Survivorship care plans: is there buy-in from community oncology providers?

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine recommended that survivors of cancer and their primary care providers receive survivorship care plans (SCPs) to summarize cancer treatment and plan ongoing care. However, the use of SCPs remains limited. METHODS: Oncology providers at 14 National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program hospitals completed a survey regarding their perceptions of SCPs, including barriers to implementation, strategies for implementation, the role of oncology providers, and the importance of topics in SCPs (diagnosis, treatment, recommended ongoing care, and the aspects of ongoing care that the oncology practice will provide). RESULTS: Among 245 providers (response rate of 70%), 52% reported ever providing any component of an SCP to patients. The most widely reported barriers were lack of personnel and time to create SCPs (69% and 64% of respondents, respectively). The most widely endorsed strategy among those using SCPs was the use of a template with prespecified fields; 94% of those who used templates found them helpful. For each topic of an SCP, although 87% to 89% of oncology providers believed it was very important for primary care providers to receive the information, only 58% to 65% of respondents believed it was very important for patients to receive the information. Furthermore, 33% to 38% of respondents reported mixed feelings regarding whether it was the responsibility of oncology providers to provide SCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Practices need additional resources to overcome barriers to implementing SCPs. We found resistance toward SCPs, particularly the perceived value for the survivor and the idea that oncology providers are responsible for SCP dissemination.

SWOG/NCI Phase II Dual Anti-CTLA-4/PD-1 Blockade in Rare Tumors (DART): Non-Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of dual checkpoint inhibition in advanced rare/ultra-rare non-epithelial ovarian cancers (NEOCs) is yet to be explored. METHODS: DART is a prospective, multicenter (1,016 US sites), multi-cohort, single-arm phase II trial conducted through the Early Therapeutics and Rare Cancer SWOG/NCI Committee, assessing ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) (1mg/kg every 6 weeks) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) (240mg every 2 weeks) in adults with advanced NEOCs who lack beneficial standard therapy. Primary outcome was overall response rate [ORR; complete response (CR)/partial response (PR)]; secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate [CBR; stable disease (SD) ≥6 months plus ORR], and toxicity. RESULTS: Seventeen patients (median age: 64; number of prior therapies ranged from 0-8 with no immunotherapy exposure; 8 granulosa, 6 carcinosarcomas, 1 Sertoli-Leydig, 1 yolk sac, 1 Wolffian) were evaluated. In granulosa cell tumors, ORR was 25% (n=2/8; 1 CR, 1 PR) and CBR, 50% (n=4/8); PFS of 58.3 (CR), 50.7+ (PR), 30.4 (SD), and 8.7 (SD) months. Median PFS was 3.5 months (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.7-11.2 months); median OS, 42.5 months (95% CI 10.1 months-not reached). One Sertoli-Leydig cell tumor showed a 22% regression (PFS 11.2 months). Carcinosarcomas had no response. Three participants (18%) discontinued treatment due to grade 3-4 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab-nivolumab shows activity in treatment-refractory granulosa cell tumors, with 25% (n=2/8) of patients experiencing either CR or PR lasting over 4 years.​.

Incidence of radiation pneumonitis after thoracic irradiation: Dose-volume correlates.

PURPOSE: To define clinical and dosimetric parameters correlated with the risk of clinically relevant radiation pneumonitis (RP) after thoracic radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Records of consecutive patients treated with definitive thoracic radiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed for the incidence of RP of Grade 2 or greater by the Common Toxicity Criteria. Dose-volume histograms using total lung volume (TL) and TL minus gross tumor volume (TL-G) were created with and without heterogeneity corrections. Mean lung dose (MLD), effective lung volume (V(eff)), and percentage of TL or TL-G receiving greater than or equal to 10, 13, 15, 20, and 30 Gy (V10-V30, respectively) were analyzed by logistic regression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to estimate RP predictive values. RESULTS: Twelve cases of RP were identified in 92 eligible patients. Mean lung dose, V10, V13, V15, V20, and V(eff) were significantly correlated to RP. Combinations of MLD, V(eff), V20, and V30 lost significance using TL-G and heterogeneity corrections. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined V10 and V13 as the best predictors of RP risk, with a decrease in predictive value above those volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Intrathoracic radiotherapy should be planned with caution when using radiotherapy techniques delivering doses of 10 to 15 Gy to large lung volumes.

Prostate position relative to pelvic bony anatomy based on intraprostatic gold markers and electronic portal imaging.

PURPOSE: To describe the relative positions and motions of the prostate, pelvic bony anatomy, and intraprostatic gold fiducial markers during daily electronic portal localization of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty prostate cancer patients were treated supine with definitive external radiotherapy according to an on-line target localization protocol using three or four intraprostatic gold fiducial markers and an electronic portal imaging device. Daily pretherapy and through-treatment electronic portal images (EPIs) were obtained for each of four treatment fields. The patients' pelvic bony anatomy, intraprostatic gold markers, and a best visual match to the target (i.e., prostate) were identified on simulation digitally reconstructed radiographs and during daily treatment setup and delivery. These data provided quantitative inter- and intrafractional analysis of prostate motion, its position relative to the bony anatomy, and the individual intraprostatic fiducial markers. Treatment planning margins, with and without on-line localization, were subsequently compared. RESULTS: A total of 22,266 data points were obtained from daily pretherapy and through-treatment EPIs. The pretherapy three-dimensional (3D) average displacement of the fiducial markers, as a surrogate for the prostate, was 5.6 mm, which improved to 2.8 mm after use of the localization protocol. The bony anatomy 3D average displacement was 4.4 mm both before and after localization to the prostate (p = 0.46). Along the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP), and right-left (RL) axes, the average prostate displacement improved from 2.5, 3.7, and 1.9 mm, respectively, before localization to 1.4, 1.6, and 1.1 mm after (all p < 0.001). The pretherapy to through-treatment position of the bony landmarks worsened from 1.7 to 2.5 mm (p < 0.001) in the SI axis, remained statistically unchanged at 2.8 mm (p = 0.39) in the AP axis, and improved from 2.0 to 1.2 mm in the RL axis (p < 0.001). There was no significant intrafractional displacement of prostate position or bony anatomic landmarks. An intermarker distance was identified for all fiducial markers, and 96 were followed daily. Seventy-nine percent had a standard deviation of <1 mm, and 96% were <1.5 mm. Margins were 5.1, 7.3, and 5.0 mm in the SI, AP, and RL axes, respectively, before localization and 2.7, 2.9, and 2.8 mm after localization. CONCLUSIONS: Significant interfractional motion exists for patients' prostate and pelvic bony anatomy. However, these move independently, so the pelvic bony anatomy should not be used as a surrogate for prostate motion. Fiducial markers are stable within the prostate and allow significant margin reduction when used for on-line localization of the prostate.