Evaluation of a National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines-Based Decision Support Tool in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The association of guideline-based decision support with the quality of care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known. Objective: To evaluate the association of exposure to the National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN) guidelines with guideline-concordant care and patients' decisional conflict. Design, Setting, and Participants: A nonrandomized clinical trial, conducted at a tertiary care academic institution, enrolled patients from February 23, 2015, to September 28, 2017. Data analysis was conducted from July 19, 2019, to April 22, 2020. A cohort of 76 patients with NSCLC seen at diagnosis or disease progression and a retrospective cohort of 157 patients treated before the trial were included. Adherence to 6 NCCN recommendations were evaluated: (1) smoking cessation counseling, (2) adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage IB to IIB NSCLC after surgery, (3) pathologic mediastinal staging in patients with stage III NSCLC before surgery, (4) pathologic mediastinal staging in patients with stage III NSCLC before nonsurgical treatment, (5) definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC not having surgery, and (6) molecular testing for epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations for patients with stage IV NSCLC. Subgroup analysis was conducted to compare the rates of guideline concordance between the prospective and retrospective cohorts. Secondary end points included decisional conflict and satisfaction. Interventions: An online tool customizing the NCCN guidelines to patients' clinical and pathologic features was used during consultation, facilitated by a trained coordinator. Main Outcomes and Measures: Concordance of practice with 6 NCCN treatment recommendations on NSCLC and patients' decisional conflict. Results: Of the 76 patients with NSCLC, 44 were men (57.9%), median age at diagnosis was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 41-87 years), and 59 patients (77.6%) had adenocarcinoma. In the retrospective cohort, 91 of 157 patients (58.0%) were men, median age at diagnosis was 66 years (IQR, 61-65 years), and 105 patients (66.9%) had adenocarcinoma. After the intervention, patients received more smoking cessation counseling (4 of 5 [80.0%] vs 1 of 24 [4.2%], P < .001) and less adjuvant chemotherapy (0 of 7 vs 7 of 11 [63.6%]; P = .012). There was no significant change in mutation testing of non-squamous cell stage IV disease (20 of 20 [100%] vs 48 of 57 [84.2%]; P = .10). There was no significant change in pathologic mediastinal staging or initial chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III disease. After consultation with the tool, decisional conflict scores improved by a median of 20 points (IQR, 3-34; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that exposure to the NCCN guidelines is associated with increased guideline-concordant care for 2 of 6 preselected recommendations and improvement in decisional conflict. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03982459.

Impact of Staging 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET Scans on Radiation Treatment Plansin Patients With Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of staging 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging on radiotherapy (RT) dose and volumes in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Forty-five patients (89% high or very high risk by NCCN criteria) who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging prior to definitive treatment for prostate cancer between December 2015 and December 2016 were included. Locations of 68Ga-PSMA-11-avid lesions were compared to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group consensus pelvic nodal volumes (clinical target volume [CTV]); coverage of lesions outside the consensus CTV was considered a major change, while dose-escalation to lesions within the consensus CTV was considered a minor change. RESULTS: All patients had 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET uptake in the prostate. Twenty-five patients (56%) had N1/M1a disease on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scan, of whom 21 (47%) were previously N0. Six patients (13%) had bone metastases on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scan, of whom 4 had prior negative bone scans. Eight patients (18%) had lymph node metastases outside the consensus CTV. Twelve patients (27%) received a RT boost to nodes within the consensus CTV. Six patients (13%) had limited bone metastases treated with focal RT. Overall PSMA PET imaging resulted in major and/or minor changes to RT plans in 24 patients (53%). CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging resulted in RT changes in 53% of patients. Prospective investigation is needed to evaluate the clinical benefit of RT changes based on staging 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging.

Dose recalculation and the Dose-Guided Radiation Therapy (DGRT) process using megavoltage cone-beam CT.

PURPOSE: At the University of California San Francisco, daily or weekly three-dimensional images of patients in treatment position are acquired for image-guided radiation therapy. These images can be used for calculating the actual dose delivered to the patient during treatment. In this article, we present the process of performing dose recalculation on megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography images and discuss possible strategies for dose-guided radiation therapy (DGRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dedicated workstation has been developed to incorporate the necessary elements of DGRT. Patient image correction (cupping, missing data artifacts), calibration, completion, recontouring, and dose recalculation are all implemented in the workstation. Tools for dose comparison are also included. Examples of image correction and dose analysis using 6 head-and-neck and 2 prostate patient datasets are presented to show possible tracking of interfraction dosimetric endpoint variation over the course of treatment. RESULTS: Analysis of the head-and-neck datasets shows that interfraction treatment doses vary compared with the planning dose for the organs at risk, with the mean parotid dose and spinal cord D(1) increasing by as much as 52% and 10%, respectively. Variation of the coverage to the target volumes was small, with an average D(5) dose difference of 1%. The prostate patient datasets revealed accurate dose coverage to the targeted prostate and varying interfraction dose distributions to the organs at risk. CONCLUSIONS: An effective workflow for the clinical implementation of DGRT has been established. With these techniques in place, future clinical developments in adaptive radiation therapy through daily or weekly dosimetric measurements of treatment day images are possible.