Analysis of Oncology and Radiation Therapy Representation on the National Board of Medical Examiners Official Practice Material for the United States National Standardized Medical Board Examinations.

Radiation therapy (RT) is a critical component of multidisciplinary cancer care, but has inconsistent curricular exposure. We characterize the radiation oncology (RO) content on the standardized undergraduate medical examinations by comparing its context and prevalence with other domains in oncology. National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) self-assessments and sample questions for the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Steps 1-3 and NBME clinical science shelf examinations were accessed (n = 3878). Questions were inductively analyzed for content pertaining to oncology and treatment modalities of RT, systemic therapy (ST), and surgical intervention (SI). Questions were coded using USMLE Physician Tasks/Competencies and thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics and analyses using the Kruskal-Wallis test are reported. A total of 337 questions (8.6%) within the USMLE and shelf exams included oncology content, with 101 questions (2.6%) referencing at least one cancer treatment modality (n = 35 RT, 45 ST, 57 SI). Treatment questions were more common on USMLE Step 2 CK (n = 35/101, 32%) compared to Step 1 (n = 23/101, 23%) and Step 3 (n = 8/101, 8%) (p < 0.001). RT was significantly less likely to be the correct answer (2/35, 6%) compared to ST (4/45, 9%) and SI (18/57, 32%) (p = 0.003). Therapeutic oncology questions are uncommon on the examination material, with an under-representation of radiation-related content, and contextual bias favoring surgical approaches. We advocate for greater RO involvement in the content creation of such examinations to help trainees better understand multidisciplinary cancer care.

Patterns of recurrence after radiotherapy for high-risk neuroblastoma: Implications for radiation dose and field.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis for patients with high-risk neuroblastoma (HR-NBL) is guarded despite aggressive therapy, and few studies have characterized outcomes after radiotherapy in relation to radiation treatment fields. METHODS: Multi-institutional retrospective cohort of 293 patients with HR-NBL who received autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and EBRT between 1997-2021. LRR was defined as recurrence at the primary site or within one nodal echelon beyond disease present at diagnosis. Follow-up was defined from the end of EBRT. Event-free survival (EFS) and OS were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. Cumulative incidence of locoregional progression (CILP) was analyzed using competing risks of distant-only relapse and death with Gray's test. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 7.0 years (range: 0.01-22.4). Five-year CILP, EFS, and OS were 11.9 %, 65.2 %, and 77.5 %, respectively. Of the 31 patients with LRR and imaging review, 15 (48.4 %) had in-field recurrences (>12 Gy), 6 (19.4 %) had marginal failures (≤12 Gy), and 10 (32.3 %) had both in-field and marginal recurrences. No patients receiving total body irradiation (12 Gy) experienced marginal-only failures (p = 0.069). On multivariable analyses, MYCN amplification had higher risk of LRR (HR: 2.42, 95 % CI: 1.06-5.50, p = 0.035) and post-consolidation isotretinoin and anti-GD2 antibody therapy (HR: 0.42, 95 % CI: 0.19-0.94, p = 0.035) had lower risk of LRR. CONCLUSIONS: Despite EBRT, LRR remains a contributor to treatment failure in HR-NBL with approximately half of LRRs including a component of marginal failure. Future prospective studies are needed to explore whether radiation fields and doses should be defined based on molecular features such as MYCN amplification, and/or response to chemotherapy.

Safety of high-dose-rate brachytherapy in patients with prostate cancer and inflammatory bowel disease: A case series.

Introduction: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a relative contraindication to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer patients due to fear of increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, capable of minimizing radiation dose to surrounding tissues, is a feasible alternative. Given limited data, this study examined the safety profile of HDR brachytherapy in this setting. Material and methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with localized prostate cancer and IBD treated with HDR brachytherapy at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), between 2010 and 2022. Eligibility criteria included biopsy-proven prostate cancer, no distant metastases, absence of prior pelvic radiotherapy, IBD diagnosis, and at least one follow-up visit post-treatment. Results: Eleven patients were included, with a median follow-up of 28.7 months. The median dose administered was 2700 cGy (range, 1500-3150 cGy) over 2 fractions (range, 1-3 fractions). Two patients also received EBRT. Rectal spacers (SpaceOAR) were applied in seven patients. All patients experienced acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity, ten of which were grade 1 and one was grade 2. Eight patients experienced late grade 1 GU toxicity, and three patients had late grade 2 GU toxicity. GI toxicities were similarly low-grade, with six grade 1 acute toxicity, no grade 2 or higher acute toxicity, six grade 1 late toxicity, and one late grade 2 GI toxicity. No grade 3 or higher acute or late GI or GU toxicities were reported. Conclusions: HDR brachytherapy appears to be a safe and tolerable treatment modality for patients with prostate cancer and IBD, with minimal acute and late GI and GU toxicity. These findings warrant multi-institutional validation due to small sample size.

Higher area deprivation index is associated with poorer local control and overall survival in non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation impacts outcomes in various cancers. We examined this association in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients using the area deprivation index (ADI). METHODS: We conducted a single-institution retrospective cohort study on NPC patients treated with definitive radiotherapy from 1980 to 2023. ADI was used as the primary exposure measure. Higher ADI indicates higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation. RESULTS: Of 561 patients, those with higher ADI (6-10 vs. 1-5) presented more commonly with AJCC stage III/IV compared to I/II (87% vs. 76%, p = 0.03). Increasing ADI decile score correlated with poorer overall survival (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28, p = 0.04). Local control was worse in patients from the most deprived quartile in the cohort ADI 5-10 (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.01-4.41, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: NPC patients from more disadvantaged neighborhoods undergoing radiotherapy had worse local control and survival outcomes. Interventions to address structural determinants of health and neighborhood disparities may improve these outcomes.

Patient Education Practices and Preferences of Radiation Oncologists and Interprofessional Radiation Therapy Care Teams: A Mixed-Methods Study Exploring Strategies for Effective Patient Education Delivery.

PURPOSE: Patients' understanding of radiation therapy (RT) and data regarding optimal approaches to patient education (PE) within radiation oncology (RO) are limited. We aimed to evaluate PE practices of radiation oncologists and interprofessional RT care team members to inform recommendations for delivering inclusive and accessible PE. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous survey was administered to all Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members (10/5/22-11/23/22). Respondent demographics, individual practices/preferences, and institutional practices were collected. Qualitative items explored strategies, challenges, and desired resources for PE. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. The Fisher exact test compared PE practices by respondent role and PE timing. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members completed the survey (28.2% response rate); RO attendings comprised 68.1% of respondents. Most practiced in an academic setting (85.8%) in North America (80.5%). Institution-specific materials were the most common PE resource used by radiation oncologists (67.6%). Almost half (40.2%) reported that their PE practices differed based on clinical encounter type, with paper handouts commonly used for in-person and multimedia for telehealth visits. Only 57.7% reported access to non-English PE materials. PE practices among radiation oncologists differed according to RT clinical workflow timing (consultation versus simulation versus first RT, respectively): one-on-one teaching: 88.5% versus 49.4% versus 56.3%, P < .01, and paper handouts: 69.0% versus 28.7% versus 16.1%, P < .01. Identified challenges for PE delivery included limited time, administrative barriers to the development or implementation of new materials or practices, and a lack of customized resources for tailored PE. Effective strategies for PE included utilization of visual diagrams, multimedia, and innovative education techniques to personalize PE delivery/resources for a diverse patient population, as well as fostering interprofessional collaboration to reinforce educational content. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncologists and interprofessional RO team members engage in PE, with most using institution-specific materials often available only in English. PE practices differ according to clinical encounter type and RT workflow timing. Increased adoption of multimedia materials and partnerships with patients to tailor PE resources are needed to foster high-quality, patient-centered PE delivery.

Safety of high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for patients with prostate cancer and history of prior chemoradiation for rectal cancer: A case series.

PURPOSE: A history of prior pelvic radiation therapy (RT) for rectal cancer is a relative contraindication for definitive RT for prostate cancer. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy can significantly limit the dose to surrounding tissues compared to external beam RT. However, there is limited data surrounding its safety in patients with prior pelvic RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective chart review was performed at the University of California, San Francisco to identify patients diagnosed with prostate cancer with a history of pelvic RT for rectal cancer who were treated with high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) between 2006 and 2022. Inclusion criteria were biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer with no evidence of distant disease on clinical examination or imaging, and at least one post-treatment clinic appointment. RESULTS: Seven patients were treated with salvage HDR-BT at a median interval of 17.7 years after RT for rectal cancer. HDR-BT doses included 3600 cGy in six fractions (n = 5), 2700 cGy in 2 fractions (n=1), or 2800 cGy in four fractions (n = 1). There was no acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicity, and 1 patient developed late grade 2 rectal bleeding. Two patients developed acute grade 2 genitourinary toxicity consisting of urinary frequency and urgency, which persisted through long-term follow up. At a median follow up of 29.5 months after HDR brachytherapy, one patient developed regional and distant failure, and another had seminal vesicle recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: HDR-BT is a safe treatment for patients with prostate cancer who previously received RT for rectal cancer. Further studies are needed to better characterize the long-term toxicity of HDR-RT in this population.