RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Patients' understanding of radiation therapy (RT) and data regarding optimal approaches to patient education (PE) within radiation oncology (RO) are limited. We aimed to evaluate PE practices of radiation oncologists and interprofessional RT care team members to inform recommendations for delivering inclusive and accessible PE. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous survey was administered to all Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members (10/5/22-11/23/22). Respondent demographics, individual practices/preferences, and institutional practices were collected. Qualitative items explored strategies, challenges, and desired resources for PE. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. The Fisher exact test compared PE practices by respondent role and PE timing. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members completed the survey (28.2% response rate); RO attendings comprised 68.1% of respondents. Most practiced in an academic setting (85.8%) in North America (80.5%). Institution-specific materials were the most common PE resource used by radiation oncologists (67.6%). Almost half (40.2%) reported that their PE practices differed based on clinical encounter type, with paper handouts commonly used for in-person and multimedia for telehealth visits. Only 57.7% reported access to non-English PE materials. PE practices among radiation oncologists differed according to RT clinical workflow timing (consultation versus simulation versus first RT, respectively): one-on-one teaching: 88.5% versus 49.4% versus 56.3%, P < .01, and paper handouts: 69.0% versus 28.7% versus 16.1%, P < .01. Identified challenges for PE delivery included limited time, administrative barriers to the development or implementation of new materials or practices, and a lack of customized resources for tailored PE. Effective strategies for PE included utilization of visual diagrams, multimedia, and innovative education techniques to personalize PE delivery/resources for a diverse patient population, as well as fostering interprofessional collaboration to reinforce educational content. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncologists and interprofessional RO team members engage in PE, with most using institution-specific materials often available only in English. PE practices differ according to clinical encounter type and RT workflow timing. Increased adoption of multimedia materials and partnerships with patients to tailor PE resources are needed to foster high-quality, patient-centered PE delivery.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is standard of care for locally advanced breast cancer. There is wide variation in radiation therapy (RT) practice and limited data describing locoregional relapse (LRR) after NAC. We hypothesized a low LRR risk with modern NAC, surgery, and RT and aimed to elucidate patterns of LRR and predictors of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from 416 patients with stage II/III breast cancer treated between 2008 and 2015 with NAC, surgery, and adjuvant RT were reviewed retrospectively. DFS and OS rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The LRR rate was estimated using the cumulative incidence function, treating death as a competing risk. Multivariable survival analysis was performed using Cox regression. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 4.7 years. Most patients had cT2/3 (74%) cN1 (61%) disease and underwent mastectomy (75%) and axillary dissection (84%). Pathologic complete response (pCR) was achieved in 22% of patients. There were 27 LRRs (including 4 isolated LRRs) and 89 distant failures. Two patients developed LRR 2 months after surgery, before adjuvant RT. LRR could be mapped in 23 patients: most (20) recurred within the RT field; 1 in- and out-of-field; and 2 out-of-field. Five-year LRR, DFS, and OS were 6.4%, 77%, and 90%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, triple-negative subtype (hazard ratio [HR] 2.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-4.47; P < .001), stage III disease (HR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.11-2.69; P = .016), and non-pCR (HR 4.76; 95% CI 2.13-10.0; P < .001) were associated with poor DFS and OS (HR 4.13 [95% CI, 2.21-7.72; P < .001]; HR 1.94 [95% CI, 1.001-3.75; P = .049]; and HR 2.38 [95% CI, 0.98-5.88; P = .055], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer treated with modern NAC, surgery, and RT have a low 5-year LRR risk, with the majority occurring in-field. Triple-negative subtype, stage III disease, and non-pCR were associated with inferior DFS and OS.