by western blot analysis; however, differences in protein expression levels by BLK genotype were not observed in any T cell subset. Blk allele expression differences at the protein level are thus restricted to early B cells, indicating that the involvement of Blk in the risk for autoimmune disease likely acts during the very early stages of B cell development.

Open RT Structures: A Solution for TG-263 Accessibility.

PURPOSE: Consistency of nomenclature within radiation oncology is increasingly important as big data efforts and data sharing become more feasible. Automation of radiation oncology workflows depends on standardized contour nomenclature that enables toxicity and outcomes research, while also reducing medical errors and facilitating quality improvement activities. Recommendations for standardized nomenclature have been published in the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) report from Task Group 263 (TG-263). Transitioning to TG-263 requires creation and management of structure template libraries and retraining of staff, which can be a considerable burden on clinical resources. Our aim is to develop a program that allows users to create TG-263-compliant structure templates in English, Spanish, or French to facilitate data sharing. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-three premade structure templates were arranged by treated organ based on an American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) consensus paper. Templates were further customized with common target structures, relevant organs at risk (OARs) (eg, spleen for anatomically relevant sites such as the gastroesophageal junction or stomach), subsite- specific templates (eg, partial breast, whole breast, intact prostate, postoperative prostate, etc) and brachytherapy templates. An informal consensus on OAR and target coloration was also achieved, although color selections are fully customizable within the program. RESULTS: The resulting program is usable on any Windows system and generates template files in practice-specific Digital Imaging and Communications In Medicine (DICOM) or XML formats, extracting standardized structure nomenclature from an online database maintained by members of the TG-263U1, which ensures continuous access to up-to-date templates. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a tool to easily create and name DICOM radiation therapy (DICOM-RT) structures sets that are TG-263-compliant for all planning systems using the DICOM standard. The program and source code are publicly available via GitHub to encourage feedback from community users for improvement and guide further development.

Patient preferences and comfort for cancer survivorship models of care: results of an online survey.

PURPOSE: Workforce shortages will impact oncologists' ability to provide both active and survivorship care. While primary care provider (PCP) or survivorship clinic transition has been emphasized, there is little evidence regarding patient comfort. METHODS: We developed an online survey in partnership with patient advocates to assess survivors' comfort with PCP or survivorship clinic care and distributed the survey to online, cancer-specific patient communities from June to August 2020. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 975 surveys were complete. Most respondents were women (91%) and had private insurance (65%). Thirty-six cancer types were reported. Ninety-three percent had a PCP. Twenty-four percent were comfortable seeing a PCP for survivorship care. Higher odds of comfort were seen among respondents who were Black or had stage 0 cancer; female sex was associated with lower odds. Fifty-five percent were comfortable with a survivorship clinic. Higher odds of comfort were seen with lymphoma or ovarian cancer, > 15 years from diagnosis, and non-US government insurance. Lower odds were seen with melanoma, advanced stage, Medicaid insurance, and one late effect. Preference for PCP care was 87% for general health, 32% for recurrence monitoring, and 37% for late effect management. CONCLUSIONS: One quarter of cancer survivors were comfortable with PCP-led survivorship care and about half with a survivorship clinic. Most preferred oncologist care for recurrence monitoring and late-effect management. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patient preference and comfort should be considered when developing survivorship care models. Future efforts should focus on facilitating patient-centered transitions to non-oncologist care.

Development and dissemination of structured hashtags for radiation oncology: Two-Year trends.

Purpose: For radiation oncology, social media is a favored communication platform, but it uses non-structured hashtags, which limits communication. In this work, we created a set of structured hashtags with key opinion leaders in radiation oncology, and we report on their use after two years post-deployment. Materials/Methods: Hashtags were created, voted on, and refined by crowdsourcing 38 international experts, including physicians, physicists, patients, and organizations from North America, Europe, and Australia. The finalized hashtag set was shared with the radiation oncology community in September 2019. The number of tweets for each hashtag was quantified via Symplur through December 2021. For the top five tweeted hashtags, we captured the number of yearly tweets in the pre-deployment and post-deployment periods from 09/01/2019 to 08/31/2021. Results: The initial 2019 list contained 39 hashtags organized into nine categories. The top five hashtags by total number of tweets were: #Radonc, #PallOnc, #MedPhys, #SurvOnc, and #SuppOnc. Six hashtags had less than 10 total tweets and were eliminated. Post-deployment, there was an increase in the yearly tweets, with the following number of tweets by the second year post-deployment: #RadOnc (98,189 tweets), #MedPhys (15,858 tweets), and #SurvOnc (6,361 tweets). Two popular radiation oncology-related hashtags were added because of increased use: #DEIinRO (1,603 tweets by year 2) and #WomenWhoCurie (7,212 tweets by year 2). Over the two years, hashtags were used mostly by physicians (131,625 tweets, 34.8%). Conclusion: We created and tracked structured social media hashtags in radiation oncology. These hashtags disseminate information among a diverse oncologic community. To maintain relevance, regular updates are needed.

Use of focal radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer and perceived barriers toward its implementation: a survey.

Background: In a recent phase III randomized control trial (FLAME), delivering a focal radiotherapy (RT) boost to tumors visible on MRI was shown to improve outcomes for prostate cancer patients without increasing toxicity. The aim of this study was to assess how widely this technique is being applied in current practice as well as physicians' perceived barriers toward its implementation. Methods: An online survey assessing the use of intraprostatic focal boost was conducted in December 2022 and February 2023. The survey link was distributed to radiation oncologists worldwide via email list, group text platform, and social media. Results: The survey initially collected 205 responses from various countries over a two-week period in December 2022. The survey was then reopened for one week in February 2023 to allow for more participation, leading to a total of 263 responses. The highest-represented countries were the United States (42%), Mexico (13%), and the United Kingdom (8%). The majority of participants worked at an academic medical center (52%) and considered their practice to be at least partially genitourinary (GU)-subspecialized (74%). 57% of participants reported not routinely using intraprostatic focal boost. Even among complete subspecialists, a substantial proportion (39%) do not routinely use focal boost. Less than half of participants in both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries were shown to routinely use focal boost. The most commonly cited barriers were concerns about registration accuracy between MRI and CT (37%), concerns about risk of additional toxicity (35%), and challenges to accessing high-quality MRI (29%). Conclusion: Despite level 1 evidence from the FLAME trial, most radiation oncologists surveyed are not routinely offering focal RT boost. Adoption of this technique might be accelerated by increased access to high-quality MRI, better registration algorithms of MRI to CT simulation images, physician education on benefit-to-harm ratio, and training on contouring prostate lesions on MRI.

Use of focal radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer: radiation oncologists' perspectives and perceived barriers to implementation.

BACKGROUND: In a recent phase III randomized control trial, delivering a focal radiotherapy (RT) boost to tumors visible on MRI was shown to improve disease-free survival and regional/distant metastasis-free survival for patients with prostate cancer-without increasing toxicity. The aim of this study was to assess how widely this technique is being applied in current practice, as well as physicians' perceived barriers toward its implementation. METHODS: We invited radiation oncologists to complete an online questionnaire assessing their use of intraprostatic focal boost in December 2022 and February 2023. To include perspectives from a broad range of practice settings, the invitation was distributed to radiation oncologists worldwide via email list, group text platform, and social media. RESULTS: 263 radiation oncologist participants responded. The highest-represented countries were the United States (42%), Mexico (13%), and the United Kingdom (8%). The majority of participants worked at an academic medical center (52%) and considered their practice to be at least partially genitourinary (GU)-subspecialized (74%). Overall, 43% of participants reported routinely using intraprostatic focal boost. Complete GU-subspecialists were more likely to implement focal boost, with 61% reporting routine use. In both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries, less than half of participants routinely use focal boost. The most cited barriers were concerns about registration accuracy between MRI and CT (37%), concerns about risk of additional toxicity (35%), and challenges to accessing high-quality MRI (29%). CONCLUSIONS: Two years following publication of a randomized trial of patient benefit without increased toxicity, almost half of the radiation oncologists surveyed are now routinely offering focal RT boost. Further adoption of this technique might be aided by increased access to high-quality MRI, better registration algorithms of MRI to CT simulation images, physician education on benefit-to-harm ratio, and training on contouring prostate lesions on MRI.

Adjuvant therapy for elderly patients with resected gastric adenocarcinoma: population-based practices and treatment effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to determine the survival benefit of postoperative chemoradiation therapy for elderly patients with resected gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The authors identified 1023 individuals aged 65 years and older (median = 76) who underwent gastrectomy for nonmetastatic stage IB-IV gastric adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2000 and 2002 in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. They examined factors associated with receiving postoperative chemoradiation and analyzed the survival benefit associated with receiving postoperative chemoradiation. RESULTS: Thirty percent of patients received adjuvant chemoradiation. On multivariate analysis, younger age (P < .0001), lymph node involvement (P < .0001), and more recent diagnosis (P = .0284) were associated with receiving chemoradiation. There was a trend toward increased use among patients with less comorbidity (P = .0515). The median follow-up was 25.5 months, and 62% died. On multivariate survival analysis, older patients (P < .0001) and those with lymph node involvement (P < .0001), T3 or T4 disease (P = .0472), higher grade disease (P = .0355), and more comorbidity (P = .0411) were more likely to die. After adjustment for other factors, receipt of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy did not significantly increase survival (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.12; P = .3453) and did not increase survival in a multivariate analysis that included propensity scores (P = .2090). CONCLUSIONS: The authors did not detect a survival benefit, suggesting that some elderly patients with resected gastric adenocarcinoma may not gain a survival benefit from the administration of adjuvant chemoradiation. The analysis had limitations, and the results are hypothesis generating. Future gastric cancer trials should enroll more elderly patients and stratify patients by age to better understand the impact of treatment regimens on older patients.

Preliminary Approach to Implementing a COVID-19 Thoracic Radiation Therapy Program.

The value of low-dose whole thoracic radiation therapy (LD-WTRT) for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pneumonia is unknown. Should ongoing clinical trials demonstrate that LD-WTRT proves effective for COVID-19 pneumonia recovery, widespread rapid implementation will be helpful globally. Our aim was to outline a pragmatic process for safe and efficient administration of LD-WTRT to patients with COVID-19 pneumonia that could be implemented successfully in a community hospital setting based on participation in the PreVent clinical trial of LD-WTRT.

Social Media and the Quest for Equity and Diversity in Oncology: On Safe Spaces and the Concept of the Public Physician.

Despite their increased enrollment into medical school, women still face systemic barriers in medicine, whether in an academic or nonacademic setting. Those from Under-Represented Minority (URM) groups face similar issues, which may affect their desire to enter, pursue, and/or maintain a career in medicine. Social media provides unique opportunities for peer-to-peer support among members of URM communities and for amplification of their voices calling for social justice-here defined as a redistribution of power and the quest for equity in access to opportunities, including access to mentorship, professional development, and timely promotion in academic rank. These issues are relevant to oncologists especially as we strive for diversity, equity, and inclusion and to ensure that our patients have equal access to care, regardless of their circumstances. In this article, we review current literature that highlights issues faced by women and historically URM groups in medicine, particularly in oncology. We also discuss the physician's role as a social justice advocate and the concept of the public physician.

Unsealed Source: Scope of Practice for Radiopharmaceuticals Among United States Radiation Oncologists.

Purpose: Our purpose was to determine the utilization of and barriers to implementation of radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) among U.S. radiation oncologists. Methods and Materials: An anonymous, voluntary 21-item survey directed toward attending radiation oncologists was distributed via social media platforms (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Student Doctor Network). Questions assessed practice characteristics, specific RPT prescribing patterns, RPT prescribing interest, and perceived barriers to RPT implementation. Nonparametric χ2 test was used for correlation statistics. Results: Of the 142 respondents, 131 (92.3%) practiced in the United States and were included for this analysis. Respondents were well balanced in terms of practicing region, population size served, practice setting, and years in practice. Forty-eight percent (n = 63) reported prescribing at least 1 RPT. An additional 7% (n = 8) participate in RPT administration without billing themselves. Among those that actively prescribed RPT, the mean cumulative cases per month was 4.2 (range, 1-5). The most commonly prescribed radionuclides were radium-223 (40%; mean 2.8 cases/mo), iodine-131 (18%; mean 2.3 cases/mo), yttrium-90 (13%; mean 3.4 cases/mo), "other" (8%), samarium-153 (6%; mean 1.0 cases/mo), and strontrium-89 and phosphorous-32 (2% each; mean 1.8 and 0.4 cases/mo, respectively). Of those who answered "other," lutetium-177 dotatate was most commonly prescribed (8%). No significant (P < .05) association was noted between practice type, practice location, years of practice, or practice volume with utilization of any RPTs. Most radiation oncologists (56%, n = 74) responded they would like to actively prescribe more RPT, although 27% (n = 35) were indifferent, and 17% (n = 22) said they would not like to prescribe more RPT. Perceived barriers to implementation were varied but broadly categorized into treatment infrastructure (44%, n = 57), interspecialty relations (41%, n = 53), lack of training (23%, n = 30), and financial considerations (16%, n = 21). Conclusions: Among surveyed U.S. radiation oncologists, a significant number reported prescribing at least 1 RPT. The majority expressed interest in prescribing additional RPT. Wide-ranging barriers to implementation exist, most commonly interspecialty relations, treatment infrastructure, lack of training, and financial considerations.