Invited African-American Radiation Oncology Grand Rounds Speakers: DEI or Die?

Background: Invitations for grand rounds are typically used to evaluate faculty promotion in Radiation Oncology. To shed light on potential barriers to career progression, we conducted a study examining the racial and gender demographics of invited speakers and the inclusion of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related talks among African-American radiation oncology speakers. Materials and methods: Radiation oncology programs in the US were contacted to obtain a list of speakers invited to their institution along with their topics presented between January 2021 and December 2022. Speakers were categorized demographically by race and gender; speaker demographics were determined by facial recognition and internet investigation. Non-faculty were eliminated from analysis. Talk topics were categorized as either DEI or non-DEI from the speaker's talk title. The Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: A total of 252 invited speakers and their associated talk topics were obtained from 51 radiation oncology programs. Of these speakers, 98 were female (38.9%) and 16 were African-American race (6.3%). The invited talk topic was DEI-related in 7% of total cases. Among speakers not of African-American race, this was 4.2% (10/236); among African-American speakers, it was 50% (8/16). This difference reached statistical significance (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: A significant proportion of invited African-American radiation oncology grand rounds/visiting professor talks are focused on the topic of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), compared with less than 5% of non-African-American invited speakers. Targeted efforts to expand African-American representation in non-DEI topics are needed to ensure and expand diversity in Radiation Oncology.

Validation of Spanish-Language Surveys Utilized for the Navigator-Assisted Hypofractionation (NAVAH) Program to Aid Hispanic-American Breast Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer accounts for 22% of all mortality and is the leading cause of death among Hispanic and/or Latinx patients in the United States. The disparities in access to radiation therapy (RT), mortality rates, and treatment outcomes among Hispanic-American breast cancer patients compared with other populations highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions. The Navigator-Assisted Hypofractionation (NAVAH) program, with its innovative patient navigation approach and culturally sensitive survey, aims to better identify the specific barriers faced by this population. This study is a report of the NAVAH program experience piloting a Spanish-language culturally sensitive survey in Hispanic-American volunteers. METHODS: Hispanic-American volunteers with fluency in Spanish were recruited to participate in survey conduction, identified from local networks. Survey information was assessed by topic category, and survey responses were amalgamated into a representative score for each category. Survey categories include acceptability (comfort and prejudice among interactions with the system), accessibility (transportation, distance to care, and health care literacy), accommodation (access to the internet, navigating transportation), affordability (financial considerations, employment, and level of education), and availability (access to a medical center, coordinating care, and overall quality of care). RESULTS: A total of 6 volunteers meeting inclusion criteria completed the survey; 4 in person and 2 by telephone. The median survey completion time was 12 minutes 38 seconds. Respondents noted satisfaction and trust in their interactions with medical providers; however, responses in the acceptability category highlighted a high perception of disparities in the medical system, including a high prevalence of racial and ethnic prejudice and a high prevalence of treatment differences between high-income and low-income patients in clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: In the first Spanish-language survey of its kind, our findings indicate that this survey design is feasible in the Hispanic-American population. Implementation of this survey in breast cancer patients will provide more definitive and comprehensive answers regarding other categories in the survey, including financial challenges during treatment, access to accommodations, and perception of treatment during cancer care. The investigation involving patients actively receiving breast cancer RT is currently underway.

Accuracy of Medical Oncology Prognosis for Metastatic Cancer Patients Evaluated for Enrollment Onto an Ongoing Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: For patients with metastatic cancer, a key aspect of interdisciplinary care has involved the overall prognosis provided by Medical Oncology. This study represents prospective evaluation of Medical Oncology prognosis accuracy for patients considered for enrollment onto an ongoing randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms (SPORTSMEN) phase 2 randomized clinical trial examines optimal radiation therapy treatment of symptomatic spinal metastases with a primary end point of pain freedom at 3 months post-treatment. A key eligibility criterion for trial enrollment is overall prognosis exceeding 3 months, typically provided by Medical Oncology. During the first year of trial enrollment, Medical Oncology prognosis for patients considered for SPORTSMEN inclusion was prospectively assessed for accuracy. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with documented Medical Oncology prognosis were considered for SPORTSMEN enrollment. The prognosis administered by Medical Oncology exceeded 3 months in 26 patients, and <3 months in 1 patient. The overall accuracy of Medical Oncology prognosis was correct for 15 of 27 patients (56%), significantly worse for inpatients than outpatients (P=0.0381). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic spine disease, the estimated prognosis provided by Medical Oncology is often optimistic, as nearly half of patients assigned a prognosis of >3 months failed to reach this threshold before experiencing death or hospice. These findings indicate that a more heuristic approach to assessing patient prognosis may be necessary to avoid unwarranted prognostic optimism, particularly for inpatients. Such an approach could potentially provide a more compassionate and cost-effective management of these patients' remaining lifespan thereby optimizing quality of life.

Success of Ultra-low Dose Radiation Therapy for Primary Cutaneous B-cell Lymphoma.

OBJECTIVES: Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma (PCBCL) is a relatively rare disease, associated with 5-year overall survival of nearly 95% when treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone. However, standard EBRT doses yield acute skin toxicity in more than 70% of patients and grade 3 to 4 acute skin toxicity in nearly 10% of patients. Consequently, the PCBCL treatment paradigm is shifting towards lower EBRT doses. This study evaluates our early experience with ultra-low dose EBRT (total dose of 4 Gy in 2 fractions) for PCBCL. METHODS: Four biopsy-confirmed PCBCL lesions (1 anterior thigh and 3 chest) in 2 male patients were treated with 2 Gy×2 fraction EBRT using electrons through a clinical setup. The anterior thigh lesion was treated using a clamshell to protect the scrotum from scatter dose. Treatment was achieved using 9 MeV electrons to the 85% isodose line using no bolus, with follow-up every 4 months and potential retreatment if no visible response at 8 to 9 months. RESULTS: All lesions demonstrated a response to EBRT by 4 months, visibly manifesting as flattening with changes in pigmentation. At the last follow-up (20, 20, 16.5, and 4 mo, respectively), all lesions had flattened with no evidence of local recurrence and no skin toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of PCBCL with ultra-low dose EBRT to 4 Gy total dose in 2 fractions provides durable local control with zero skin toxicity. These results are encouraging for both the success of treatment and the potential to use similarly low doses for retreatment should patients exhibit local recurrence.

Impact of Clinical Trial Design on Recruitment of Racial and Ethnic Minorities.

Knowledge related to how oncology treatment trial design influences enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities is limited. Rigorous identification of clinical trial design parameters that associate favorably with minority accrual provides educational opportunities for individuals interested in designing more representative treatment trials. We identified oncology trials with a minimum of 10 patients at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center from 2010 to 2021. We defined a study endpoint of racial and ethnic minority accrual greater than zero. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether co-variables predicted our study endpoint. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. A total of 352 cancer trials met eligibility criteria. These studies enrolled a total of 7981 patients with a total of 926 racial and ethnic minorities leading to a median enrollment of 10%. Trials open in community sites (yes versus no) were more likely to have a minority patient (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.02-4.96) as well as pilot/phase I studies compared to phase II/III (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.34-8.26). Trials incorporating immunotherapy (yes versus no) were less likely to have a minority patient (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94). Trials open in community sites as well as early phase treatment studies were more likely to accrue minority patients. However, studies including immunotherapy were less likely to accrue racial and ethnic minorities. Knowledge gained from our analysis may help individuals design oncology treatment trials that are representative of more diverse populations.

Early Experience With Biologically Effective Dose-Comparable Short-Course Whole Brain Radiation Therapy for Metastatic Intracranial Disease.

OBJECTIVES: For inpatients with metastatic intracranial disease burden exceeding established guidelines for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), the standard of care involves whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), typically administered as a 2-week course of treatment with biologically effective dose (BED) of 60 Gy. However, shorter course WBRT provides theoretical advantages in quality of life and decreasing systemic therapy delay. This retrospective study evaluates our early experience with BED-comparable short-course WBRT (23 Gy in 5 fractions; BED=58.3 Gy) for metastatic intracranial disease. METHODS: Over a recent 2-month timeframe, 3 inpatients with intracranial disease burden exceeding SRS guidelines were administered BED-comparable short-course WBRT. Due to the high intracranial disease burden, 23 Gy was chosen over 20 Gy for 5-fraction WBRT due to the desire to optimally mimic the durability of the classic 30 Gy in 10 fraction treatment regimen. RESULTS: The mean age at treatment was 65.7 years, the mean Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) was 60, and the mean number of intracranial metastases was 20.3. The mean duration between inpatient Radiation Oncology consultation and the start of WBRT (following CT radiation therapy simulation) was 6.7 days. All patients completed WBRT no later than 2 weeks from the initial inpatient consultation. CONCLUSIONS: For inpatients with intracranial metastatic disease burden exceeding established SRS guidelines, BED-comparable short-course WBRT administered to 23 Gy in 5 fractions (4.6 Gy/fraction) is safe and efficacious. Given previous literature indicating that nearly half of the patients prescribed traditional 2-week WBRT die without completing treatment, BED-comparable WBRT represents an attractive and promising WBRT alternative in this patient population.

Out-of-Pocket Cost Modeling of Adjuvant Antiestrogen and Radiation Therapy After Lumpectomy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Across Medicaid and Medicare Plans.

PURPOSE: The optimal adjuvant therapy (antiestrogen therapy [ET] + radiation therapy or ET alone, or in some reports radiation therapy alone) in older women with early-stage breast cancer has been highly debated. However, granular details on the role of insurance in the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving ET with or without radiation therapy are lacking. This project disaggregates out-of-pocket costs by insurance plans to increase treatment cost transparency. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several radiation therapy schedules are accepted standards as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. For our financial estimate model, we used the 5-fraction and 15-fraction radiation therapy and ET prescribed over a 5-year duration. The total aggregate out-of-pocket costs were determined from the sum of treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance based on Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D Rx plans. The model assumes a Medicare- and/or Medicaid-eligible patient ≥70 years of age with node-negative, early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Patient out-of-pocket costs were estimated from publicly available insurance data from plan-specific benefit coverage materials using a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: Original Medicare beneficiaries face a total out-of-pocket treatment charge of $2738.52 for ET alone, $2221.26 for 5-fraction radiation therapy alone, $2573.92 for 15-fraction radiation therapy alone, $3361.26 for combined ET+ 5-fraction radiation therapy, and $3713.92 for combined ET + 15-fraction radiation therapy. Medigap Plan G beneficiaries have an out-of-pocket charge of $1130.00 with radiation therapy alone and face an out-of-pocket of $2270.00 for ET alone and combined ET+ radiation therapy. For Medicaid beneficiaries, all treatments approved by Medicaid are covered without limit, resulting in no out-of-pocket expense for either adjuvant treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data), by estimating expenses within Medicare and Medicaid plans, provides a level of transparency to patient cost. With knowledge of the costs borne by patients themselves, treatment decisions informed by patients' individual priorities and preferences may be further enhanced.

Early Experience With Two-Fraction Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Treating Spinal Metastases.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal metastases are common in metastatic cancer, affecting around 40% of patients. The primary treatment involves radiation therapy, transitioning from conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for its superior, durable response. While spine SBRT has gained popularity in the United States, Level I evidence supporting it over EBRT is limited to a Canadian trial using a 2-fraction SBRT regimen. We present our findings from one of the earliest US experiences of 2-fraction spine SBRT for spinal metastases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic spine cancer receiving 2-fraction spine SBRT at a single center was conducted. Patients received treatment based on Level 1 evidence (24 Gy in 2 fractions). Follow-up records were assessed for local control outcomes and toxicity. RESULTS: Twenty patients since August 2022 have been treated with 2-fraction spine SBRT. Most patients were treated at 1 (45%) or 2 (40%) spinal levels, with the thoracic (55%) and lumbar (50%) spine being the most common locations. Common primary sites included the lung (30%), breast (20%), esophagus (15%), and prostate (10%). The rate of local control was 100%, while the rate of vertebral compression fracture was 15%. No esophageal or bowel toxicity occurred, and no fractures required intervention. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that 2-fraction spine SBRT is safe and effective, consistent with existing Level I evidence. Our local control rate exceeding 95% aligns with the literature, indicating the feasibility and achievability of implementing this approach in the United States over a short period of time.

Evolving Role of Proton Radiation Therapy in Clinical Practice.

With the expansion of proton radiation therapy centers across the United States and a gradually expanding body of academic evidence supporting its use, more patients are receiving-and asking about-proton therapy than ever before. Here, we outline, for nonradiation oncologists, the theoretical benefits of proton therapy, the clinical evidence to date, the controversies affecting utilization, and the numerous randomized trials currently in progress. We also discuss the challenges of researching and delivering proton therapy, including the cost of constructing and maintaining centers, barriers with insurance approval, clinical situations in which proton therapy may be approached with caution, and the issue of equitable access for all patients. The purpose of this review is to assist practicing oncologists in understanding the evolving role of proton therapy and to help nonradiation oncologists guide patients regarding this technology.

Prehabilitation in radiation therapy: a scoping review.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Radiation therapy (RT) is a central component of cancer treatment with survival and long-term quality-of-life benefits across a spectrum of oncologic diagnoses. However, RT has been associated with varying levels of fatigue, pain, weight loss, and changes in mental health both during and post-treatment. Prehabilitation aims to optimize health prior to anti-neoplastic therapy in order to reduce side effects, increase adherence to treatment, expedite post-treatment recovery, and improve long-term outcomes. Though prehabilitation has been studied in those undergoing cancer-related surgery, literature on prehabilitation in individuals undergoing RT has not been comprehensively explored. Thus, this scoping review aims to summarize the existing literature focused on prehabilitation interventions for patients receiving RT. MATERIALS/METHODS: The PRISMA-ScR checklist for conducting scoping reviews was adopted to identify and evaluate studies investigating the efficacy of prehabilitation before and during RT for cancer over the past 21 years (10/2002-10/2022). A search of prehabilitation and RT was performed to identify studies investigating prehabilitation interventions in adult cancer patients undergoing RT. RESULTS: A total of 30 articles met inclusion criteria, yielding 3657 total participants. Eighteen (60%) studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with sample sizes ranging from 21 to 221. The most commonly studied populations were patients with head and neck cancer, followed by rectal, breast, and lung cancer. A majority (80%) of studies evaluated one prehabilitation intervention (i.e., unimodal). Targeted physical exercises were the most common intervention, followed by general physical exercises and technology/apps. Adherence/feasibility was the most common primary outcome, representing 30% of studies. All studies reported data on sex, and 5 (17%) reported data on race and/or ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation interventions have been successfully implemented in patients with cancer undergoing surgical treatment. Based on limited current literature, prehabilitation appears to have a promising effect in reducing morbidity in adult cancer patients requiring RT. Though our review identified many RCTs, they were frequently small sample trials with primary outcomes focused on feasibility, rather than functional status or quality of life. Thus, there is a need for adequately powered, randomized controlled intervention trials to investigate the efficacy of prehabilitation and maximize the treatment outcomes for patients undergoing RT.

The Concerning Disaggregation of Gender and Racial/Ethnicity Disparity Investigation at Recent ASCO Annual Meetings.

OBJECTIVES: There has been a recent emphasis in the peer-reviewed oncology literature on examining disparities by gender. Such emphasis provides an excellent opportunity to simultaneously examine race/ethnicity disparities in the same cohort. The degree to which gender disparities research has been performed concomitantly with racial disparities research at prominent oncologic societies has yet to be investigated. METHODS: ABSTRACTs presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting were reviewed. Abstracts selected for the oral abstract or clinical science symposium sessions at the 2020, 2021, and 2022 annual meetings were evaluated to determine the amount of gender disparities research presented. Such research was further assessed to determine whether racial/ethnicity disparities were examined simultaneously. RESULTS: From 2020 to 2022, 1219 abstracts were presented at the ASCO annual meetings, oral abstract or clinical science symposium sessions. Of these, 7 involved gender disparities examination, of which only 2 (29%) concomitantly examined race/ethnicity. No study since 2020 concomitantly examined gender and racial disparities. CONCLUSIONS: More than 70% of gender disparities work presented at ASCO has been disaggregated from concomitant racial disparities examination, with complete disaggregation since 2021. Gender disparities work remains a miniscule aspect of the overall research landscape. Future work in examining gender disparities may be best aggregated with racial/ethnicity disparities to optimize timely solutions in both areas; such work could potentially be incentivized from the inclusion criteria of future funding mechanisms.

Disparities in Access to Radiotherapy Among Hispanic/Latinx Populations in the United States: How Far Have We Left to Go?

OBJECTIVES: The Hispanic/Latinx population has consistently faced disparities in oncology access and outcomes with cancer being the leading cause of death in this population. We evaluate recent research in radiation therapy disparities among the Hispanic/Latinx population in the United States since our seminal analysis from 2017. METHODS: A PubMed literature search was conducted for articles published from January 2017 through March 2023. Four term combinations were utilized, including: (1) "Hispanic" and "Radiotherapy" and "Disparities", (2) "Latino" and "Radiotherapy" and "Hispanic", (3) "Hispanic" and "Radiation" and "Disparities", and (4) "Latino" and "Radiation" and "Disparities." Included studies were those taking place in the United States, examined radiation oncology care, and examined health disparities. RESULTS: Fifty-eight of 245 articles returned met inclusion criteria and spanned 6 disparity-types: (1) Stage at Presentation, (2) Time to Treatment Initiation & Completion, (3) Receipt of Treatment and Guideline-Concordant Care, (4) Geography, (5) Clinical Trial Access and (6) Insurance Barriers and Treatment Center Type. The most common disparity was receipt of treatment and guideline-concordant care (n=39 studies), demonstrating that the Hispanic/Latinx population was less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment or treatment at all. In additon, studies identified disparities in time to treatment and completion (n=12), geography (n=5), clinical trial access (n=3), and insurance and treatment center access (n=5). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in radiotherapy access remain prominent for the Hispanic/Latinx population through a multitude of barriers, despite increasing interest in disparities research. Continued health care disparities research with tangible interventions are needed in radiation oncology to properly understand and address this problem.

Insurance Denial of Care for Randomized Controlled Trial-Eligible Patients: Incidence and Success Rate of Peer-To-Peer Authorization in Allowing Patients to Remain Trial-Eligible.

INTRODUCTION: Insurance denials for clinical trials serve as a pertinent barrier for patients to remain trial-eligible, thus hindering the development of therapies and the overall advancement of health care. We present results from an ongoing oncology randomized clinical trial regarding insurance denials and peer-to-peer authorization (P2PA) success rate in allowing patients to remain trial-eligible. METHODS: The ongoing Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms Phase II trial randomizes spine cancer patients to treatment with spine radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Trial-eligible patients during the first 3 months of enrollment are examined to determine whether the option of SBRT was denied by their insurance. Advocacy for overcoming SBRT denial in P2PA centered on SBRT being recommended as a preferred treatment modality in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, and the recent level I evidence demonstrating the advantages of SBRT over EBRT for symptomatic spine cancer. RESULTS: Of 15 trial-eligible patients, 3 (20%) experienced insurance denials for SBRT. P2PA resulted in the reversal of denials in all 3 patients, allowing each to remain trial-eligible for randomization between SBRT and cEBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a clinical oncologic treatment modality for which recent Level 1 evidence is available, the insurance denial rate was 20%. A vigilant P2PA strategy focusing on highlighting National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the supporting Level 1 evidence resulted in a very high rate of reversing initial denial.

Out-of-Pocket Cost Modeling of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Duration in Standard-of-Care Early Stage Breast Cancer Treatment Across Medicaid and Medicare Plans.

PURPOSE: For early stage breast cancer (BC), the choice of radiation therapy duration (1 vs 3 weeks) is highly debated. Cost and financial toxicity are major concerns that patients with BC face. Nonetheless, there remain limited discussions providing granular details of the role of insurance in the aggregate cost of 1 week versus 3 weeks of radiation therapy for patients. This project aims to disaggregate costs by plan to increase transparency of out-of-pocket (OOP) cost estimates in radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment procedures were determined through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. OOP treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance were calculated by using Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D prescription plans. The medicare.gov, medicaid.oh.gov, aarpmedicareplans.com, and the physician fee schedule from cms.gov were used to determine costs by treatment. Price estimates reflect actual costs per insurance plan rather than costs estimated from claims data. All procedures were considered to be performed in an Ohio hospital setting. One-week radiation therapy was defined as 5 fractions without boost, and 3-week radiation therapy was defined as 15 fractions without boost. RESULTS: Medicare beneficiaries with Original Medicare coverage face an OOP treatment charge of $649.24 for 1 week of radiation therapy and $1006.20 for 3 weeks of radiation therapy. Assuming the deductible is met postlumpectomy, Medigap Plan G beneficiaries are faced with no additional charges for both lengths of radiation therapy. Similarly for Medicaid beneficiaries (assuming treatment is approved by Medicaid), all expenses are covered without limit, resulting in no OOP expense. CONCLUSIONS: Considerations of 1 and 3 weeks of radiation therapy for postlumpectomy early-stage BC are often dependent on cancer characteristics and patient preferences. This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data) compares OOP costs across Medicaid and Medicare plans, which more holistically informs providers and patients in radiation therapy duration decision making.

Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms (SPORTSMEN): a randomized phase II study protocol.

Background: Approximately 40% of patients with metastatic cancer will have spinal metastatic disease. Historically treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with limited durability in pain control, the increased lifespan of this patient population has necessitated more durable treatment results via spine radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The goal of this study is to assess three-month pain freedom rates via the Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms (SPORTSMEN) randomized trial. Materials and methods: This study is a prospective randomized three-arm phase II trial which will recruit patients with symptomatic spine metastases. All patients will be randomized to standard-of care SBRT (24 Gy in 2 fractions), single-fraction SBRT (19 Gy in 1 fraction), or EBRT (8 Gy in 1 fraction), with the primary endpoint of three-month pain freedom (using the Brief Pain Inventory). We expect that SPORTSMEN will help definitively answer the efficacy of spine SBRT versus EBRT for achieving pain freedom, while defining the safety and efficacy of 19 Gy single-fraction spine SBRT. Local control will be defined according to Spine Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) criteria. Discussion: This is the first phase II trial to objectively assess optimal spine SBRT dosing in the treatment of symptomatic spine metastatic disease, while assessing spine SBRT versus EBRT. Findings should allow for better determination of the efficacy of two-fraction spine SBRT versus EBRT in the United States, as well as for the novel single-fraction 19 Gy spine SBRT regimen in patients with symptomatic spine metastases. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05617716 (registration date: November 14, 2022).