Diagnostic CT-Enabled Planning (DART): Results of a Randomized Trial in Palliative Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Using diagnostic computed tomography (dCT) scans instead of CT simulation (CTsim) scans can increase departmental efficiency and reduce patient burden. The goal of the DART trial was to assess the efficacy and acceptability of dCT-based planning workflows with a focus on patient experiences, plan deliverability and adequacy of target coverage, and workflows. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients undergoing same-day CTsim and treatment for palliative radiation therapy to thoracic, abdominopelvic, or proximal limb targets with a recent dCT (within 28 days) in a reproducible position were eligible. After stratifying by target type (bone or soft tissue vs. visceral), participants were randomized (1:2 ratio) between CTsim-based (CTsim arm) vs. dCT-based planning (dCT arm). The primary endpoint was time in center (TIC), defined as total time spent in the cancer center on first day of treatment, from first radiation department appointment to first fraction completion. Secondary endpoints included plan deliverability, adequacy of target coverage, and stakeholder acceptability. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (42 treatment sites) were enrolled between June 2022 and April 2023. The median age was 72 (interquartile range [IQR]: 67-78), 73% were male, and the most common primary cancers were lung (33%), prostate (24%), and breast (12%). The most common dose and fractionations were 8 Gy in 1 and 20 Gy in 5 fractions (50% and 43% of plans, respectively). TIC was 4.7 ± 1.1 hours (mean ± SD) in the CTsim arm vs. 0.41 ± 0.14 hours in the dCT arm (P < .001). All dCT plans were deliverable. All plans in both arms were rated as "acceptable" (80% CTsim; 81% dCT) or "acceptable with minor deviation" (20% CTsim; 19% dCT). Patient perception of acceptability was similar in both arms with the exception of time burden, which was rated as "acceptable" by 50% in the CTsim arm vs. 90% in the dCT arm (P = .025). CONCLUSION: dCT-based radiation planning substantially reduced TIC without detriment in plan deliverability or quality and had a tangible impact on patient experience with reduced patient-reported time burden.

A Case of MRI-Negative Leptomeningeal Disease From Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is a rare complication of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), associated with a poor prognosis. We report the case of a 55-year-old man, who presented with a metastatic NSCLC with limited brain and abdominal metastases. He was treated with both chemoimmunotherapy and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) to the brain. Despite treatment, the patient experienced progressive neurological symptoms not in keeping with the extent of disease seen on imaging of the brain. Due to this incongruence between symptoms and radiologic findings, he underwent a lumbar puncture, which had positive cytology for LMD. He had a rapid progression of symptoms and died six days after the discovery of LMD. We review the available literature regarding the prevalence of MRI-negative LMD from a solid primary malignancy.

Stereotactic Radiation for Ultra-Central Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Safety and Efficacy Trial (SUNSET).

PURPOSE: The use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for tumors in close proximity to the central mediastinal structures has been associated with a high risk of toxicity. This study (NCT03306680) aimed to determine the maximally tolerated dose of stereotactic body radiation therapy for ultracentral non-small cell lung carcinoma, using a time-to-event continual reassessment methodology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with T1-3N0M0 (≤6 cm) non-small cell lung carcinoma were eligible. The maximally tolerated dose was defined as the dose of radiation therapy associated with a ≤30% rate of grade (G) 3 to 5 prespecified treatment-related toxicity occurring within 2 years of treatment. The starting dose level was 60 Gy in 8 daily fractions. The dose-maximum hotspot was limited to 120% and within the planning tumor volume; tumors with endobronchial invasion were excluded. This primary analysis occurred 2 years after completion of accrual. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and April 2021, 30 patients were enrolled at 5 institutions. The median age was 73 years (range, 65-87) and 17 (57%) were female. Planning tumor volume was abutting proximal bronchial tree in 19 (63%), esophagus 5 (17%), pulmonary vein 1 (3.3%), and pulmonary artery 14 (47%). All patients received 60 Gy in 8 fractions. The median follow-up was 37 months (range, 8.9-51). Two patients (6.7%) experienced G3-5 adverse events related to treatment: 1 patient with G3 dyspnea and 1 G5 pneumonia. The latter had computed tomography findings consistent with a background of interstitial lung disease. Three-year overall survival was 72.5% (95% CI, 52.3%-85.3%), progression-free survival 66.1% (95% CI, 46.1%-80.2%), local control 89.6% (95% CI, 71.2%-96.5%), regional control 96.4% (95% CI, 77.2%-99.5%), and distant control 85.9% (95% CI, 66.7%-94.5%). Quality-of-life scores declined numerically over time, but the decreases were not clinically or statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty Gy in 8 fractions, planned and delivered with only a moderate hotspot, has a favorable adverse event rate within the prespecified acceptability criteria and results in excellent control for ultracentral tumors.

Stereotactic Radiation Therapy in Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Interstitial Lung Disease: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been reported to be at high risk of toxic effects after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), but for many patients, there are limited alternative treatment options. Objective: To prospectively assess the benefits and toxic effects of SABR in this patient population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted at 6 academic radiation oncology institutions, 5 in Canada and 1 in Scotland, with accrual between March 7, 2019, and January 12, 2022. Patients aged 18 years or older with fibrotic ILD and a diagnosis of T1-2N0 NSCLC who were not candidates for surgical resection were enrolled. Intervention: Patients were treated with SABR to a dose of 50 Gy in 5 fractions every other day. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study prespecified that SABR would be considered worthwhile if median overall survival-the primary end point-was longer than 1 year, with a grade 3 to 4 risk of toxic effects less than 35% and a grade 5 risk of toxic effects less than 15%. Secondary end points included toxic effects, progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC), quality-of-life outcomes, and changes in pulmonary function. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Results: Thirty-nine patients enrolled and received SABR. Median age was 78 (IQR, 67-83) years and 59% (n = 23) were male. At baseline, 70% (26 of 37) of patients reported dyspnea, median forced expiratory volume in first second of expiration was 80% (IQR, 66%-90%) predicted, median forced vital capacity was 84% (IQR, 69%-94%) predicted, and median diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide was 49% (IQR, 38%-61%) predicted. Median follow-up was 19 (IQR, 14-25) months. Overall survival at 1 year was 79% (95%, CI 62%-89%; P < .001 vs the unacceptable rate), and median overall survival was 25 months (95% CI, 14 months to not reached). Median PFS was 19 months (95% CI, 13-28 months), and 2-year LC was 92% (95% CI, 69%-98%). Adverse event rates (highest grade per patient) were grade 1 to 2: n = 12 (31%), grade 3: n = 4 (10%), grade 4: n = 0, and grade 5: n = 3 (7.7%, all due to respiratory deterioration). Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, use of SABR in patients with fibrotic ILD met the prespecified acceptability thresholds for both toxicity and efficacy, supporting the use of SABR for curative-intent treatment after a careful discussion of risks and benefits. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03485378.

What is the predictive value of RECIST criteria following stereotactic lung radiation?

PURPOSE: Response EvaluationCriteriain Solid Tumors (RECIST) is commonly used to assess response to anti-cancer therapies. However, its application after lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is complicated by radiation-induced lung changes. This study assesses the frequency of progressive disease (PD) by RECIST following lung SABR and correlates this with actual treatment outcomes as determined by longitudinal follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed patients treated with lung SABR for primary lung tumors or oligometastases between 2010 and 2015. Patients were treated with SABR doses of 54-60 Gy in 3-8 fractions. All follow-up scans were assessed and the treated lesion was serially measured over time, with the maximum diameter on axial CT slices used for RECIST calculations. Lesions demonstrating PD by RECIST criteria were identified and subsequently followed for long-term outcomes. The final 'gold-standard' assessment of response was based on size changes after PD and, as available, positron emission tomography scan and/or biopsy. RESULTS: Eighty-eight lesions met inclusion criteria. Seventy-five were lung primaries and thirteen were lung metastases. Median follow-up was 52 months (interquartile range: 33-68). Two-thirds (66 %, 58/88) of treated lesions met RECIST criteria for PD; however, local recurrence was only confirmed in 16 % (9/58) of cases. Most lesions that triggered PD by RECIST (47/58, 81 %) were ultimately found not to represent recurrence, while a minority (2/58, 3 %) had an uncertain response. The positive predictive value [PPV] of a RECIST defined PD event was 0.16. If PD was triggered within 12-months post-treatment, PPV was 0.08, compared to 0.21 for lesions triggering PD after 12-months. CONCLUSION: Using RECIST criteria, two-thirds of patients treated with lung SABR met criteria for PD. However, only a minority had recurrence, leading to a poor PPV of RECIST. This highlights the limitations of RECIST in this setting and provides context for physicians when interpreting post-lung SABR imaging.

Impact of Apolipoprotein E Genotype on Neurocognitive Function in Patients With Brain Metastases: An Analysis of NRG Oncology's RTOG 0614.

PURPOSE: Whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is a common treatment for brain metastases and is frequently associated with decline in neurocognitive functioning (NCF). The e4 allele of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is associated with increased risk of Alzheimer disease and NCF decline associated with a variety of neurologic diseases and insults. APOE carrier status has not been evaluated as a risk factor for onset time or extent of NCF impairment in patients with brain metastases treated with WBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0614 treated adult patients with brain metastases with 37.5 Gy of WBRT (+/- memantine), performed longitudinal NCF testing, and included an optional blood draw for APOE analysis. NCF test results were compared at baseline and over time with mixed-effects models. A cause-specific Cox model for time to NCF failure was performed to assess the effects of treatment arm and APOE carrier status. RESULTS: APOE results were available for 45% of patients (n = 227/508). NCF did not differ by APOE e4 carrier status at baseline. Mixed-effects modeling showed that APOE e4 carriers had worse memory after WBRT compared with APOE e4 noncarriers (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised total recall [least square mean difference, 0.63; P = .0074], delayed recognition [least square mean difference, 0.75; P = .023]). However, APOE e4 carrier status was not associated with time to NCF failure (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23; P = .40). Memantine delayed the time to NCF failure, regardless of carrier status (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.01; P = .054). CONCLUSIONS: APOE e4 carriers with brain metastases exhibited greater decline in learning and memory, executive function, and the Clinical Trial Battery Composite score after treatment with WBRT (+/- memantine), without acceleration of onset of difference in time to NCF failure.

Predicting stereotactic radiosurgery outcomes with multi-observer qualitative appearance labelling versus MRI radiomics.

Qualitative observer-based and quantitative radiomics-based analyses of T1w contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (T1w-CE MRI) have both been shown to predict the outcomes of brain metastasis (BM) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Comparison of these methods and interpretation of radiomics-based machine learning (ML) models remains limited. To address this need, we collected a dataset of n = 123 BMs from 99 patients including 12 clinical features, 107 pre-treatment T1w-CE MRI radiomic features, and BM post-SRS progression scores. A previously published outcome model using SRS dose prescription and five-way BM qualitative appearance scoring was evaluated. We found high qualitative scoring interobserver variability across five observers that negatively impacted the model's risk stratification. Radiomics-based ML models trained to replicate the qualitative scoring did so with high accuracy (bootstrap-corrected AUC = 0.84-0.94), but risk stratification using these replicated qualitative scores remained poor. Radiomics-based ML models trained to directly predict post-SRS progression offered enhanced risk stratification (Kaplan-Meier rank-sum p = 0.0003) compared to using qualitative appearance. The qualitative appearance scoring enabled interpretation of the progression radiomics-based ML model, with necrotic BMs and a subset of heterogeneous BMs predicted as being at high-risk of post-SRS progression, in agreement with current radiobiological understanding. Our study's results show that while radiomics-based SRS outcome models out-perform qualitative appearance analysis, qualitative appearance still provides critical insight into ML model operation.

Dual-center validation of using magnetic resonance imaging radiomics to predict stereotactic radiosurgery outcomes.

Background: MRI radiomic features and machine learning have been used to predict brain metastasis (BM) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) outcomes. Previous studies used only single-center datasets, representing a significant barrier to clinical translation and further research. This study, therefore, presents the first dual-center validation of these techniques. Methods: SRS datasets were acquired from 2 centers (n = 123 BMs and n = 117 BMs). Each dataset contained 8 clinical features, 107 pretreatment T1w contrast-enhanced MRI radiomic features, and post-SRS BM progression endpoints determined from follow-up MRI. Random decision forest models were used with clinical and/or radiomic features to predict progression. 250 bootstrap repetitions were used for single-center experiments. Results: Training a model with one center's dataset and testing it with the other center's dataset required using a set of features important for outcome prediction at both centers, and achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values up to 0.70. A model training methodology developed using the first center's dataset was locked and externally validated with the second center's dataset, achieving a bootstrap-corrected AUC of 0.80. Lastly, models trained on pooled data from both centers offered balanced accuracy across centers with an overall bootstrap-corrected AUC of 0.78. Conclusions: Using the presented validated methodology, radiomic models trained at a single center can be used externally, though they must utilize features important across all centers. These models' accuracies are inferior to those of models trained using each individual center's data. Pooling data across centers shows accurate and balanced performance, though further validation is required.

Planning for the Effect of the SC.24 Trial on Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Utilization at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess the potential real-world effect of the recently reported SC.24 trial on spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) utilization. We estimated the proportion of patients treated with conventional radiation therapy (CRT) who would have been eligible for spine SBRT per trial inclusion criteria and analyzed the potential estimated increased costs to our institution. Methods and Materials: This was a retrospective review of patients who received spine CRT at our institution between August and October 2020. Data abstracted included demographics, SC.24 eligibility criteria, provider-reported pain response, and survival. A cost analysis and time survey was performed using institutional and provincial data. Results: Of 73 patients reviewed, 24 patients (33%) were eligible. The most common exclusion factors included irradiation of ≥3 consecutive spinal segments (n = 32, 44%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >2 (n = 17, 23%), and symptomatic spinal cord compression (n = 13, 18%). Of eligible patients, the mean age was 68.92 years, median spinal instability in neoplasia score was 8 (interquartile range, 7-9), and median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2). The most common primary cancer types among eligible patients were lung (n = 10) and breast (n = 4). The median survival of eligible patients was 10 months (95% confidence interval, 4 months to not reached) with 58% surviving longer than 3 months. Of patients who had subjective pain documented after CRT, 54% had at least some response. The cost of spine SBRT was estimated at CA$4764.80 compared with $3589.10 for CRT, and tasks for spine SBRT took roughly 3 times as long as those for CRT. Conclusions: One-third of patients who received palliative spine CRT met eligibility criteria for SC.24. This possible expanded indication for spine SBRT can have a substantial effect on resource utilization. These data may be useful in guiding resource planning at institutions looking to commence a spine SBRT program.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy before resection to avoid delay for early-stage lung cancer or oligometastases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Pathologic outcomes from the SABR-BRIDGE protocol.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related operating room closures, some multidisciplinary thoracic oncology teams adopted a paradigm of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as a bridge to surgery, an approach called SABR-BRIDGE. This study presents the preliminary surgical and pathological results. METHODS: Eligible participants from four institutions (three in Canada and one in the United States) had early-stage presumed or biopsy-proven lung malignancy that would normally be surgically resected. SABR was delivered using standard institutional guidelines, with surgery >3 months following SABR with standardized pathologic assessment. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of viable cancer. Major pathologic response (MPR) was defined as ≤10% viable tissue. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent SABR. Most common SABR regimens were 34 Gy/1 (29%, n = 21), 48 Gy/3-4 (26%, n = 19), and 50/55 Gy/5 (22%, n = 16). SABR was well-tolerated, with one grade 5 toxicity (death 10 days after SABR with COVID-19) and five grade 2-3 toxicities. Following SABR, 26 patients underwent resection thus far (13 pending surgery). Median time-to-surgery was 4.5 months post-SABR (range, 2-17.5 months). Surgery was reported as being more difficult because of SABR in 38% (n = 10) of cases. Thirteen patients (50%) had pCR and 19 (73%) had MPR. Rates of pCR trended higher in patients operated on at earlier time points (75% if within 3 months, 50% if 3-6 months, and 33% if ≥6 months; p = .069). In the exploratory best-case scenario analysis, pCR rate does not exceed 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The SABR-BRIDGE approach allowed for delivery of treatment during a period of operating room closure and was well-tolerated. Even in the best-case scenario, pCR rate does not exceed 82%.

DART: diagnostic-CT-enabled planning: a randomized trial in palliative radiation therapy (study protocol).

BACKGROUND: Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) is an effective treatment for managing symptoms of advanced cancer. At least half of all radiation treatments are delivered with palliative intent, aimed at relieving symptoms, such as pain or shortness of breath. Symptomatic patients must receive PRT quickly, therefore expeditious treatment planning is essential. Standard radiation planning requires a dedicated CT scan acquired at the cancer centre, called a 'CT simulation', which facilitates treatment planning (i.e. tumor delineation, placement of radiation beams and dose calculation). However, the CT simulation process creates a bottleneck and often leads to delays in starting treatment. Other researchers have indicated that CT simulation can be replaced by the use of standard diagnostic CT scans for target delineation and planning, which are normally acquired through the radiology department as part of standard patient workup. The goals of this feasibility study are to assess the efficacy, acceptability and scalability of diagnostic-CT-enabled planning, compared to conventional CT simulation planning, for patients receiving PRT to bone, soft tissue and lung disease. METHODS: This is a randomized, phase II study, with 33 PRT patients to be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between conventional CT simulation (Arm 1), and the diagnostic CT enabled planning workflow (Arm 2). Patients will be stratified by treatment target volume (bone and soft tissue metastasis vs. primary or metastatic intrathoracic disease targets). The primary endpoint is the amount of time the patient spends at the cancer centre. Secondary endpoints include efficacy (rate of plan deliverability and rate of plan acceptability on blinded dose distribution review), stakeholder acceptability (based on patient and clinician perception of acceptability questionnaires) and scalability. DISCUSSION: This study will investigate the efficacy, acceptability and scalability of a "sim-free" PRT pathway compared to conventional CT simulation. The workflow may provide opportunity for resource optimization by using pre-existing diagnostic imaging and requires minimal investment due to its similarity to current PRT models. It also offers potential benefit to patients by eliminating an imaging procedure, reducing the amount of time spent at the cancer centre, and expediting time to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05233904. Date of registration: February 10, 2022; current version: 1.4 on April 29, 2022.

Stereotactic Radiation for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET): Extended Long-Term Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Long-term randomized data assessing the effect of ablative therapies in patients with oligometastases are lacking. The Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET) randomized phase 2 trial was originally designed with 5 years of follow-up, but the trial was amended in 2016 to extend follow-up to 10 years. Herein we report oncologic outcomes beyond 5 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were eligible if they had a controlled primary tumor and 1 to 5 metastases, with all metastases amenable to SABR. Patients were randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care treatment (control arm) versus SABR to all metastases plus standard of care (SABR arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General [FACT-G]), and time to new metastases. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were randomized between 2012 and 2016 (n = 33 in arm 1 vs n = 66 in arm 2). Primary tumor sites included lung (n = 18), breast (n = 18), colon (n = 18), prostate (n = 16), and other (n = 29). Eight-year OS was 27.2% in the SABR arm versus 13.6% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.84; P = .008). Eight-year PFS estimates were 21.3% versus 0.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.72; P < .001). Rates of grade ≥ 2 acute or late toxic effects were 30.3% versus 9.1% (P = .019), with no new grade 3 to 5 toxic effects. FACT-G quality of life scores declined over time in both arms, but there were no differences in quality of life scores between arms. The use of systemic therapy overall was similar between arms, but patients in the SABR arm were less likely to require cytotoxic chemotherapy (33.3% vs 54.6%, respectively, P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: SABR achieved durable improvements in OS and PFS, with no new major toxicity signals with extended follow-up. A minority of patients randomized to the SABR arm (21.3%) achieved > 5 years of survival without recurrence.

Remote Contouring and Virtual Review during the COVID-19 Pandemic (RECOVR-COVID19): Results of a Quality Improvement Initiative for Virtual Resident Training in Radiation Oncology.

The need to minimize in-person interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to fewer clinical learning opportunities for trainees. With ongoing utilization of virtual platforms for resident education, efforts to maximize their value are essential. Herein we describe a resident-led quality improvement initiative to optimize remote contouring and virtual contour review. From April to June 2020, radiation oncology (RO) residents at our institution were assigned modified duties. We implemented a program to source and assign cases to residents for remote contouring and to promote and optimize virtual contour review. Resident-perceived educational value was prospectively collected and analyzed. All nine RO residents at our institution (PGY1-5) participated, and 97 cases were contoured during the evaluation period. Introduction of the Remote Contouring and Virtual Review (RECOVR) program coincided with a significant increase in mean cases contoured per week, from 5.5 to 17.3 (p = 0.015), and an increased proportion of cases receiving virtual review, from 14.8% to 58.6% (p < 0.001). Residents reported that the value of immediate feedback during virtual review was similar to that of in-person review (4.6 ± 0.1 vs. 4.5 ± 0.2, p = 0.803) and significantly higher than feedback received post hoc (e.g., email; 3.6 ± 0.2, p < 0.001). The implementation of a remote process for contour review led to significant increases in contouring, and virtual contour review was rated as highly as in-person interactions. Our findings provide a data-driven rationale and framework for integrating remote contouring and virtual review into competency-based medical education.

A Framework for Assuring the Safety, Training, Evaluation, and Wellness of Radiation Oncology Residents During the COVID-19 Pandemic (ASTEROiD-COVID19).

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to disrupt nearly all facets of daily life, residency programs must ensure the safety and wellness of their residents while maintaining a commitment to their training and advancement. In addition to standard clinical training, radiation oncology residency programs integrate highly specialized elements specific to the delivery of radiation therapy. Few publications have addressed the significant effects of the pandemic on medical training and even fewer have addressed concerns specific to radiation oncology. We report our experience developing a resident-led adaptation of our training program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim of assisting other programs to meet this challenge.

Improving geometric sparing and therapeutic effectiveness of lung SBRT for central and ultra-central tumors.

The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for central- and ultra-central lung tumors is a major therapeutic challenge since there are trade-offs between delivering adequate dose to the tumor and minimizing toxicity to critical mediastinal organs. This work investigates improving the therapeutic effectiveness of such SBRT treatments by enhancing the geometric sparing of normal tissue and systematically applying a planning target volume (PTV) margin smaller than the conventional values. Using plans from 10 previously SBRT-treated patients, we retrospectively created highly conformal plans with a reduced PTV margin of 2 mm and compared them to the clinical plans with a standard 5 mm PTV margin. We compared various dosimetric and biological parameters. We calculated the geometrical sparing factor (GSF) (ratio of biological dose between normal tissue and targets) for the mediastinal organs and the uncomplicated tumor control probability (UTCP) for the esophagus. We tracked tumor fraction doses using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. With geometric sparing, the median dose for critical mediastinal organs (proximal bronchial tree, great vessels, esophagus, and heart) dropped by 10 Gy (p ≤ 0.006). Dose sparing for the spinal cord and chest wall was 5 Gy and 8 Gy, respectively (p = 0.002). The geometrical sparing factor (GSF) dropped by 50% for the esophagus and the proximal bronchial tree (PBT) and 40% for the great vessels (p < 0.05). The CBCT fractional tumor dose varied by 2.7% (0.2 Gy) for the initially intended treatment volume and 4% (0.3 Gy) when accounting for daily volume changes. The expected delivered dose was above the prescribed value. Systematically reducing the PTV margin to 2 mm in lung SBRT of central and ultra-central tumors is feasible and ensures consistency in contouring and dose prescribing. It allows safe delivery of highly conformal treatments with significantly higher therapeutic effectiveness, potentially reducing treatment-related complications. Consequently, it may enable safer dose escalation, more effective fractionations, and safer management of retreatments and treatments of multiple synchronous lung tumors.

Predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) of lung cancer using quantitative dynamic [18F]FDG PET and CT perfusion: a prospective exploratory clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) is effective in treating inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but imaging assessment of response after SABR is difficult. This prospective study aimed to develop a predictive model for true pathologic complete response (pCR) to SABR using imaging-based biomarkers from dynamic [18F]FDG-PET and CT Perfusion (CTP). METHODS: Twenty-six patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with SABR followed by surgical resection were included, as a pre-specified secondary analysis of a larger study. Dynamic [18F]FDG-PET and CTP were performed pre-SABR and 8-week post. Dynamic [18F]FDG-PET provided maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUV) and kinetic parameters estimated using a previously developed flow-modified two-tissue compartment model while CTP measured blood flow, blood volume and vessel permeability surface product. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to establish a predictive model with the measured PET and CTP imaging biomarkers for predicting pCR. The model was compared to current RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1) and PERCIST (PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.0) criteria. RESULTS: RPA identified three response groups based on tumour blood volume before SABR (BVpre-SABR) and change in SUVmax (ΔSUVmax), the thresholds being BVpre-SABR = 9.3 mL/100 g and ΔSUVmax = - 48.9%. The highest true pCR rate of 92% was observed in the group with BVpre-SABR < 9.3 mL/100 g and ΔSUVmax < - 48.9% after SABR while the worst was observed in the group with BVpre-SABR ≥ 9.3 mL/100 g (0%). RPA model achieved excellent pCR prediction (Concordance: 0.92; P = 0.03). RECIST and PERCIST showed poor pCR prediction (Concordance: 0.54 and 0.58, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we developed a predictive model based on dynamic [18F]FDG-PET and CT Perfusion imaging that was significantly better than RECIST and PERCIST criteria to predict pCR of NSCLC to SABR. The model used BVpre-SABR and ΔSUVmax which correlates to tumour microvessel density and cell proliferation, respectively and warrants validation with larger sample size studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MISSILE-NSCLC, NCT02136355 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Registered May 8, 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02136355.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic Cancers: Long-Term Results of the SABR-COMET Phase II Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The oligometastatic paradigm hypothesizes that patients with a limited number of metastases may achieve long-term disease control, or even cure, if all sites of disease can be ablated. However, long-term randomized data that test this paradigm are lacking. METHODS: We enrolled patients with a controlled primary malignancy and 1-5 metastatic lesions, with all metastases amenable to stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). We stratified by the number of metastases (1-3 v 4-5) and randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care (SOC) treatments (arm 1) and SOC plus SABR (arm 2). We used a randomized phase II screening design with a primary end point of overall survival (OS), using an α of .20 (wherein P < .20 indicates a positive trial). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). Herein, we present long-term outcomes from the trial. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2016, 99 patients were randomly assigned at 10 centers internationally. The most common primary tumor types were breast (n = 18), lung (n = 18), colorectal (n = 18), and prostate (n = 16). Median follow-up was 51 months. The 5-year OS rate was 17.7% in arm 1 (95% CI, 6% to 34%) versus 42.3% in arm 2 (95% CI, 28% to 56%; stratified log-rank P = .006). The 5-year PFS rate was not reached in arm 1 (3.2%; 95% CI, 0% to 14% at 4 years with last patient censored) and 17.3% in arm 2 (95% CI, 8% to 30%; P = .001). There were no new grade 2-5 adverse events and no differences in QOL between arms. CONCLUSION: With extended follow-up, the impact of SABR on OS was larger in magnitude than in the initial analysis and durable over time. There were no new safety signals, and SABR had no detrimental impact on QOL.

Are Female Radiation Oncologists Still Underrepresented in the Published Literature? An Analysis of Authorship Trends During the Past Decade.

PURPOSE: We examined whether female authorship, traditionally underrepresented in the radiation oncology (RO) literature, has improved during the past decade, and whether the introduction of double-blind peer review (where reviewers are blinded to author names and vice-versa) improved female authorship rates. METHODS: We analyzed authorship lists during a 10-year period (2007-2016) from the 2 highest impact-factor RO journals: The International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP) and Radiotherapy and Oncology (R&O). From each journal, 20 articles per year were randomly selected. Gender trends of the first, second, last, and collaborating authors (defined as all other positions), were analyzed. A one-sample proportion test was used to compare US female senior authorship (2012-2016) with the 2015 benchmark for female US academic radiation oncologists (30.6%). RESULTS: Across 400 articles, the mean ± standard deviation percentage of female authors was 30.9% ± 22.0% with 34.8% of first, 36.7% of second, and 25.4% of last authors being female. The total percentage of female authors per year increased from 2007 to 2016 (P = .005), with no significant increase in the percentage of first (P = .250), second (P = .063), or last (P = .213) female authors. Double-blind peer review was associated with an increase in the mean percentage of female authors (2007-2011: 27.4% vs 2012-2016: 34.0%; P = .012). The proportion of US female senior authors in the latter period (27.6%) and the proportion of female US academic radiation oncologists (30.6%) were not significantly different (P = .570). CONCLUSIONS: Although the percentage of female authors in RO has increased during the past decade, this did not correspond to a higher representation of women in high-profile authorship positions. Introduction of double-blind peer review was associated with a rise in female authorship. The proportion of female US senior authors and academic radiation oncologists is similar, suggesting that senior authorship rates are approaching appropriate levels in the United States.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of 1-3 Oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET-3): study protocol for a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1-3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival and a trend to an overall survival benefit, supporting progression to phase III randomized trials. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-seven patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care [SOC] palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of SOC treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (prostate, breast, or renal vs. all others), and disease-free interval (defined as time from diagnosis of primary tumor until first detection of the metastases being treated on this trial; divided as ≤2 vs. > 2 years). The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, cost effectiveness, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life (QoL), and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on survival, QoL, and cost effectiveness to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 1-3 oligometastatic lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03862911. Date of registration: March 5, 2019.

A Primer on Interstitial Lung Disease and Thoracic Radiation.

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of lung disorders with characteristic clinical and imaging features. Patients with ILD are at an increased risk of developing NSCLC, which is frequently medically comorbid, often precluding operative management. In this scenario, radiotherapy (RT) is generally recommended; however, ILD is known to increase the risk of RT-related toxicity. Recommendations for treatment with appropriately individualized risks and benefits are thus dependent on integration of patient-, ILD-, and cancer-specific factors. We aim to provide an overview of ILD for the thoracic oncologist, an assessment of risk of thoracic RT in patients with ILD, and evidence-based recommendations for treatment in a variety of clinical scenarios.