Standard-of-care systemic therapy with or without stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with oligoprogressive breast cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer (Consolidative Use of Radiotherapy to Block [CURB] oligoprogression): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with metastatic cancer eventually develop resistance to systemic therapy, with some having limited disease progression (ie, oligoprogression). We aimed to assess whether stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) targeting oligoprogressive sites could improve patient outcomes. METHODS: We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial of SBRT in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic breast cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after having received at least first-line systemic therapy, with oligoprogression defined as five or less progressive lesions on PET-CT or CT. Patients aged 18 years or older were enrolled from a tertiary cancer centre in New York, NY, USA, and six affiliated regional centres in the states of New York and New Jersey, with a 1:1 randomisation between standard of care (standard-of-care group) and SBRT plus standard of care (SBRT group). Randomisation was done with a computer-based algorithm with stratification by number of progressive sites of metastasis, receptor or driver genetic alteration status, primary site, and type of systemic therapy previously received. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, measured up to 12 months. We did a prespecified subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint by disease site. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03808662, and is complete. FINDINGS: From Jan 1, 2019, to July 31, 2021, 106 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=51; 23 patients with breast cancer and 28 patients with NSCLC) or SBRT plus standard of care (n=55; 24 patients with breast cancer and 31 patients with NSCLC). 16 (34%) of 47 patients with breast cancer had triple-negative disease, and 51 (86%) of 59 patients with NSCLC had no actionable driver mutation. The study was closed to accrual before reaching the targeted sample size, after the primary efficacy endpoint was met during a preplanned interim analysis. The median follow-up was 11·6 months for patients in the standard-of-care group and 12·1 months for patients in the SBRT group. The median progression-free survival was 3·2 months (95% CI 2·0-4·5) for patients in the standard-of-care group versus 7·2 months (4·5-10·0) for patients in the SBRT group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·35-0·81; p=0·0035). The median progression-free survival was higher for patients with NSCLC in the SBRT group than for those with NSCLC in the standard-of-care group (10·0 months [7·2-not reached] vs 2·2 months [95% CI 2·0-4·5]; HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·75; p=0·0039), but no difference was found for patients with breast cancer (4·4 months [2·5-8·7] vs 4·2 months [1·8-5·5]; 0·78, 0·43-1·43; p=0·43). Grade 2 or worse adverse events occurred in 21 (41%) patients in the standard-of-care group and 34 (62%) patients in the SBRT group. Nine (16%) patients in the SBRT group had grade 2 or worse toxicities related to SBRT, including gastrointestinal reflux disease, pain exacerbation, radiation pneumonitis, brachial plexopathy, and low blood counts. INTERPRETATION: The trial showed that progression-free survival was increased in the SBRT plus standard-of-care group compared with standard of care only. Oligoprogression in patients with metastatic NSCLC could be effectively treated with SBRT plus standard of care, leading to more than a four-times increase in progression-free survival compared with standard of care only. By contrast, no benefit was observed in patients with oligoprogressive breast cancer. Further studies to validate these findings and understand the differential benefits are warranted. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Electro-acupuncture versus battle field auricular acupuncture in breast cancer survivors with chronic musculoskeletal pain: subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is common and debilitating among breast cancer survivors. The PEACE trial demonstrated that electro-acupuncture (EA) and battle field auricular acupuncture (BFAA) both reduced pain more than usual care (UC) in cancer survivors. However, the comparative effectiveness between EA and BFAA among breast cancer survivors is unknown. METHODS: EA and BFAA received ten weekly treatments. UC was offered ten EA treatments after week 12. The primary endpoint was change in mean Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity from baseline to week 12. We analyzed the subset of 165 (46%) trial participants with a breast cancer primary diagnosis. We conducted constrained linear mixed model analyses, which constrained all arms to a common pre-randomization baseline mean. Model-based mean estimates at weeks 12 and 24 were compared between arms using model contrasts. RESULTS: Among 165 breast cancer survivors, common pre-randomization mean pain severity was 5.35 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 5.04, 5.66]. At week 12, BPI pain severity score was 2.69 (2.26. 3.13) in EA, 3.60 (3.17, 4.02) in BFAA, and 5.06 (4.47, 5.65) in UC. EA reduced pain severity significantly more than BFAA at weeks 12 [- 0.90 (- 1.45, - 0.36), p = 0.001] and 24 [- 0.82, (- 1.38, - 0.27), p = 0.004]. EA and BFAA significantly improved both Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) - Global Health physical health and mental health component scores at week 12 compared to UC. Mild toxicities were reported. CONCLUSION: EA was more effective than BFAA at reducing pain severity, but both similarly improved physical and mental health scores. Breast cancer survivors with chronic musculoskeletal pain may consider EA before BFAA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02979574. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02979574.

Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Annual Spring Symposium: Initial Impact and Feedback.

The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) is an international collaborative network of radiation oncology (RO) professionals with the goal of improving RO education. This report summarizes the first two ROECSG annual symposia including an overview of presentations and analysis of participant feedback. One-day symposia were held in June 2018 and May 2019. Programs included oral and poster presentations, RO education leadership perspectives, and keynote addresses. Post-symposia surveys were collected. Research presentations were recorded and made available online. The 2018 symposium was had 36 attendees from 25 institutions in three countries. The 2019 symposium had 76 individuals from 41 institutions in five countries. Attendees represented diverse backgrounds including attending physicians (46%), residents (13%), medical students (14%), physicists (2%), nurses (1%), and program coordinators (1%). Fifty-five oral presentations were given with 53 released online. Ninety percent of attendees rated the symposium as improving their knowledge of RO educational scholarship, 98% felt the symposium provided the opportunity to receive feedback on RO education scholarship, and 99% felt that the symposium fostered the development of collaborative RO education projects. ROECSG was rated higher than professional organizations in fostering educational scholarship (p<0.001). All attendees felt that the symposium produced new RO education scholarship ideas and provided unique networking opportunities. The first two ROECSG symposia drew a diverse population of attendees and provided unique opportunities for presentation of RO education scholarship. Future ROECSG symposia will be designed to enhance opportunities to present RO education scholarship and to facilitate networking.

Breast conservation among older patients with early-stage breast cancer: Locoregional recurrence following adjuvant radiation or hormonal therapy.

BACKGROUND: For patients with breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS), adjuvant radiation (RT) and hormonal therapy (HT) reduce the risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR). Although several studies have evaluated adjuvant HT ± RT, the outcomes of HT versus RT monotherapy remain less clear. In this study, the risk of LRR is characterized among older patients with early-stage breast cancer following adjuvant RT alone, HT alone, neither, or both. METHODS: This study included female patients from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, New York) who were aged ≥65 years with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) T1N0 breast cancer treated with BCS. The primary endpoint was time to LRR evaluated by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 888 women evaluated with a median age of 71 years (range, 65-100 years) and median follow-up of 4.9 years (range, 0.0-9.5 years). There were 27 LRR events (3.0%). Five-year LRR was 11% for those receiving no adjuvant treatment, 3% for HT alone, 4% for RT alone, and 1% for HT and RT. LRR rates were significantly different between the groups (P < .001). Compared with neither HT nor RT, HT or RT monotherapy each yielded similar LRR reductions: HT alone (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.68; P = .006) and RT alone (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.92; P = .034). Distant recurrence and breast cancer-specific survival rates did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: LRR risk following BCS is low among women aged ≥65 years with T1N0, ER+/HER2- breast cancer. Adjuvant RT and HT monotherapy each similarly reduce this risk; the combination yields a marginal improvement. Further study is needed to elucidate whether appropriate patients may feasibly receive adjuvant RT monotherapy versus the current standards of HT monotherapy or combined RT/HT.

Salvage of locally recurrent breast cancer with repeat breast conservation using 45 Gy hyperfractionated partial breast re-irradiation.

PURPOSE: Mastectomy has long been the preferred approach for local salvage of recurrent breast cancer following breast-conservation therapy (BCT). Growing interest in avoiding mastectomy prompted RTOG 1014, a landmark phase two study demonstrating the feasibility of repeat BCT using a novel radiotherapy (RT) regimen (i.e., 45 Gy administered in 30 fractions of 1.5 Gy twice-daily to the partial breast, "rePBI"). We adopted this regimen as our institutional standard and report our observations regarding the safety and efficacy of rePBI as salvage therapy. METHODS: All patients at our institution who underwent repeat BCT and subsequently received rePBI from 2011 to 2019 were identified. Clinicopathologic features and treatment characteristics for both primary breast cancers and recurrences were collected, as were rates of subsequent recurrence and treatment-associated toxicities. RESULTS: The cohort included 34 patients with a median age of 65.8 (46.2-78.2) at the time of rePBI. At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, there were two subsequent locoregional recurrences (2-year local control rate 97%). There was no grade ≥ 3 toxicity. The most common acute toxicity (< 3 months) was radiation dermatitis (100%), and common grade 1-2 late toxicities (> 3 months) included fibrosis in 14 (41%), breast asymmetry in 12 (35%), and chest wall pain in 11 (32%). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat breast conservation using the hyperfractionated partial breast RT regimen defined by RTOG 1014 (45 Gy administered in 30 1.5 Gy twice-daily fractions) appears effective and well tolerated. No grade 3 or higher toxicities were observed and local control was excellent. Longer term follow-up among larger cohorts will define whether salvage mastectomy should remain the preferred standard.

Association between Site-of-Care and the Cost and Modality of Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Medicare Beneficiaries from 2015 to 2017.

Among 84,447 radiotherapy (RT) courses for Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 65 with prostate cancer treated with external beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy, or both, 42,608 (51%) were delivered in hospital-affiliated and 41,695 (49%) in freestanding facilities. Freestanding centers were less likely to use EBRT + brachytherapy than EBRT (OR 0.84 [95%CI 0.84-0.84]; p < .001). Treatment was more costly in freestanding centers (mean difference $2,597 [95%CI $2,475-2,719]; p < .001). Adjusting for modality and fractionation, RT in hospital-affiliated centers was more costly (mean difference $773 [95%CI $693-853]; p < .001). Freestanding centers utilized more expensive RT delivery, but factors unrelated to RT modality or fractionation rendered RT more costly at hospital-affiliated centers.

Impact of Telemedicine on Patient Satisfaction and Perceptions of Care Quality in Radiation Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed cancer care with the rapid expansion of telemedicine, but given the limited use of telemedicine in oncology, concerns have been raised about the quality of care being delivered. We assessed the patient experience with telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice to determine satisfaction, quality of care, and opportunities for optimization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients seen within a multistate comprehensive cancer center for prepandemic office visits and intrapandemic telemedicine visits in December 2019 through June 2020 who completed patient experience questionnaires were evaluated. Patient satisfaction between office and telemedicine consultations were compared, patient visit-type preferences were assessed, and factors associated with an office visit preference were determined. RESULTS: In total, 1,077 patients were assessed (office visit, n=726; telemedicine, n=351). The telemedicine-consult survey response rate was 40%. No significant differences were seen in satisfaction scores between office and telemedicine consultations, including the appointment experience versus expectation, quality of physician's explanation, and level of physician concern and friendliness. Among telemedicine survey respondents, 45% and 34% preferred telemedicine and office visits, respectively, and 21% had no preference for their visit type. Most respondents found their confidence in their physician (90%), understanding of the treatment plan (88%), and confidence in their treatment (87%) to be better or no different than with an office visit. Patients with better performance status and who were married/partnered were more likely to prefer in-person office visit consultations (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08]; P=.047, and 2.41 [95% CI, 1.14-5.47]; P=.009, respectively). Patients with telephone-only encounters were more likely to report better treatment plan understanding with an office visit (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.00-4.77; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to assess telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice, and found high patient satisfaction and confidence in their care. Optimization of telemedicine in oncology should be a priority, specifically access to audiovisual capabilities that can improve patient-oncologist communication.

Comfort Level of US Radiation Oncology Graduates: Assessment of Transition to Independent Clinical Practice.

Radiation training programs are designed to prepare graduates for independent practice, with metrics in place to assess appropriateness of clinical decision-making. Here, we investigated the self-assessed preparedness of US graduates during the transition to independent practice.An anonymous, Internet-based survey was distributed to recent graduates of radiation oncology residencies (2016-2017). A Likert scale was used to assess comfort with various aspects of practice, as well as "time" to development of comfort in independent practice.Responses were obtained from 70/210 (33%), the majority reported training in programs with 5-8 residents (n = 35). Most (77%) reported designing between 500 and 900 treatment plans during training (n = 54). Only 41% of respondents reported the opportunity to review treatment plans and make decisions about safety/adequacy without attending input > 50% of the time (n = 29). Thirty percent of residents reported being responsible for seeing/managing on-treatment visits (OTVs) ≤ 75% of the time. Aspects with which practitioners reported the least comfort were understanding of billing/application to practice (2.43, IQR 2-3), orthovoltage (superficial radiation) setup and field design (2.57, IQR 1-4), and planning/delivery of prostate implants (2.82, IQR 2-4). Increased mean comfort levels were reported by those designing > 700 treatment plans in training as well as those reporting an opportunity to evaluate plans and make clinical decisions prior to attending input > 50% of the time during residency. Comfort with the delivery of stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) correlated with caseload for liver, spine, prostate, and CNS disease sites but not lung.Variations in training experiences exist across institutions. Here, a lower than expected number of residents reported seeing/managing OTVs as well as reviewing treatment plans prior to attending input during training. Overall comfort was correlated with case volume and opportunities to independently review treatment plans prior to attending input. These data highlight areas of opportunity for improving resident education with implications for ease of transition to independent clinical practice.

The 3 Bs of cancer care amid the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: "Be safe, be smart, be kind"-A multidisciplinary approach increasing the use of radiation and embracing telemedicine for head and neck cancer.

Because of the national emergency triggered by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, government-mandated public health directives have drastically changed not only social norms but also the practice of oncologic medicine. Timely head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment must be prioritized, even during emergencies. Because severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 predominantly resides in the sinonasal/oral/oropharyngeal tracts, nonessential mucosal procedures are restricted, and HNCs are being triaged toward nonsurgical treatments when cures are comparable. Consequently, radiation utilization will likely increase during this pandemic. Even in radiation oncology, standard in-person and endoscopic evaluations are being restrained to limit exposure risks and preserve personal protective equipment for other frontline workers. The authors have implemented telemedicine and multidisciplinary conferences to continue to offer standard-of-care HNC treatments during this uniquely challenging time. Because of the lack of feasibility data on telemedicine for HNC, they report their early experience at a high-volume cancer center at the domestic epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis.

Early palliative radiation versus observation for high-risk asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic bone metastases: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic cancer, the bone is the third-most common site of involvement. Radiation to painful bone metastases results in high rates of pain control and is an integral part of bone metastases management. Up to one-third of inpatient consults are requested for painful bone metastases, and up to 60% of these patients had evidence of these lesions visible on prior imaging. Meanwhile recent advances have reduced potential side effects of radiation. Therefore, there is an opportunity to further improve outcomes for patients using prophylactic palliative radiation to manage asymptomatic bone metastases. METHODS/STUDY DESIGN: In this trial, 74 patients with metastatic solid tumors and high-risk asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic bone metastases will be enrolled and randomized to early palliative radiation or standard of care. This will be the first trial to assess the efficacy of prophylactic palliative radiation in preventing skeletal related events (SREs), the primary endpoint. This endpoint was selected to encompass patient-centered outcomes that impact quality of life including pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, and intervention with surgery or radiation. Secondary endpoints include hospitalizations, Bone Pain Index, pain-free survival, pain-related quality of life, and side effects of radiation therapy. DISCUSSION: In this study, we propose a novel definition of high-risk bone metastases most likely to benefit from preventive radiation and use validated questionnaires to assess pain and impact on quality of life and health resource utilization. Observations from early patient enrollment have demonstrated robustness of the primary endpoint and need for minor modifications to Bone Pain Index and data collection for opioid use and hospitalizations. With increasing indications for radiation in the oligometastatic setting, this trial aims to improve patient-centered outcomes in the polymetastatic setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Number/Clinical trials.gov, ID: NCT03523351 . Registered on 14 May 2018.

The Impact of Surgeons on the Likelihood of Mastectomy in Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the impact of individual surgeons and institutions on the use of mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS) among elderly women with breast cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current literature characterizes patient clinical and demographic factors that increase likelihood of mastectomy use. However, the impact of the individual provider or institution is not well understood, and could provide key insights to biases in the decision-making process. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 29,358 women 65 years or older derived from the SEER-Medicare linked database with localized breast cancer diagnosed from 2000 to 2009. Multilevel, multivariable logistic models were employed, with odds ratios (ORs) used to describe the impact of demographic or clinical covariates, and the median OR (MOR) used to describe the relative impact of the surgeon and institution. RESULTS: Six thousand five hundred ninety-four women (22.4%) underwent mastectomy. Unadjusted rates of mastectomy ranged from 0% in the bottom quintile of surgeons to 58.0% in the top quintile. On multivariable analysis, the individual surgeon (MOR 1.97) had a greater impact on mastectomy than did the institution (MOR 1.71) or all other clinical and demographic variables except tumor size (OR 3.06) and nodal status (OR 2.95). Surgeons with more years in practice, or those with a lower case volume were more likely to perform mastectomy (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The individual surgeon influences the likelihood of mastectomy for the treatment of localized breast cancer. Further research should focus on physician-related biases that influence this decision to ensure patient autonomy.

Bridging the Gap in Global Advanced Radiation Oncology Training: Impact of a Web-Based Open-Access Interactive Three-Dimensional Contouring Atlas on Radiation Oncologist Practice in Russia.

Radiation oncologists in Russia face a number of unique professional difficulties including lack of standardized training and continuing medical education. To combat this, under the auspices of the Russian Society of Clinical Oncology (RUSSCO), our group has developed a series of ongoing in-person interactive contouring workshops that are held during the major Russian oncology conferences in Moscow, Russia. Since November 2016 during each workshop, we utilized a web-based open-access interactive three-dimensional contouring atlas as part of our didactics. We sought to determine the impact of this resource on radiation oncology practice in Russia. We distributed an IRB-approved web-based survey to 172 practicing radiation oncologists in Russia. We inquired about practice demographics, RUSSCO contouring workshop attendance, and the clinical use of open-access English language interactive contouring atlas (eContour). The survey remained open for 2 months until November 2017. Eighty radiation oncologists completed the survey with a 46.5% response rate. Mean number of years in practice was 13.7. Sixty respondents (75%) attended at least one RUSSCO contouring workshop. Of those who were aware of eContour, 76% were introduced during a RUSSCO contouring workshop, and 81% continue to use it in their daily practice. The greatest obstacles to using the program were language barrier (51%) and internet access (38%). Nearly 90% reported their contouring practices changed since they started using the program, particularly for delineation of clinical target volumes (57%) and/or organs at risk (46%). More than 97% found the clinical pearls/links to cooperative group protocols in the software helpful in their daily practice. The majority used the contouring program several times per month (43%) or several times per week (41%). Face-to-face contouring instruction in combination with open-access web-based interactive contouring resource had a meaningful impact on perceived quality of radiation oncology contours among Russian practitioners and has the potential to have applications worldwide.

Patient-Reported Outcomes as a Recruitment Strategy for Clinical Trial Enrollment.

Importance: Clinical trials are critical for progress in oncology; however, only 5% of the adult cancer population participates. Harnessing data that are routinely collected (ie, electronic patient-reported outcomes [ePROs]) may serve as a method to promote trial enrollment. Objective: To evaluate if an ePRO-prompted recruitment strategy is associated with increased clinical trial enrollment. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized substudy was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023 at a multisite tertiary cancer center as part of an ongoing clinical trial that was testing a symptom-intervention for cancer-related fatigue. Patients with breast cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy who completed at least 1 ePRO questionnaire during the study period were included. Physician-level cluster randomization assigned fatigue-eligible patients to either receive a portal message invitation to a symptom-intervention trial or standard of care (SOC; physician-based referral). Exposure: ePRO questionnaires distributed in routine practice were queried weekly and screened for moderate or greater fatigue, the principle inclusion criterion for the primary trial. To assess the association of the portal message source with response and enrollment, every other patient received a message from the primary radiation oncology team or the referral service. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical trial response/referral and enrollment. Results: A total of 1041 patients completed ePRO questionnaires, of whom 394 (38%; 53 Asian [13.6%], 43 Black [11.0%], 29 Hispanic [7.4%], and 262 White individuals [66.5%]; median [IQR] age, 55 [47-65] years) endorsed moderate or greater fatigue while receiving treatment. A total of 210 patients (53.3%) were assigned to receive a portal message and 184 (46.7%) patients, SOC. In the portal message group, 73 patients (35%) responded and 41 (20%) enrolled compared with 1 patient (0.5%) referred and 0 enrolled in the SOC group (P < .001). The response rate to portal messages favored the referral service vs the primary radiation oncology service (44% vs 26%; P = .01), but there was no significant difference in enrollments. Conclusions and Relevance: The study results suggest that use of routine care ePROs was associated with greater enrollment in a symptom-intervention trial compared with physician-based referral. Messaging directly from the referral service may support enrollment and help reduce oncology physician-level barriers to trial enrollment for studies testing symptom interventions.

Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer and Radiation Therapy-Related Fatigue: A Prospective Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: Fatigue is among the most common but most poorly understood radiation therapy-associated toxicities. This prospective study sought to investigate whether cardiorespiratory fitness, an integrative measure of whole-body cardiopulmonary function, is associated with patient-reported fatigue in women with early-stage breast cancer undergoing radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with stage Tis-T2N0M0 breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 undergoing breast radiation therapy performed a symptom-limited cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) on a motorized treadmill to assess cardiorespiratory fitness as measured by peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak). Fatigue was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Fatigue Scale. Both assessments were performed during or immediately after radiation therapy completion. All patients were treated with an opposed tangent technique to a dose of 4240 cGy in 16 fractions with or without a lumpectomy bed boost. Patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy were excluded. Pearson correlation coefficients and univariate linear regression were used to assess associations amongVO2peak, fatigue, and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (median age, 52 years; range, 31-71) completed a CPET and FACIT-Fatigue assessment. Median VO2peak was 25.1 mL O2.kg-1.min-1 (range, 16.7-41.7). The majority of patients (78.6%) displayed a VO2peak lower than their age-predicted VO2peak. Both age and body mass index were significantly associated with VO2peak levels. The median FACIT-Fatigue score was 41.5 (range, 10-52), with lower values indicating more fatigue. VO2peak was not significantly associated with FACIT-Fatigue score (P = .20). CONCLUSIONS: VO2peak was not a significant predictor of radiation therapy-related fatigue. Most patients with breast cancer had marked impairments in cardiorespiratory fitness as determined by VO2peak. Larger prospective studies are needed to further investigate this novel finding and evaluate the effects of interventions aimed at improving cardiorespiratory fitness and their ability to potentially prevent fatigue.

Evaluating a Physician Audit and Feedback Intervention to Increase Clinical Trial Enrollment in Radiation Oncology in a Multisite Tertiary Cancer Center: A Randomized Study.

PURPOSE: Clinical trial participation continues to be low, slowing new cancer therapy development. Few strategies have been prospectively tested to address barriers to enrollment. We investigated the effectiveness of a physician audit and feedback report to improve clinical trial enrollment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a randomized quality improvement study among radiation oncologists at a multisite tertiary cancer network. Physicians in the intervention group received quarterly audit and feedback reports comparing the physician's trial enrollments with those of their peers. The primary outcome was trial enrollments. RESULTS: Among physicians randomized to receive the feedback report (n = 30), the median proportion of patients enrolled during the study period increased to 6.1% (IQR, 2.6%-9.3%) from 3.2% (IQR, 1.1%-10%) at baseline. Among those not receiving the feedback report (n = 29), the median proportion of patients enrolled increased to 4.1% (IQR, 1.3%-7.6%) from 1.6% (IQR, 0%-4.1%) at baseline. There was a nonsignificant change in the proportion of enrollments associated with receiving the feedback report (-0.6%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 1.8%; P = .6). Notably, there was an interaction between baseline trial accrual and receipt of feedback reports (P = .005), with enrollment declining among high accruers. There was an increase in enrollment throughout the study, regardless of study group (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a positive effect of physician audit and feedback on clinical trial enrollment was not observed. Future efforts should avoid disincentivizing high accruers and might consider pairing feedback with other patient- or physician-level strategies. The increase in trial enrollment in both groups over time highlights the importance of including a comparison group in quality improvement studies to reduce confounding from secular trends.

When Is Telemedicine Appropriate in the Management of Head and Neck Cancer? A Mixed-Methods Assessment Among Patients and Physicians.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that oncology patients are satisfied with and sometimes prefer telemedicine compared with in-person visits; however, data are scarce on when telemedicine is appropriate for specific cancer populations. In this study, we aim to identify factors that influence patient experience and appropriateness of telemedicine use among a head and neck cancer (HNC) population. METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study at a multisite cancer center. First, we surveyed patients with HNC and analyzed factors that may influence their telemedicine experience using multivariate regression. We then conducted focus groups among HNC oncologists (n = 15) to evaluate their perception on appropriate use of telemedicine. RESULTS: From January to December 2020, we collected 1,071 completed surveys (response rate 24%), of which 551 first unique surveys were analyzed. About half of all patients (56%) reported telemedicine as "same or better" compared with in-person visits, whereas the other half (44%) reported "not as good or unsure." In multivariate analyses, patients with thyroid cancer were more likely to find telemedicine "same or better" (adjusted odds ratio, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.35 to 3.25]) compared with other HNC populations (mucosal/salivary HNC). Consistently, physician focus group noted that patients with thyroid cancer were particularly suited for telemedicine because of less emphasis on in-person examinations. Physicians also underscored factors that influence telemedicine use, including clinical suitability (treatment status, visit purpose, examination necessity), patient benefits (travel time, access), and barriers (technology, rapport-building). CONCLUSION: Patient experience with telemedicine is diverse among the HNC population. Notably, patients with thyroid cancer had overall better experience and were identified to be more appropriate for telemedicine compared with other patients with HNC. Future research that optimizes patient experience and selection is needed to ensure successful integration of telemedicine into routine oncology practice.

Palliative Care as a Component of High-Value and Cost-Saving Care During Hospitalization for Metastatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that palliative care (PC) can improve quality of life and survival for outpatients with advanced cancer, but there are limited population-based data on the value of inpatient PC. We assessed PC as a component of high-value care among a nationally representative sample of inpatients with metastatic cancer and identified hospitalization characteristics significantly associated with high costs. METHODS: Hospitalizations of patients 18 years and older with a primary diagnosis of metastatic cancer from the National Inpatient Sample from 2010 to 2019 were analyzed. We used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to assess medical services, patient demographics, and hospital characteristics associated with higher charges billed to insurance and hospital costs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to determine cost savings associated with provision of PC. RESULTS: Among 397,691 hospitalizations from 2010 to 2019, the median charge per admission increased by 24.9%, from $44,904 in US dollars (USD) to $56,098 USD, whereas the median hospital cost remained stable at $14,300 USD. Receipt of inpatient PC was associated with significantly lower charges (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.64]; P < .001) and costs (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.61]; P < .001). Factors associated with high charges were receipt of invasive medical ventilation (P < .001) or systemic therapy (P < .001), Hispanic patients (P < .001), young age (18-49 years, P < .001), and for-profit hospitals (P < .001). PC provision was associated with a $1,310 USD (-13.6%, P < .001) reduction in costs per hospitalization compared with no PC, independent of the receipt of invasive care and age. CONCLUSION: Inpatient PC is associated with reduced hospital costs for patients with metastatic cancer, irrespective of age and receipt of aggressive interventions. Integration of inpatient PC may de-escalate costs incurred through low-value inpatient interventions.

Prophylactic Radiation Therapy Versus Standard of Care for Patients With High-Risk Asymptomatic Bone Metastases: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: External-beam radiation therapy (RT) is standard of care (SOC) for pain relief of symptomatic bone metastases. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of radiation to asymptomatic bone metastases in preventing skeletal-related events (SRE). METHODS: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, adult patients with widely metastatic solid tumor malignancies were stratified by histology and planned SOC (systemic therapy or observation) and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive RT to asymptomatic high-risk bone metastases or SOC alone. The primary outcome of the trial was SRE. Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations for SRE and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 78 patients with 122 high-risk bone metastases were enrolled between May 8, 2018, and August 9, 2021, at three institutions across an affiliated cancer network in the United States. Seventy-three patients were evaluable for the primary end point. The most common primary cancer types were lung (27%), breast (24%), and prostate (22%). At 1 year, SRE occurred in one of 62 bone metastases (1.6%) in the RT arm and 14 of 49 bone metastases (29%) in the SOC arm (P < .001). There were significantly fewer patients hospitalized for SRE in the RT arm compared with the SOC arm (0 v 4, P = .045). At a median follow-up of 2.5 years, OS was significantly longer in the RT arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.89; P = .018), which persisted on multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.85; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Radiation delivered prophylactically to asymptomatic, high-risk bone metastases reduced SRE and hospitalizations. We also observed an improvement in OS with prophylactic radiation, although a confirmatory phase III trial is warranted.

Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Comprehensive Nodal Irradiation in the RadComp Trial.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures used in the ongoing RadComp pragmatic randomized clinical trial (PRCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The deidentified and blinded data set included 774 English-speaking female participants who completed their 6-month posttreatment assessment. Eleven PRO measures were evaluated, including the Trial Outcome Index from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes, the BREAST-Q, and selected Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures. PROs were measured at 3 timepoints: baseline, completion of radiation therapy (RT), and 6 months post-RT. Ten variables were used as validity anchors. Pearson or Spearman correlations were calculated between PROs and convergent validity indicators. Mean PRO differences between clinically distinct categories were compared with analysis of variance methods (known-groups validity). PRO change scores were mapped to change in other variables (sensitivity to change). RESULTS: Most correlations between PROs and validity indicators were large (≥0.5). Mean score for Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes was higher (better) for those with a lumpectomy compared with those with a mastectomy (P < .001). Mean scores for the FACT-B Trial Outcome Index and for PROMIS Fatigue and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities were better for those with good baseline performance status compared with those with poorer baseline performance status (P < .05). At completion of RT and post-RT, mean scores for Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes and BREAST-Q Radiation were significantly different (P < .001) across categories for all Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy -Treatment Satisfaction - General items. There were medium-sized correlations between change scores for FACT-B Trial Outcome Index, Fatigue, Anxiety, and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and change scores in the Visual Analog Scale. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving radiation in the RadComp PRCT, our findings demonstrate high reliability and validity for important PRO measures, supporting their psychometric strength and usefulness to reflect the effect of RT on health-related quality of life.