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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Determining The Role Of Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors On Segmentation Quality: Insights From A Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.

BACKGROUND: Medical image auto-segmentation is poised to revolutionize radiotherapy workflows. The quality of auto-segmentation training data, primarily derived from clinician observers, is of utmost importance. However, the factors influencing the quality of these clinician-derived segmentations have yet to be fully understood or quantified. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the role of common observer demographic variables on quantitative segmentation performance. METHODS: Organ at risk (OAR) and tumor volume segmentations provided by radiation oncologist observers from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology public dataset were utilized for this study. Segmentations were derived from five separate disease sites comprised of one patient case each: breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), and gastrointestinal (GI). Segmentation quality was determined on a structure-by-structure basis by comparing the observer segmentations with an expert-derived consensus gold standard primarily using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC); surface DSC was investigated as a secondary metric. Metrics were stratified into binary groups based on previously established structure-specific expert-derived interobserver variability (IOV) cutoffs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models using Markov chain Monte Carlo Bayesian estimation were used to investigate the association between demographic variables and the binarized segmentation quality for each disease site separately. Variables with a highest density interval excluding zero - loosely analogous to frequentist significance - were considered to substantially impact the outcome measure. RESULTS: After filtering by practicing radiation oncologists, 574, 110, 452, 112, and 48 structure observations remained for the breast, sarcoma, H&N, GYN, and GI cases, respectively. The median percentage of observations that crossed the expert DSC IOV cutoff when stratified by structure type was 55% and 31% for OARs and tumor volumes, respectively. Bayesian regression analysis revealed tumor category had a substantial negative impact on binarized DSC for the breast (coefficient mean ± standard deviation: -0.97 ± 0.20), sarcoma (-1.04 ± 0.54), H&N (-1.00 ± 0.24), and GI (-2.95 ± 0.98) cases. There were no clear recurring relationships between segmentation quality and demographic variables across the cases, with most variables demonstrating large standard deviations and wide highest density intervals. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights substantial uncertainty surrounding conventionally presumed factors influencing segmentation quality. Future studies should investigate additional demographic variables, more patients and imaging modalities, and alternative metrics of segmentation acceptability.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials: From an Endpoint to an Intervention in Cancer Care.

Underreporting of patient symptoms by clinicians is a common and well-documented phenomenon that has led to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as endpoints into clinical trials. While PROs are often used to measure disease symptoms, cancer therapy toxicities, and quality of life, they can also assess patients' general experiences and preferences. With the increasing use of electronic medical records and the digital health revolution in oncology, conversion from paper to electronic PROs (ePROs) has also facilitated the integration of PROs into routine care. Evidence from clinical trials is rapidly emerging to support ePROs as a care delivery innovation, given the potential for ePROs to improve patient outcomes through timely evaluation and response to patient needs. Meanwhile, work is ongoing to understand and address ePRO use and challenges to equitable integration, including technical and language barriers for patients, clinicians, and health systems. Nonetheless, the health system and regulatory bodies continue to develop stipulations to promote the use of ePROs. Herein, we review the evolution of PROs from an endpoint to an intervention in prospective clinical trials in oncology.

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.

Regional nodal irradiation for breast cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy: Echocardiographic functional outcomes.

Introduction: Regional nodal irradiation (RNI) for breast cancer yields improvements in disease outcomes, yet comprehensive target coverage often increases cardiac radiation (RT) dose. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) may mitigate high-dose cardiac exposure, although often increases the volume of low-dose exposure. The cardiac implications of this dosimetric configuration (in contrast to historic 3D conformal techniques) remains uncertain. Methods: Eligible patients receiving adjuvant RNI using VMAT for locoregional breast cancer were prospectively enrolled on an IRB-approved study. Echocardiograms were performed prior to RT, at the conclusion of RT, and 6-months following RT. Echocardiographic parameters were measured by a single reader (AY) and measures were compared pre- and post-RT via the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Changes in echocardiographic parameters over time were compared to mean and max heart doses via the Spearman correlation test. Results: Among 19 evaluable patients (median age 38), 89% (n=17) received doxorubicin and 37% (n=7) received trastuzumab/pertuzumab combination therapy. All patients received VMAT-based whole-breast/chest-wall and regional nodal irradiation. Average mean heart dose was 456cGy (range 187-697cGy) and average max heart dose was 3001cGy (1560-4793cGy). Among salient echocardiographic parameters, no significant decrement in cardiac function was observed when comparing pre-RT to 6-months post-RT: mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 61.8 (SD 4.4) pre-RT and 62.7 (SD 3.8) 6-months post-RT (p=0.493); mean global longitudinal strain (GLS) was -19.3 (SD 2.2) pre-RT and -19.6 (SD 1.8) 6-months post-RT (p=0.627). No individual patient exhibited reduced LVEF or sustained decrement in GLS. No correlations were observed for changes in LVEF or GLS when compared to mean or maximum heart doses (p>0.1 for all). Conclusions: VMAT for left-sided RNI yielded no significant early decrement in echocardiographic parameters of cardiac function, including LVEF and GLS. No patient exhibited significant LVEF changes, and none exhibited sustained decrements in GLS. VMAT may be a reasonable approach to cardiac avoidance in patients requiring RNI, including those receiving anthracyclines and HER2-directed therapy. Larger cohorts with longer follow-up will be needed to validate these findings.

A Worksheet to Facilitate Discussions of Values for Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Pilot Study.

CONTEXT: Individual goals and values should drive medical decision making for patients with serious illness. Unfortunately, clinicians' existing strategies to encourage reflection and communication regarding patients' personal values are generally time-consuming and limited in scope. OBJECTIVES: Herein, we develop a novel intervention to facilitate at-home reflection and discussion about goals and values. We then conduct a pilot study of our intervention in a small population of patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS: We first engaged former cancer patients and their families to adapt an existing serious illness communication guide to a worksheet format. We then distributed this adapted "Values Worksheet" to 28 patients with metastatic cancer. We surveyed participants about their perceptions of the Worksheet to assess its feasibility. RESULTS: Of 30 patients approached, 28 agreed to participate. Seventeen participants completed the Values Worksheet, and of those 11 (65%) responded to the follow-up survey. Seven of eleven reported that the Values Worksheet was a good use of time, and nine of eleven would be likely to recommend it to other patients with cancer. Eight of ten reported mild distress, two of ten reported moderate to severe distress. CONCLUSION: The Values Worksheet was a feasible way to facilitate at-home discussions of goals and values for select patients with metastatic cancer. Further research should focus on identifying which patients are most likely to benefit from the Values Worksheet, and should employ the Worksheet as one tool to facilitate reflection on the questions that arise around serious illness, as an adjunct to serious illness conversations with a physician.

Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation: Association of Dosimetric Parameters With Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Purpose: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) after breast-conserving surgery offers a well-tolerated adjuvant radiation therapy option for patients with breast cancer. We sought to describe patient-reported acute toxicity as a function of salient dosimetric parameters during and after an APBI regimen of 40 Gy in 10 once-daily fractions. Methods and Materials: From June 2019 to July 2020, patients undergoing APBI were assigned a weekly, response-adapted, patient reported outcomes-common terminology criteria for adverse events-based acute toxicity assessment. Patients reported acute toxicity during treatment and for up to 8 weeks after treatment. Dosimetric treatment parameters were collected. Descriptive statistics and univariable analyses were used to summarize patient-reported outcomes and their correlation to corresponding dosimetric measures, respectively. Results: Overall, 55 patients who received APBI completed a total of 351 assessments. Median planning target volume was 210 cc (range, 64-580 cc), and median planning target volume:ipsilateral breast volume ratio was 0.17 (range, 0.05-0.44). Overall, 22% of patients reported moderate breast enlargement and 27% reported maximum skin toxicity as severe or very severe. Furthermore, 35% of patients reported fatigue, and 44% of patients reported pain in the radiated area as moderate to very severe. Median time to first report of any moderate to very severe symptom was 10 days (interquartile range, 6-27 days). By 8 weeks after APBI, most patients reported resolution of symptoms, with 16% reporting residual moderate symptoms. Upon univariable analysis, none of the ascertained salient dosimetric parameters were associated with maximum symptoms or with the presence of moderate to very severe toxicity. Conclusions: Weekly assessments during and after APBI showed that patients experienced moderate to very severe toxicities, most commonly skin toxicity, but that these typically resolved by 8 weeks after radiation therapy. More comprehensive evaluations among larger cohorts are warranted to define the precise dosimetric parameters that correspond to outcomes of interest.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between Radiation Therapy Treatment Volume and Patient Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Evidence of a volume-outcome association in cancer surgery has shaped the centralization of cancer services; however, it is unknown whether a similar association exists for radiation therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that compared outcomes of patients who underwent definitive radiation therapy at high-volume radiation therapy facilities (HVRFs) versus low-volume facilities (LVRFs). The systematic review used Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. For the meta-analysis, a random effects model was used. Absolute effects and hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare patient outcomes. RESULTS: The search identified 20 studies assessing the association between radiation therapy volume and patient outcomes. Seven of the studies looked at head and neck cancers (HNCs). The remaining studies covered cervical (4), prostate (4), bladder (3), lung (2), anal (2), esophageal (1), brain (2), liver (1), and pancreatic cancer (1). The meta-analysis demonstrated that HVRFs were associated with a lower chance of death compared with LVRFs (pooled HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87- 0.94). HNCs had the strongest evidence of a volume-outcome association for both nasopharyngeal cancer (pooled HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89) and nonnasopharyngeal HNC subsites (pooled HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.84), followed by prostate cancer (pooled HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The remaining cancer types showed weak evidence of an association. The results also demonstrate that some centers defined as HVRFs are undertaking very few procedures per annum (<5 radiation therapy cases per year). CONCLUSIONS: An association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes exists for most cancer types. Centralization of radiation therapy services should be considered for cancer types with the strongest volume-outcome association, but the effect on equitable access to services needs to be explicitly considered.

Locoregional Control Benefit of a Tumor Bed Boost for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Purpose: Radiation therapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) reduces invasive and in situ recurrences. Whereas landmark studies suggest that a tumor bed boost improves local control for invasive breast cancer, the benefit in DCIS remains less certain. We evaluated outcomes of patients with DCIS treated with or without a boost. Methods and Materials: The study cohort comprised patients with DCIS who underwent BCS at our institution from 2004 to 2018. Clinicopathologic features, treatment parameters, and outcomes were ascertained from medical records. Patient and tumor characteristics were evaluated relative to outcomes using univariable and multivariable Cox models. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) estimates were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: We identified 1675 patients who underwent BCS for DCIS (median age, 56 years; interquartile range, 49-64 years). Boost RT was used in 1146 cases (68%) and hormone therapy in 536 (32%). At a median follow-up of 4.2 years (interquartile range, 1.4-7.0 years), we observed 61 locoregional recurrence events (56 local, 5 regional) and 21 deaths. Univariable logistic regression demonstrated that boost RT was more common among younger patients (P < .001) with positive or close margins (P < .001) and with larger tumors (P < .001) of higher grade (P = .025). The 10-year RFS rate was 88.8% among those receiving a boost and 84.3% among those without a boost (P = .3), and neither univariable nor multivariable analyses revealed an association between boost RT and locoregional recurrence. Conclusions: Among patients with DCIS who underwent BCS, use of a tumor bed boost was not associated with locoregional recurrence or RFS. Despite a preponderance of adverse features among the boost cohort, outcomes were similar to those of patients not receiving a boost, suggesting that a boost may mitigate risk of recurrence among patients with high-risk features. Ongoing studies will elucidate the extent to which a tumor bed boost influences disease control rates.

Accuracy and Efficiency of Patient Setup Using Surface Imaging versus Skin Tattoos for Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation.

Purpose: Skin tattoos represent the standard approach for surface alignment and setup of breast cancer radiation therapy, yet permanent skin markings contribute to adverse cosmesis and patient dissatisfaction. With the advent of contemporary surface-imaging technology, we evaluated setup accuracy and timing between "tattoo-less" and traditional tattoo-based setup techniques. Methods and Materials: Patients receiving accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) underwent traditional tattoo-based setup (TTB), alternating daily with a tattoo-less setup via surface imaging using AlignRT (ART). Following initial setup, position was verified via daily kV imaging, with matching on surgical clips representing ground truth. Translational shifts (TS) and rotational shifts (RS) were ascertained, as were setup time and total in-room time. Statistical analyses used the Wilcoxon signed rank test and Pitman-Morgan variance test. Results: A total of 43 patients receiving APBI and 356 treatment fractions were analyzed (174 TTB fractions and 182 using ART). For tattoo-less setup via ART, the median absolute TS were 0.31 cm in the vertical (range, 0.08-0.82), 0.23 cm in the lateral (0.05-0.86), and 0.26 cm in the longitudinal (0.02-0.72) axes. For TTB setup, the corresponding median TS were 0.34 cm (0.05-1.98), 0.31 cm (0.09-1.84), and 0.34 cm (0.08-1.25), respectively. The median magnitude shifts were 0.59 (0.30-1.31) for ART and 0.80 (0.27-2.13) for TTB. ART was not statistically distinguishable from TTB in terms of TS, except in the longitudinal direction (P = .154, .059, and .021, respectively), and was superior to TTB for magnitude shift (P < .001). The variance of each TS variable was significantly narrower for ART compared with TTB (P ≤ .001 vertical, P = .001 lateral, P = .005 longitudinal). The median absolute RS for ART was 0.64° rotation (range, 0.00-1.90), 0.65° roll (0.05-2.90), and 0.30° pitch (0.00-1.50). The corresponding median RS for TTB were 0.80° (0.00-2.50), 0.64° (0.00-3.00), and 0.46° (0.00-2.90), respectively. ART setup was not statistically different from TTB in terms of RS (P = .868, .236, and .079, respectively). ART showed lower variance than TTB in terms of pitch (P = .009). The median total in-room time was shorter for ART than TTB (15.42 vs 17.25 minutes; P = .008), as was the median setup time (11.12 vs 13.00 minutes; P = .001). Moreover, ART had a narrower distribution of setup time with fewer lengthy outliers versus TTB. Conclusions: These findings suggest that a tattoo-less setup approach with AlignRT may be sufficiently accurate and expeditious to supplant surface tattoos for patients receiving APBI. Further analyses with larger cohorts will determine whether tattoo-based approaches can be replaced by noninvasive surface imaging.

Large scale crowdsourced radiotherapy segmentations across a variety of cancer anatomic sites.

Clinician generated segmentation of tumor and healthy tissue regions of interest (ROIs) on medical images is crucial for radiotherapy. However, interobserver segmentation variability has long been considered a significant detriment to the implementation of high-quality and consistent radiotherapy dose delivery. This has prompted the increasing development of automated segmentation approaches. However, extant segmentation datasets typically only provide segmentations generated by a limited number of annotators with varying, and often unspecified, levels of expertise. In this data descriptor, numerous clinician annotators manually generated segmentations for ROIs on computed tomography images across a variety of cancer sites (breast, sarcoma, head and neck, gynecologic, gastrointestinal; one patient per cancer site) for the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology challenge. In total, over 200 annotators (experts and non-experts) contributed using a standardized annotation platform (ProKnow). Subsequently, we converted Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine data into Neuroimaging Informatics Technology Initiative format with standardized nomenclature for ease of use. In addition, we generated consensus segmentations for experts and non-experts using the Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation method. These standardized, structured, and easily accessible data are a valuable resource for systematically studying variability in segmentation applications.

E pluribus unum: prospective acceptability benchmarking from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology crowdsourced initiative for multiobserver segmentation.

Purpose: Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology (C3RO) is a crowdsourced challenge engaging radiation oncologists across various expertise levels in segmentation. An obstacle to artificial intelligence (AI) development is the paucity of multiexpert datasets; consequently, we sought to characterize whether aggregate segmentations generated from multiple nonexperts could meet or exceed recognized expert agreement. Approach: Participants who contoured ≥ 1 region of interest (ROI) for the breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), or gastrointestinal (GI) cases were identified as a nonexpert or recognized expert. Cohort-specific ROIs were combined into single simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) consensus segmentations. STAPLE nonexpert ROIs were evaluated against STAPLE expert contours using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). The expert interobserver DSC ( IODSC expert ) was calculated as an acceptability threshold between STAPLE nonexpert and STAPLE expert . To determine the number of nonexperts required to match the IODSC expert for each ROI, a single consensus contour was generated using variable numbers of nonexperts and then compared to the IODSC expert . Results: For all cases, the DSC values for STAPLE nonexpert versus STAPLE expert were higher than comparator expert IODSC expert for most ROIs. The minimum number of nonexpert segmentations needed for a consensus ROI to achieve IODSC expert acceptability criteria ranged between 2 and 4 for breast, 3 and 5 for sarcoma, 3 and 5 for H&N, 3 and 5 for GYN, and 3 for GI. Conclusions: Multiple nonexpert-generated consensus ROIs met or exceeded expert-derived acceptability thresholds. Five nonexperts could potentially generate consensus segmentations for most ROIs with performance approximating experts, suggesting nonexpert segmentations as feasible cost-effective AI inputs.