Surface imaging-based analysis of intrafraction motion for breast radiotherapy patients.

Breast treatments are becoming increasingly complex as the use of modulated and partial breast therapies becomes more prevalent. These methods are predicated on accurate and precise positioning for treatment. However, the ability to quantify intrafraction motion has been limited by the excessive dose that would result from continuous X-ray imaging throughout treatment. Recently, surface imaging has offered the opportunity to obtain 3D measurements of patient position throughout breast treatments without radiation exposure. Thirty free-breathing breast patients were monitored with surface imaging for 831 monitoring sessions. Mean translations and rotations were calculated over each minute, each session, and over all sessions combined. The percentage of each session that the root mean squares (RMS) of the linear translations were outside of defined tolerances was determined for each patient. Correlations between mean translations per minute and time, and between standard deviation per minute and time, were evaluated using Pearson's r value. The mean RMS translation averaged over all patients was 2.39 mm ± 1.88 mm. The patients spent an average of 34%, 17%, 9%, and 5% of the monitoring time outside of 2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm RMS tolerances, respectively. The RMS values averaged over all patients were 2.71 mm ± 1.83 mm, 2.76 ± 2.27, and 2.98 mm ± 2.30 mm over the 5th, 10th, and 15th minutes of monitoring, respectively. The RMS values (r = 0.73, p = 0) and standard deviations (r = 0.88, p = 0) over all patients showed strong significant correlations with time. We see that the majority of patients' treatment time is spent within 5 mm of the isocenter and that patient position drifts with increasing treatment time. Treatment length should be consid- ered in the planning process. An 8 mm margin on a target volume would account for 2 SDs of motion for a treatment up to 15 minutes in length. 

A qualitative study of stakeholders' experiences with and acceptability of a technology-supported health coaching intervention (SHARE-S) delivered in coordination with cancer survivorship care.

PURPOSE: Healthy cancer survivorship involves patients' active engagement with preventative health behaviors and follow-up care. While clinicians and patients have typically held dual responsibility for activating these behaviors, transitioning some clinician effort to technology and health coaches may enhance guideline implementation. This paper reports on the acceptability of the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic systems in survivorship (SHARE-S) program, an entirely virtual multicomponent intervention incorporating e-referrals, remotely-delivered health coaching, and automated text messages to enhance patient self-management and promote healthy survivorship. METHODS: SHARE-S was evaluated in single group hybrid implementation-effectiveness pilot study. Patients were e-referred from the clinical team to health coaches for three health self-management coaching calls and received text messages to enhance coaching. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patient participants, 2 referring clinicians, and 2 health coaches to determine intervention acceptability (attitudes, appropriateness, suitability, convenience, and perceived effectiveness) and to identify important elements of the program and potential mechanisms of action to guide future implementation. RESULTS: SHARE-S was described as impactful and convenient. The nondirective, patient-centered health coaching and mindfulness exercises were deemed most acceptable; text messages were less acceptable. Stakeholders suggested increased flexibility in format, frequency, timing, and length of participation, and additional tailored educational materials. Patients reported tangible health behavior changes, improved mood, and increased accountability and self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: SHARE-S is overall an acceptable and potentially effective intervention that may enhance survivors' self-management and well-being. Alterations to tailored content, timing, and dose should be tested to determine impact on acceptability and outcomes.

Adaptation of a Personalized Electronic Care Planning Tool for Cancer Follow-up Care: Formative Study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer will survive for at least 5 years; thus, engaging patients to optimize their health will likely improve outcomes. Clinical guidelines recommend patients receive a comprehensive care plan (CP) when transitioning from active treatment to survivorship, which includes support for ongoing symptoms and recommended healthy behaviors. Yet, cancer care providers find this guideline difficult to implement. Future directions for survivorship care planning include enhancing information technology support for developing personalized CPs, using CPs to facilitate self-management, and assessing CPs in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop an electronic tool for colorectal cancer follow-up care (CFC) planning. METHODS: Incorporating inputs from health care professionals and patient stakeholders is fundamental to the successful integration of any tool into the clinical workflow. Thus, we followed the Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share (IDEAS) framework to adapt an existing application for stroke care planning (COMPASS-CP) to meet the needs of colorectal cancer survivors (COMPASS-CP CFC). Constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided our approach. We completed this work in 3 phases: (1) gathering qualitative feedback from stakeholders about the follow-up CP generation design and workflow; (2) adapting algorithms and resource data sources needed to generate a follow-up CP; and (3) optimizing the usability of the adapted prototype of COMPASS-CP CFC. We also quantitatively measured usability (target average score ≥70; range 0-100), acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. RESULTS: In the first phase, health care professionals (n=7), and patients and caregivers (n=7) provided qualitative feedback on COMPASS-CP CFC that informed design elements such as selection, interpretation, and clinical usefulness of patient-reported measures. In phase 2, we built a minimal viable product of COMPASS-CP CFC. This tool generated CPs based on the needs identified by patient-completed measures (including validated patient-reported outcomes) and electronic health record data, which were then matched with resources by zip code and preference to support patients' self-management. Elements of the CFIR assessed revealed that most health care professionals believed the tool would serve patients' needs and had advantages. In phase 3, the average System Usability Scale score was above our target score for health care professionals (n=5; mean 71.0, SD 15.2) and patients (n=5; mean 95.5, SD 2.1). Participants also reported high levels of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Additional CFIR-informed feedback, such as desired format for training, will inform future studies. CONCLUSIONS: The data collected in this study support the initial usability of COMPASS-CP CFC and will inform the next steps for implementation in clinical care. COMPASS-CP CFC has the potential to streamline the implementation of personalized CFC planning to enable systematic access to resources that will support self-management. Future research is needed to test the impact of COMPASS-CP CFC on patient health outcomes.

Pilot study of implementing the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic systems in Survivorship (SHARE-S) program in coordination with clinical care.

INTRODUCTION: Initial cancer survivorship care planning efforts focused on information sharing demonstrated limited impact on patient health outcomes. We designed the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic Systems in survivorship (SHARE-S) program to enhance survivorship guideline implementation by transitioning some effort from clinicians to technology and patients through supporting health self-management (e.g., healthy lifestyles). METHODS: We conducted a single-group hybrid implementation-effectiveness pilot study. SHARE-S incorporated three strategies: (1) e-referral from the clinical team for patient engagement, (2) three health self-management coach calls, and (3) text messages to enhance coaching. Our primary implementation measure was the proportion of patients e-referred who enrolled (target >30%). Secondary implementation measures assessed patient engagement. We also measured effectiveness by describing changes in patient health outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 118 cancer survivor patients e-referred, 40 engaged in SHARE-S (proportion enrolled = 34%). Participants had a mean age of 57.4 years (SD = 15.7), 73% were female, 23% were Black/African American, and 5 (12.5%) were from a rural location. Patient-level adherence to coach calls was >90%. Changes from baseline to follow-up showed at least a small effect (Cohen's d = 0.2) for improvements in: mindful attention, alcohol use, physical activity, fruit and vegetable intake, days of mindfulness practice, depressive symptoms, ability to participate in social roles and activities, cancer-specific quality of life, benefits of having cancer, and positive feelings. CONCLUSION: The SHARE-S program successfully engaged cancer survivor patients. Once enrolled, patients showed promising improvements in health outcomes. Supporting patient self-management is an important component of optimizing delivery of cancer survivorship care.

Bridging the Communication Gaps: A Prospective Single-Arm Pilot Study Testing the Feasibility of Interdisciplinary Radiotherapy Planning in Locally Advanced Lung Cancer.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The treatment of locally advanced lung cancer (LALC) with radiotherapy (RT) can be challenging. Multidisciplinary collaboration between radiologists and radiation oncologists (ROs) may optimize RT planning, reduce uncertainty in follow-up imaging interpretation, and improve outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective clinical treatment trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04844736), 37 patients receiving definitive RT for LALC, six attending ROs, and three thoracic radiologists were consented and enrolled across four treatment centers. Prior to RT plan finalization, representative computed tomography (CT) slices with overlaid outlines of preliminary irradiation targets were shared with the team of radiologists. The primary endpoint was to assess feasibility of receiving feedback no later than 4 business days of RT simulation on at least 50% of plans. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with lung cancer were enrolled, and 35 of 37 RT plans were reviewed. Of the 35 patients reviewed, mean age was 69 years. For 27 of 37 plans (73%), feedback was received within 4 or fewer days (interquartile range 3-4 days). Thirteen of 35 cases (37%) received feedback that the delineated target potentially did not include all sites suspicious for tumor involvement. In total, changes to the RT plan were recommended for over- or undercoverage in 16 of 35 cases (46%) and implemented in all cases. Radiology review resulted in no treatment delays and substantial changes to irradiated volumes: gross tumor volume, -1.9 to +96.1%; planning target volume, -37.5 to +116.5%. CONCLUSION: Interdisciplinary collaborative RT planning using a simplified workflow was feasible, produced no treatment delays, and prompted substantial changes in RT targets.

Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group.

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Very few comparative studies to date evaluate the results of treatment options for prostate cancer using the most sensitive measurement tools. PSA has been identified as the most sensitive tool for measuring treatment effectiveness. To date, comprehensive unbiased reviews of all the current literature are limited for prostate cancer. This is the first large scale comprehensive review of the literature comparing risk stratified patients by treatment option and with long-term follow-up. The results of the studies are weighted, respecting the impact of larger studies on overall results. The study identified a lack of uniformity in reporting results amongst institutions and centres. A large number of studies have been conducted on the primary therapy of prostate cancer but very few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. The comparison of outcomes from individual studies involving surgery (radical prostatectomy or robotic radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation (EBRT) (conformal, intensity modulated radiotherapy, protons), brachytherapy, cryotherapy or high intensity focused ultrasound remains problematic due to the non-uniformity of reporting results and the use of varied disease outcome endpoints. Technical advances in these treatments have also made long-term comparisons difficult. The Prostate Cancer Results Study Group was formed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments. This international group conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify all studies involving treatment of localized prostate cancer published during 2000-2010. Over 18,000 papers were identified and a further selection was made based on the following key criteria: minimum/median follow-up of 5 years; stratification into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups; clinical and pathological staging; accepted standard definitions for prostate-specific antigen failure; minimum patient number of 100 in each risk group (50 for high-risk group). A statistical analysis (standard deviational ellipse) of the study outcomes suggested that, in terms of biochemical-free progression, brachytherapy provides superior outcome in patients with low-risk disease. For intermediate-risk disease, the combination of EBRT and brachytherapy appears equivalent to brachytherapy alone. For high-risk patients, combination therapies involving EBRT and brachytherapy plus or minus androgen deprivation therapy appear superior to more localized treatments such as seed implant alone, surgery alone or EBRT. It is anticipated that the study will assist physicians and patients in selecting treatment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Recurrence after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ.

Mastectomy has long been a standard option for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). It is preferentially chosen by some women and may be suggested for individuals with recurrent, multifocal, or multicentric disease. We chose to evaluate our recent experience with mastectomy for DCIS. A retrospective review was conducted of 83 patients (87 breasts) from 1995 to 2006 who underwent mastectomy for DCIS. Mastectomy for DCIS was performed in 49 postmenopausal, 33 premenopausal, and one male patient. The average age was 53 years and the mean follow up was 4.5 years. Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy was performed on 44 cases; positive nodes were identified in two. Intraoperative analyses of SLN were all negative. Only one patient had ipsilateral recurrence of the skin (1.1%). DCIS with microinvasion was noted in 32 per cent of the patients; none of these patients had ipsilateral recurrence. Three patients had positive microscopic margins; none have recurred to date. These results confirm the usefulness of mastectomy for patients with DCIS. We recommend SLN biopsy without intraoperative touch prep analysis. Additional treatment may not be required in patients with microinvasion, positive or close margins because our series shows no local recurrence in these patients.

Long-term results of local excision with and without chemoradiation for adenocarcinoma of the rectum.

The role of local excision for rectal carcinoma remains controversial. We reviewed 285 patients undergoing curative resection for rectal cancer between 1984 and 2001. Surgical procedures were local excision (LE; n = 49), abdominoperineal resection (APR; n = 124), and low anterior resection (LAR; n = 112). Median follow-up for all patients was 6.2 years. For patients undergoing local excision, postoperative tumor stages were Tis (22%), T1 (41%), T2 (18%), and T3 (18%). Twelve patients received postoperative radiation >/= 45 Gy, and 4 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Of the 49 patients who underwent LE, the 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were 76% and 42%, respectively. The 5- and 10-year disease-free survival rates were 69% and 58%, respectively. The incidence of local recurrence was 16% and the incidence of distant recurrence was 6%. For the 11 patients who experienced disease recurrence, the median time to recurrence was 13 months (range, 1-59 months). Of the 8 patients who developed local recurrence, 4 refused salvage treatment, 2 underwent salvage APR, and 2 underwent repeat excision. Of the 4 who underwent salvage surgery, one is alive with no evidence of disease, one developed distant disease, and 2 died with unknown disease status. Adjuvant therapy did not affect survival or recurrence rates in patients undergoing LE compared with other surgeries. The rate of local failure (16%) is comparable to that observed in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 8984 prospective study and suggests that highly selected patients undergoing local excision can expect good local control of rectal cancer.

How Important Is a Reproducible Breath Hold for Deep Inspiration Breath Hold Breast Radiation Therapy?

PURPOSE: Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) for left-sided breast cancer has been shown to reduce heart dose. Surface imaging helps to ensure accurate breast positioning, but it does not guarantee a reproducible breath hold (BH) at DIBH treatments. We examine the effects of variable BH positions for DIBH treatments. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-five patients who underwent free breathing (FB) and DIBH scans were reviewed. Four plans were created for each patient: FB, DIBH, FB_DIBH (the DIBH plans were copied to the FB images and recalculated, and image registration was based on breast tissue), and P_DIBH (a partial BH with the heart shifted midway between the FB and DIBH positions). The FB_DIBH plans give a "worst-case" scenario for surface imaging DIBH, where the breast is aligned by surface imaging but the patient is not holding their breath. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were used to compare the dose metrics. RESULTS: The DIBH plans gave lower heart dose and comparable breast coverage versus FB in all cases. The FB_DIBH plans showed no significant difference versus FB plans for breast coverage, mean heart dose, or maximum heart dose (P≥.10). The mean heart dose differed between FB_DIBH and FB by <2 Gy for all cases, and the maximum heart dose differed by <2 Gy for 21 cases. The P_DIBH plans showed significantly lower mean heart dose than FB (P<.01). The mean heart doses for the P_DIBH plans were

Clinical experience with radiation therapy in the management of neurofibromatosis-associated central nervous system tumors.

PURPOSE: Patients with neurofibromatosis (NF) develop tumors of the central nervous system (CNS). Radiation therapy (RT) is used to treat these lesions. To better define the efficacy of RT in these patients, we reviewed our 20-year experience. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen patients with NF with CNS tumors were treated from 1986 to 2007. Median follow-up was 48 months. Progression was defined as growth or recurrence of an irradiated tumor on serial imaging. Progression-free survival (PFS) was measured from the date of RT completion to the date of last follow-up imaging study. Actuarial rates of overall survival (OS) and PFS were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Eighty-two tumors in 18 patients were irradiated, with an average of five tumors/patient. Median age at treatment was 25 years (range, 4.3-64 years). Tumor types included acoustic neuroma (16%), ependymoma (6%), low-grade glioma (11%), meningioma (60%), and schwanomma/neurofibroma (7%). The most common indication for treatment was growth on serial imaging. Most patients (67%) received stereotactic radiosurgery (median dose, 1,200 cGy; range, 1,000-2,400 cGy). The OS rate at 5 years was 94%. Five-year PFS rates were 75% (acoustic neuroma), 100% (ependymoma), 75% (low-grade glioma), 86% (meningioma), and 100% (schwanomma/neurofibroma). Thirteen acoustic neuromas had a local control rate of 94% with a 50% hearing preservation rate. CONCLUSIONS: RT provided local control, OS, and PFS rates similar to or better than published data for tumors in non-NF patients. Radiation therapy should be considered in NF patients with imaging progression of CNS tumors.

Trends in the outcomes for patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer: An analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to examine the outcomes of patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) over time and to determine if any trends were present with respect to the publication of significant clinical trials. We assembled a cohort of 6271 patients aged 21 years and older with LS-SCLC diagnosed from 1983 to 1998 and followed through 2005. Potential covariates included patient age at diagnosis, sex, race, year of diagnosis, laterality, tumor size, and location (upper lobe, middle lobe, lower lobe, or main bronchus). In multivariate analysis, older age, male sex, African American race, and main bronchus location were all associated with a statistically significant increase in the mortality hazard. When compared to patients diagnosed in 1983-1987 who did not receive radiotherapy, the hazard for mortality was significantly reduced for patients diagnosed in 1988-1992 regardless of whether they received radiotherapy (HR=0.59; CI 0.52-0.65; p<0.0001) or not (HR=0.67; CI 0.60-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients who were diagnosed in 1993-1998 and received radiotherapy had similarly improved survival (HR=0.53; CI 0.47-0.58; p<0.0001), which was better than patients from the same time era who did not receive radiotherapy (HR=0.77; CI 0.69-0.85; p<0.0001). In conclusion, the survival for patients with LS-SCLC has improved over time. Many factors are likely involved, however we believe that part of this improvement was the result of clinical trials which investigated and subsequently defined chemoradiotherapy as the standard of care. In order to continue to improve clinical outcomes, clinical trials investigating new treatment paradigms are needed.