Current treatment and future directions in the management of anal cancer.

Although rare, the rate of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is rising globally. Most patients present with nonmetastatic disease and are curable with appropriate treatment, which has evolved significantly over the last several decades. Before the 1970s, SCCA was managed with radical surgery, resulting in a permanent colostomy. Researchers found that preoperative treatment with chemotherapy and concurrent radiation could achieve a pathologic complete response. After this observation, definitive therapy shifted from radical surgery to sphincter-preserving chemoradiation. Investigations into the necessity of chemotherapy and the optimal regimen found that chemotherapy with mitomycin-C and 5-fluorouracil is required for cure. Further studies evaluating the addition of induction or maintenance chemotherapy, monoclonal antibody therapy, or higher radiation doses have demonstrated no significant benefit to disease control. Advanced radiation delivery with intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques is now considered the standard of care because of its prospectively determined, favorable acute toxicity profile compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation. It is important to note that chemoradiation treatment response may be slow (up to 26 weeks) and should be assessed through serial clinical examinations. Today, surgical management of SCCA is reserved only for the lowest risk, early stage tumors or for recurrent/persistent disease. Current studies are evaluating radiation dose de-escalation in early stage disease and radiation dose escalation and the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors in locally advanced cancers. In reviewing how and why modern-day treatment of SCCA was established, the objective of this report is to reenforce adherence to current treatment paradigms to assure the best possible outcomes for patients.

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for the use of liver-directed therapies for nonsurgical management of liver metastases: Systematic review and guidelines.

The liver is a common site of cancer metastases. Systemic therapy is widely accepted as the standard treatment for liver metastases (LM), although select patients with liver oligometastases may be candidates for potentially curative liver resection. Recent data support the role of nonsurgical local therapies such as ablation, external beam radiotherapy, embolization, and hepatic artery infusion therapy for management of LM. Additionally, for patients with advanced, symptomatic LM, local therapies may provide palliative benefit. The American Radium Society gastrointestinal expert panel, including members representing radiation oncology, interventional radiology, surgical oncology, and medical oncology, performed a systemic review and developed Appropriate Use Criteria for the use of nonsurgical local therapies for LM. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology was used. These studies were used to inform the expert panel, which then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in seven representative clinical scenarios through a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi). A summary of recommendations is outlined to guide practitioners on the use of nonsurgical local therapies for patients with LM.

Retrospective comparative effectiveness research: Will changing the analytical methods change the results?

In medicine, retrospective cohort studies are used to compare treatments to one another. We hypothesize that the outcomes of retrospective comparative effectiveness research studies can be heavily influenced by biostatistical analytic choices, thereby leading to inconsistent conclusions. We selected a clinical scenario currently under investigation: survival in metastatic prostate, breast or lung cancer after systemic vs systemic + definitive local therapy. We ran >300 000 regression models (each representing a publishable study). Each model had various forms of analytic choices (to account for bias): propensity score matching, left truncation adjustment, landmark analysis and covariate combinations. There were 72 549 lung, 14 904 prostate and 13 857 breast cancer patients included. In the most basic analysis, which omitted propensity score matching, left truncation adjustment and landmark analysis, all of the HRs were <1 (generally, 0.60-0.95, favoring addition of local therapy), with all P-values <.001. Left truncation adjustment landmark analysis produced results with nonsignificant P-values. The combination of propensity score matching, left truncation adjustment, landmark analysis and covariate combinations generally produced P-values that were >.05 and/or HRs that were >1 (favoring systemic therapy alone). The use of more statistical methods to reduce the selection bias caused reported HR ranges to approach 1.0. By varying analytic choices in comparative effectiveness research, we generated contrary outcomes. Our results suggest that some retrospective observational studies may find a treatment improves outcomes for patients, while another similar study may find it does not, simply based on analytical choices.

Impact of radiation therapy facility volume on survival in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study examined whether radiation therapy facility volumes correlate with survival after curative intent treatment of solid tumors. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with solid tumors treated with curative-intent radiation therapy from 2004-2013. Facilities were stratified into 4 volume categories: low, intermediate, high, and very high. Primary cancer sites were divided into neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or definitive radiation subgroups. Kaplan-Meier curves of 5-year postradiation survival probability, stratified by facility volume, were generated with log-rank tests for group comparisons. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the effect of facility volume on survival, adjusted for multiple covariates. RESULTS: There were 253,422 patients treated at 1289 facilities: 6231 received neoadjuvant radiation, 147,980 received adjuvant radiation, and 99,211 received definitive radiation without surgery. Among patients receiving neoadjuvant radiation, survival correlated with facility volume for patients with rectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.6-0.94; P = .01). For cancers of the breast and uterus, patients receiving adjuvant radiation at very high-volume facilities (vs low volume) had improved survival (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90; P < .001 and HR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.62-0.97; P = .03, respectively). For patients receiving definitive radiation for prostate, non-small cell lung, pancreas, and head and neck cancer, there was an improvement in survival for patients treated at very high-volume centers (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: For select cancer patients, treatment with curative radiation at higher volume facilities is associated with improved survival. In particular, patients receiving radiation therapy in the definitive setting without surgery may benefit most from treatment at high-volume centers.

Impact of Facility Surgical Volume on Survival in Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Increased facility surgical treatment volume is sometimes associated with improved survival in patients with cancer; however, published studies evaluating volume are heterogeneous and disparate in their patient inclusion and definition of volume. The purpose of this work was to evaluate uniformly the impact of surgical facility volume on survival in patients with cancer. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was searched for patients diagnosed in 2004 through 2013 with the 12 cancers most commonly treated surgically. Facilities were stratified by 4 categories using the overall population (low, intermediate, high, and very high), each including 25% of patients, and then stratified by each individual disease site. Five-year postsurgery survival was estimated using both the Kaplan-Meier method and corresponding log-rank tests for group comparisons. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the effects of facility volume on 5-year postsurgery survival further, adjusted for multiple covariates. RESULTS: A total of 3,923,618 patients who underwent surgery were included from 1,139 facilities. Of these, 40.4% had breast cancer, 12.8% prostate cancer, and 10.0% colon cancer. Most patients were female (65.0%), White (86.4%), and privately insured (51.6%) with stage 0-III disease (64.8%). For all cancers, the risk of death for patients undergoing surgery at very high-volume facilities was 88% of that for those treated at low-volume facilities. Hazard ratios (HRs) were greatest (very high vs low volume) for cancer of the prostate (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.69), pancreas (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.78), and esophagus (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.83), and for melanoma (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.78-0.84); differences were smallest for uterine and non-small cell lung cancers. Overall survival differences were greatest for cancers of the brain, pancreas, and esophagus. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated surgically at higher-volume facilities consistently had improved overall survival compared with those treated at low-volume centers, although the magnitude of difference was cancer-specific.

Conventionally fractionated radiation therapy versus stereotactic body radiation therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (CRiSP): An international systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (CFRT) for the definitive treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was efficacy, defined by 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were incidence of any grade 3/4 toxicity and 1-year OS. METHODS: A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were: 1) patients diagnosed with locally advanced N0-1 M0 pancreatic cancer; 2) CFRT 1.8 to 2.0 Gy/fraction with chemotherapy per protocol or SBRT ≥5 Gy/fraction in ≤5 fractions; 3) either no control group or another definitive chemotherapy or radiation therapy arm; 4) at least 1 of the outcome measures reported; and 5) single or multi-arm phase 2/3 prospective study for CFRT and/or phase 1/2 or retrospective study for SBRT. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was prescribed per protocol specifications. Weighted random effects meta-analyses were conducted using the DerSimonian and Laird method to characterize summary effect sizes for each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 470 studies were initially screened; of these, 9 studies assessed SBRT and 11 studies assessed CFRT. For SBRT, the median dose was 30 Gy, and the most common regimen was 30 Gy/5 fractions. For CFRT, doses ranged from 45 to 54 Gy in 1.8- to 2.0-Gy fractions, with the majority of studies delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent gemcitabine. The random effects estimate for 2-year OS was 26.9% (95% CI, 20.6%-33.6%) for SBRT versus 13.7% (95% CI, 8.9%-19.3%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for 1-year OS was 53.7% (95% CI, 39.3%-67.9%) for SBRT versus 49.3% (95% CI, 39.3%-59.4%) for CFRT, and was not statistically significant. The random effects estimate for acute grade 3/4 toxicity was 5.6% (95% CI, 0.0%-20.0%) for SBRT versus 37.7% (95% CI, 24.0%-52.5%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for late grade 3/4 toxicity was 9.0% for SBRT (95% CI, 3.3%-17.1%) versus 10.1% (95% CI, 1.8%-23.8%) for CFRT, which was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that SBRT for LAPC may result in a modest improvement in 2-year OS with decreased rates of acute grade 3/4 toxicity and no change in 1-year-OS or late toxicity. Further study into the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for these patients is needed.

Magnetic Resonance Guided Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: Expanding Opportunities for Non-Operative Management.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in men and the second most common in women worldwide, and the incidence is increasing among younger patients. 30% of these malignancies arise in the rectum. Patients with rectal cancer have historically been managed with preoperative radiation, followed by radical surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy, with permanent colostomies in up to 20% of patients. Beginning in the early 2000s, non-operative management (NOM) of rectal cancer emerged as a viable alternative to radical surgery in select patients. Efforts have been ongoing to optimize neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, thereby increasing the number of patients potentially eligible to forgo radical surgery. Magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) has recently emerged as a treatment modality capable of intensifying preoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer patients. This technology may also predict which patients will achieve a complete response to preoperative therapy, thereby allowing for more appropriate selection of patients for NOM. The present work seeks to illustrate the potential role MRgRT could play in personalizing rectal cancer treatment thus expanding the role of NOM in rectal cancer.

Clinical Trial Accrual at Initial Course of Therapy for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study sought to characterize the accrual of patients with cancer into clinical trials at the time of diagnosis and analyze the impact of accrual on survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients enrolled in clinical trials at their initial course of treatment for 46 cancers from 2004 through 2015. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the accrual of patients with cancer in clinical trials at diagnosis, and Kaplan-Meier graphical displays, log-rank tests, odds ratios, and stratified Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the impact of accrual on overall survival (OS). Strata were defined using 10 variables. Model-based adjusted survival curves of 2 groups were reverse-generated based on a Weibull distribution. RESULTS: Of 12,097,681 patients in the NCDB, 11,576 (0.1%) were enrolled in trials. Patients in clinical trials typically had metastatic disease (30.9% vs 16.4%; P<.0001), were white (88.0% vs 84.8%; P<.0001), had private/managed care insurance (56.4% vs 41.8%; P<.0001), had fewer comorbidities (Charlson-Deyo score 0: 81.9% vs 75.7%; P<.0001, and Charlson-Deyo scores 1-3: 18.1% vs 24.3%; P<.0001) compared with those not in trials. At a median follow-up of 64 months, enrollment in a clinical trial was associated with improved OS in univariate and stratified analyses, with a median survival of 60.0 versus 52.5 months (hazard ratio, 0.876; 95% CI, 0.845-0.907; P<.0001). Stratified analysis with matched baseline characteristics between patients enrolled and not enrolled in a clinical trial showed superior OS at 5 years (95.0% vs 90.2%; P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Enrollment in clinical trials at first line of therapy in the United States is exceedingly low and favors young, healthy, white patients with metastatic disease and private insurance who are treated at academic medical centers. Patients with cancer treated in clinical trials live longer than those not treated in trials.

Mutant p53 and the response to chemotherapy and radiation.

In addition to playing roles in the genesis and progression of cancer, mutant p53 also appears to play a significant role in the response to cancer therapy. In response to chemotherapy and radiation, two mainstays of cancer treatment, most cancer cells harboring p53 mutations show a reduced sensitivity compared to cells lacking p53 or those with wild type p53. However, there are also many instances where mutant p53 has shown no effect or enhances cellular sensitivity to chemotherapy and radiation. Similar to the in vitro cellular studies, the majority of clinical studies show a correlation between the presence of mutant p53 in patient tumors and adverse outcomes following treatment with chemotherapy agents or radiation in comparison to tumors with wild-type p53. However, it still remains unclear whether the presence of mutant p53 in tumors can serve as a reliable prognostic factor and aid in treatment planning. Thus, as genomic analysis of patient tumors becomes more cost effective, the role of mutant p53 in tumor responses from cancer therapy ultimately needs to be addressed. This chapter will discuss current mechanisms of how p53 mutations affect cellular responses to chemotherapy and radiation and discuss patient outcomes based on p53 status.

Esophagogastric Cancer: The Current Role of Radiation Therapy.

Radiation therapy is an effective treatment modality in the management of patients with esophageal cancer regardless of tumor location (proximal, middle, or distal esophagus) or histology (squamous cell vs adenocarcinoma). The addition of neoadjuvant CRT to surgery in patients who are surgical candidates has consistently shown a benefit in terms of locoregional recurrence, pathologic downstaging, and overall survival. For patients who are not surgical candidates, CRT has a role as definitive treatment.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Neoadjuvant Therapy for Nonmetastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Guidelines.

For patients with locoregionally confined pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), margin-negative surgical resection is the only known curative treatment; however, the majority of patients are not operable candidates at initial diagnosis. Among patients with resectable disease who undergo surgery alone, the 5-year survival remains poor. Adjuvant therapies, including systemic therapy or chemoradiation, are utilized as they improve locoregional control and overall survival. There has been increasing interest in the use of neoadjuvant therapy to obtain early control of occult metastatic disease, allow local tumor response to facilitate margin-negative resection, and provide a test of time and biology to assist with the selection of candidates most likely to benefit from radical surgical resection. However, limited guidance exists regarding the relative effectiveness of treatment options. In this systematic review, the American Radium Society multidisciplinary gastrointestinal expert panel convened to develop Appropriate Use Criteria evaluating the evidence regarding neoadjuvant treatment for patients with PDAC, including surgery, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy, in terms of oncologic outcomes and quality of life. The evidence was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study (PICOS) design framework and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included phases 2 to 3 trials, meta-analyses, and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2012 and December 30, 2022 in the Ovid Medline database. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined to guide practitioners in the management of patients with PDAC.

Treatment Terminations During Radiation Therapy: A 10-Year Experience.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing radiation therapy may terminate treatment for any number of reasons. The incidence of treatment termination (TT) during radiation therapy has not been studied. Herein, we present a cohort of TT at a large multicenter radiation oncology department over 10 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: TTs between January 2013 and January 2023 were prospectively analyzed as part of an ongoing departmental quality and safety program. TT was defined as any premature discontinuation of therapy after initiating radiation planning. The rate of TT was calculated as a percentage of all patients starting radiation planning. All cases were presented at monthly morbidity and mortality conferences with a root cause reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 1448 TTs were identified out of 31,199 planned courses of care (4.6%). Six hundred eighty-six (47.4%) involved patients treated with curative intent, whereas 753 (52.0%) were treated with palliative intent, and 9 (0.6%) were treated for benign disease. The rate of TT decreased from 8.49% in 2013 to 3.02% in 2022, with rates decreasing yearly. The most common disease sites for TT were central nervous system (21.7%), head and neck (19.3%), thorax (17.5%), and bone (14.2%). The most common causes of TT were hospice and/or patient expiration (35.9%), patient choice unrelated to toxicity (35.2%), and clinician choice unrelated to toxicity (11.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This 10-year prospective review of TTs identified a year-over-year decrease in TTs as a percentage of planned patients. This decrease may be associated with the addition of root cause reviews for TTs and discussions monthly at morbidity and mortality rounds, coupled with departmental upstream quality initiatives implemented over time. Understanding the reasons behind TTs may help decrease preventable TTs. Although some TTs may be unavoidable, open discourse and quality improvement changes effectively reduce TT incidents over time.

Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Analysis of Alliance A021501: Preoperative mFOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX Plus Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Borderline Resectable Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas.

PURPOSE: Alliance A021501 is the first randomized trial to evaluate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this post hoc study, we reviewed the quality of radiation therapy (RT) delivered. METHODS AND MATERIALS: SBRT (6.6 Gy × 5) was intended but hypofractionated RT (5 Gy × 5) was permitted if SBRT specifications could not be met. Institutional credentialing through the National Cancer Institute-funded Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) was required. Rigorous RT quality assurance (RT QA) was mandated, including pretreatment review by a radiation oncologist. Revisions were required for unacceptable deviations. Additionally, we performed a post hoc RT QA analysis in which contours and plans were reviewed by 3 radiation oncologists and assigned a score (1, 2, or 3) based on adequacy. A score of 1 indicated no deviation, 2 indicated minor deviation, and 3 indicated a major deviation that could be clinically significant. Clinical outcomes were compared by treatment modality and by case score. RESULTS: Forty patients were registered to receive RT (1 planned but not treated) at 27 centers (18 academic and 9 community). Twenty-three centers were appropriately credentialed for moving lung/liver targets and 4 for static head and neck only. Thirty-two of 39 patients (82.1%) were treated with SBRT and 7 (17.9%) with hypofractionated RT. Five cases (13%) required revision before treatment. On post hoc review, 23 patients (59.0%) were noted to have suboptimal contours or plan coverage, 12 (30.8%) were scored a 2, and 11 (28.2%) were scored a 3. There were no apparent differences in failure patterns or surgical outcomes based on treatment technique or post hoc case score. Details related to on-treatment imaging were not recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Despite rigorous QA, we encountered variability in simulation, contouring, plan coverage, and dose on trial. Although clinical outcomes did not appear to have been affected, findings from this analysis serve to inform subsequent PDAC SBRT trial designs and QA requirements.

Analysis of Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance in NRG Oncology RTOG 0848.

PURPOSE: NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0848 is a 2-step randomized trial to evaluate the benefit of the addition of concurrent fluoropyrimidine and radiation therapy (RT) after adjuvant chemotherapy (second step) for patients with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Real-time quality assurance (QA) was performed on each patient who underwent RT. This analysis aims to evaluate adherence to protocol-specified contouring and treatment planning and to report the types and frequencies of deviations requiring revisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In addition to a web-based contouring atlas, the protocol outlined step-by-step instructions for generating the clinical treatment volume through the creation of specific regions of interest. The planning target volume was a uniform 0.5 cm clinical treatment volume expansion. One of 2 radiation oncology study chairs independently reviewed each plan. Plans with unacceptable deviations were returned for revision and resubmitted until approved. Treatment started after final approval of the RT plan. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, 354 patients were enrolled in the second randomization. Of these, 160 patients received RT and were included in the QA analysis. Resubmissions were more common for patients planned with 3-dimensional conformal RT (43%) than with intensity modulated RT (31%). In total, at least 1 resubmission of the treatment plan was required for 33% of patients. Among patients requiring resubmission, most only needed 1 resubmission (87%). The most common reasons for resubmission were unacceptable deviations with respect to the preoperative gross target volume (60.7%) and the pancreaticojejunostomy (47.5%). CONCLUSION: One-third of patients required resubmission to meet protocol compliance criteria, demonstrating the continued need for expending resources on real-time, pretreatment QA in trials evaluating the use of RT, particularly for pancreas cancer. Rigorous QA is critically important for clinical trials involving RT to ensure that the true effect of RT is assessed. Moreover, RT QA serves as an educational process through providing feedback from specialists to practicing radiation oncologists on best practices.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society on Appropriate Use Criteria for Nonoperative Management of Rectal Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Guidelines.

For patients with rectal cancer, the standard approach of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery (trimodality therapy) is associated with significant long-term toxicity and/or colostomy for most patients. Patient options focused on quality of life (QOL) have dramatically improved, but there remains limited guidance regarding comparative effectiveness. This systematic review and associated guidelines evaluate how various treatment strategies compare to each other in terms of oncologic outcomes and QOL. Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology were used to search for prospective and retrospective trials and meta-analyses of adequate quality within the Ovid Medline database between January 1, 2012, and June 15, 2023. These studies informed the expert panel, which rated the appropriateness of various treatments in 6 clinical scenarios through a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi). The search process yielded 197 articles that advised voting. Increasing data have shown that nonoperative management (NOM) and primary surgery result in QOL benefits noted over trimodality therapy without detriment to oncologic outcomes. For patients with rectal cancer for whom total mesorectal excision would result in permanent colostomy or inadequate bowel continence, NOM was strongly recommended as usually appropriate. Restaging with tumor response assessment approximately 8 to 12 weeks after completion of radiation therapy/chemoradiation therapy was deemed a necessary component of NOM. The panel recommended active surveillance in the setting of a near-complete or complete response. In the setting of NOM, 54 to 56 Gy in 27 to 31 fractions concurrent with chemotherapy and followed by consolidation chemotherapy was recommended. The panel strongly recommends primary surgery as usually appropriate for a T3N0 high rectal tumor for which low anterior resection and adequate bowel function is possible, with adjuvant chemotherapy considered if N+. Recent data support NOM and primary surgery as important options that should be offered to eligible patients. Considering the complexity of multidisciplinary management, patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting, and therapy should be tailored to individual patient goals/values.

A Decade of Prospective Peer Review: Impact on Safety Culture and Lessons Learned in a Multicenter Radiation Medicine Department.

PURPOSE: Quality assurance (QA) is critical to the success of radiation therapy (RT) for patients with cancer and affects clinical outcomes. We report longitudinal findings of a prospective peer review evaluation system implemented at a major academic health system as part of RT QA during a 10-year period. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All cases treated within our department undergo prospective multidisciplinary peer review and are assigned a grade (A, B, or C). "A" cases require no changes, "B" cases require minor modification, and "C" cases require major modification before treatment planning. The z-ratio test for the significance of the difference between the 5-year baseline (2012-2016) and follow-up (2017-2021) period was used to compare grades between the 2 periods. A 2-tailed P value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of the 20,069 cases, 15,659 (78%) were curative and were analyzed. The fraction of A cases decreased from 74.8% (baseline) to 64.5% (follow-up), whereas B cases increased from 19.4% to 35.4% and C cases decreased from 5.8% to 0.1%. Of the 9 treatment locations, the main hospital site had a higher percentage of A grades relative to community locations in the baseline (78.6% vs 67.8%; P < .002) and follow-up (66.9% vs 62.3%; P < .002) periods. There was a decrease in the percentage of A cases from the baseline to the follow-up period regardless of plan type (complex vs intermediate vs simple). There was a decrease in the percentage of A cases among specialists from baseline to follow-up (78.2% to 67.7%; P < .002) and among generalists from baseline to follow-up (69.7% to 61.7%; P < .002). CONCLUSIONS: Our 10-year experience in contour peer review identified increased opportunities in improving treatment plan quality over time. The drop in A scores and rise in B scores suggests increased scrutiny and findings-based improvements over time, whereas the drop in C scores indicates amelioration of "major failures" addressed in the startup years. Peer review rounds upstream of treatment planning provide valuable RT QA and should be considered by other departments to enhance the quality and consistency of RT.

American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

Although uncommon, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC) is a deadly malignancy, and the treatment approaches remain controversial. While surgery remains the only cure, few patients are candidates for resection up front, and there are high rates of both local and distant failure following resection. Herein, we systematically review the available evidence regarding treatment approaches for patients with EHCC, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study design (PICOS) framework. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined for specific clinical scenarios encountered by providers in the clinic to guide the management of these patients.

Unknown Causes of Death in Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Deaths from an unknown cause are difficult to adjudicate and oncologic studies of comparative effectiveness often demonstrate inconsistencies in incorporating these deaths and competing events (eg, heart disease and stroke) in their analyses. In this study, we identify cancer patients most at risk for death of an unknown cause. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based study used cancer registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1992-2015). The absolute rate of unknown causes of death (COD) cases stratified by sex, marital status, race, treatment, and cancer site were calculated and a multivariable logistic regression model was applied to obtain adjusted odds ratios with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Out of 7,154,779 cancer patients across 22 cancer subtypes extracted from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, 3,448,927 died during follow-up and 276,068 (7.4%) of these deaths were from unknown causes. Patients with an unknown COD had a shorter mean survival time compared with patients with known COD (36.3 vs 65.7 mo, P < 0.001). The contribution of unknown COD to total mortality was highest in patients with more indolent cancers (eg, prostate [12.7%], thyroid [12.3%], breast [10.7%]) and longer follow-up (eg, >5 to 10 y). One, 3, and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) calculations including unknown COD were significantly decreased compared with CSS estimates excluding cancer patients with unknown COD. CONCLUSION: Of the patients, 7.4% died of unknown causes during follow-up and the proportion of death was higher with longer follow-up and among more indolent cancers. The attribution of high percentages of unknown COD to cancer or non-cancer causes could impact population-based cancer registry studies or clinical trial outcomes with respect to measures involving CSS and mortality.

Nonadherence to Multimodality Cancer Treatment Guidelines in the United States.

Purpose: Our purpose was to identify patients with cancer who do not receive guideline-concordant multimodality treatment and to identify factors that are associated with nonreceipt of guideline-concordant multimodality treatment. Methods and Materials: Five cancers for which the multimodal guideline-concordant treatment (with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy) is clearly defined in national guidelines were selected from the National Cancer Database: (1) nonmetastatic anal cancer, (2) locally advanced cervical cancer, (3) nonmetastatic nasopharynx cancer, (4) locally advanced rectal cancer, and (5) locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the odds ratios (with 95% confidence intervals) of receiving the guideline-concordant treatment versus not, adjusting for common confounding variables. Results: 178,005 patients with cancer were included: 32,214 anal, 54,485 rectal, 13,179 cervical, 5061 nasopharyngeal, and 73,066 lung. Overall, 162,514 (91%) received guideline-concordant treatment and 15,491 (9%) did not. Twenty-one percent of patients with cervical cancer, 10% of patients with rectal cancer, 7% of patients with lung cancer, 5% of patients with anal cancer, and 3% of patients with nasopharynx cancer did not receive guideline-concordant treatment. In general, patients who were older, with comorbid conditions, and who were evaluated at low-volume facilities (odds ratios > 1 with P < .05) were less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment. Conclusions: Nearly 1 in 10 patients in this cohort are not receiving appropriate multimodal cancer therapy. There appear to be significant disparities in receipt of guideline-concordant treatment based on primary tumor site, age, comorbidities, and reporting facility.