Assessment of Lymphoma and Other Hematologic Malignancies Training Needs Among Radiation Oncology Residents: a Brief Report.

The role of radiation therapy (RT) varies across hematologic malignancies (HM). Radiation oncology (RO) resident comfort with specific aspects of HM patient management is unknown. The International Lymphoma RO Group (ILROG) assessed resident HM training opportunities and interest in an HM away elective. RO residents (PGY2-5) in the Association of Residents in RO (ARRO) database (n = 572) were emailed an anonymous, web-based survey in January 2019 including binary, Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely, reported as median [interquartile range]), and multiple-choice questions. Of 134 resident respondents (23%), 86 (64%) were PGY4/5 residents and 36 (27%) were in larger programs (≥ 13 residents). Residents reported having specialized HM faculty (112, 84%) and a dedicated HM rotation (95, 71%). Residents reported "moderate" preparedness to advocate for RT in multidisciplinary conferences (3 [2-3]); make HM-related clinical decisions (3 [2-4]); and critique treatment planning (3 [2-4]). They reported feeling "moderately" to "quite" prepared to contour HM cases (3.5 [3-4]) and "quite" prepared to utilize the PET-CT five-point scale (4 [3-5]). Overall, residents reported feeling "moderately" prepared to treat HM patients (3 [2-3]); 24 residents (23%) felt "quite" or "extremely" prepared. Sixty-six residents (49%) were potentially interested in an HM away elective, commonly to increase comfort with treating HM patients (65%). Therefore, HM training is an important component of RO residency, yet a minority of surveyed trainees felt quite or extremely well prepared to treat HM patients. Programs should explore alternative and additional educational opportunities to increase resident comfort with treating HM patients.

Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Existing pencil beam analytical (PBA) algorithms for proton therapy treatment planning are not ideal for sites with heterogeneous tissue density and do not account for the spatial variations in proton relative biological effectiveness (vRBE). Using a commercially available Monte Carlo (MC) treatment planning system, we compared various dosimetric endpoints between proton PBA, proton MC, and photon treatment plans among patients with mediastinal lymphoma. METHODS: Eight mediastinal lymphoma patients with both free breathing (FB) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) CT simulation scans were analyzed. The original PBA plans were re-calculated with MC. New proton plans that used MC for both optimization and dose calculation with equivalent CTV/ITV coverage were also created. A vRBE model, which uses a published model for DNA double strand break (DSB) induction, was applied on MC plans to study the potential impact of vRBE on cardiac doses. Comparative photon plans were generated on the DIBH scan. RESULTS: Re-calculation of FB PBA plans with MC demonstrated significant under coverage of the ITV V99 and V95. Target coverage was recovered by re-optimizing the PT plan with MC with minimal change to OAR doses. Compared to photons with DIBH, MC-optimized FB and DIBH proton plans had significantly lower dose to the mean lung, lung V5, breast tissue, and spinal cord for similar target coverage. Even with application of vRBE in the proton plans, the putative increase in RBE at the end of range did not decrease the dosimetric advantages of proton therapy in cardiac substructures. CONCLUSIONS: MC should be used for PT treatment planning of mediastinal lymphoma to ensure adequate coverage of target volumes. Our preliminary data suggests that MC-optimized PT plans have better sparing of the lung and breast tissue compared to photons. Also, the potential for end of range RBE effects are unlikely to be large enough to offset the dosimetric advantages of proton therapy in cardiac substructures for mediastinal targets, although these dosimetric findings require validation with late toxicity data.

Nurse and physician barriers to spiritual care provision at the end of life.

CONTEXT: Spiritual care (SC) from medical practitioners is infrequent at the end of life (EOL) despite national standards. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to describe nurses' and physicians' desire to provide SC to terminally ill patients and assess 11 potential SC barriers. METHODS: This was a survey-based, multisite study conducted from October 2008 through January 2009. All eligible oncology nurses and physicians at four Boston academic centers were approached for study participation; 339 nurses and physicians participated (response rate=63%). RESULTS: Most nurses and physicians desire to provide SC within the setting of terminal illness (74% vs. 60%, respectively; P=0.002); however, 40% of nurses/physicians provide SC less often than they desire. The most highly endorsed barriers were "lack of private space" for nurses and "lack of time" for physicians, but neither was associated with actual SC provision. Barriers that predicted less frequent SC for all medical professionals included inadequate training (nurses: odds ratio [OR]=0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.12-0.73, P=0.01; physicians: OR=0.49, 95% CI=0.25-0.95, P=0.04), "not my professional role" (nurses: OR=0.21, 95% CI=0.07-0.61, P=0.004; physicians: OR=0.35, 95% CI=0.17-0.72, P=0.004), and "power inequity with patient" (nurses: OR=0.33, 95% CI=0.12-0.87, P=0.03; physicians: OR=0.41, 95% CI=0.21-0.78, P=0.007). A minority of nurses and physicians (21% and 49%, P=0.003, respectively) did not desire SC training. Those less likely to desire SC training reported lower self-ratings of spirituality (nurses: OR=5.00, 95% CI=1.82-12.50, P=0.002; physicians: OR=3.33, 95% CI=1.82-5.88, P<0.001) and male gender (physicians: OR=3.03, 95% CI=1.67-5.56, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: SC training is suggested to be critical to the provision of SC in accordance with national care quality standards.