Integration of Telemedicine Consultation Into a Tertiary Radiation Oncology Department: Predictors of Use, Treatment Yield, and Effects on Patient Population.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid expansion of telemedicine. The implications of telemedicine have not been rigorously studied in radiation oncology, a procedural specialty. This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of in-person patients (IPPs) and virtual patients (VPs) who presented to a large cancer center before and during the pandemic and to understand variables affecting likelihood of receiving radiotherapy (yield) at our institution. METHODS: A total of 17,915 patients presenting for new consultation between 2019 and 2021 were included, stratified by prepandemic and pandemic periods starting March 24, 2020. Telemedicine visits included video and telephone calls. Area deprivation indices (ADIs) were also compared. RESULTS: The overall population was 56% male and 93% White with mean age of 63 years. During the pandemic, VPs accounted for 21% of visits, were on average younger than their in-person (IP) counterparts (63.3 years IP v 62.4 VP), and lived further away from clinic (215 miles IP v 402 VP). Among treated VPs, living closer to clinic was associated with higher yield (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; P < .001). This was also seen among IPPs who received treatment (OR, 0.96; P < .001); however, the average distance from clinic was significantly lower for IPPs than VPs (205 miles IP v 349 VP). Specialized radiotherapy (proton and brachytherapy) was used more in VPs. IPPs had higher ADI than VPs. Among VPs, those treated had higher ADI (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patient characteristics and yield were significantly different between IPPs and VPs. Telemedicine increased reach to patients further away from clinic, including from rural or health care-deprived areas, allowing access to specialized radiation oncology care. Telemedicine has the potential to increase the reach of other technical and procedural specialties.

Mean Oral Cavity Organ-at-Risk Dose Predicts Opioid Use and Hospitalization during Radiotherapy for Patients with Head and Neck Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 75% of all head and neck cancer patients are treated with radiotherapy (RT). RT to the oral cavity results in acute and late adverse events which can be severe and detrimental to a patient's quality of life and function. The purpose of this study was to explore associations between RT dose to a defined oral cavity organ-at-risk (OAR) avoidance structure, provider- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), opioid use, and hospitalization. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively obtained outcomes using multivariable modeling. The study included 196 patients treated with RT involving the oral cavity for a head and neck tumor. A defined oral cavity OAR avoidance structure was used in all patients for RT treatment planning. Validated PROs were collected prospectively. Opioid use and hospitalization were abstracted electronically from medical records. RESULTS: Multivariable modeling revealed the mean dose to the oral cavity OAR was significantly associated with opioid use (p = 0.0082) and hospitalization (p = 0.0356) during and within 30 days of completing RT. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study may be valuable in RT treatment planning for patients with tumors of the head and neck region to reduce the need for opioid use and hospitalization during treatment.

Empirical Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) for Mandible Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Treated With Pencil-Beam-Scanning Proton Therapy (PBSPT): A Retrospective, Case-Matched Cohort Study.

Purpose: To retrospectively investigate empirical relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for mandible osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with pencil-beam-scanning proton therapy (PBSPT). Methods: We included 1,266 H&N cancer patients, of which, 931 patients were treated with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and 335 were treated with PBSPT. Among them, 26 VMAT and 9 PBSPT patients experienced mandible ORN (ORN group), while all others were included in the control group. To minimize the impact of the possible imbalance in clinical factors between VMAT and PBSPT patients in the dosimetric comparison between these two modalities and the resulting RBE quantification, we formed a 1:1 case-matched patient cohort (335 VMAT patients and 335 PBSPT patients including both the ORN and control groups) using the greedy nearest neighbor matching of propensity scores. Mandible dosimetric metrics were extracted from the case-matched patient cohort and statistically tested to evaluate the association with mandibular ORN to derive dose volume constraints (DVCs) for VMAT and PBSPT, respectively. We sought the equivalent constraint doses for VMAT so that the critical volumes of VMAT were equal to those of PBSPT at different physical doses. Empirical RBEs of PBSPT for ORN were obtained by calculating the ratio between the derived equivalent constraint doses and physical doses of PBSPT. Bootstrapping was further used to get the confidence intervals. Results: Clinical variables of age, gender, tumor stage, prescription dose, chemotherapy, hypertension or diabetes, dental extraction, smoking history, or current smoker were not statistically related to the incidence of ORN in the overall patient cohort. Smoking history was found to be significantly associated with the ORN incidence in PBSPT patients only. V40Gy[RBE], V50Gy[RBE], and V60Gy[RBE] were statistically different (p<0.05) between the ORN and control group for VMAT and PBSPT. Empirical RBEs of 1.58(95%CI: 1.34-1.64), 1.34(95%CI: 1.23-1.40), and 1.24(95%: 1.15-1.26) were obtained for proton dose at 40 Gy[RBE=1.1], 50 Gy[RBE=1.1] and 60 Gy[RBE=1.1], respectively. Conclusions: Our study suggested that RBEs were larger than 1.1 at moderate doses (between 40 and 60 Gy[RBE=1.1]) with high LET for mandible ORN. RBEs are underestimated in current clinical practice in PBSPT. The derived DVCs can be used for PBSPT plan evaluation and optimization to minimize the incidence rate of mandible ORN.

Dosimetric predictors of pneumonitis in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with chemoradiation followed by durvalumab.

OBJECTIVES: The incidence and predictors of pneumonitis for patients with unresectable, locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the era of consolidation durvalumab have yet to be fully elucidated. In this large single institution analysis, we report the incidence of and factors associated with grade 2 + pneumonitis in NSCLC patients treated with the PACIFIC regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all patients treated at our institution with definitive CRT followed by durvalumab from 2018 to 2021. Clinical documentation and imaging studies were reviewed to determine grade 2 + pneumonitis events, which required the following: 1) pulmonary symptoms warranting prolonged steroid taper, oxygen dependence, and/or hospital admission and 2) radiographic findings consistent with pneumonitis. RESULTS: One-hundred ninety patients were included. The majority received 60 Gray (Gy) in 30 fractions with concurrent carboplatin and paclitaxel. Median number of durvalumab cycles received was 12 (IQR: 4-22). At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, 50 (26.3%) patients experienced grade 2 + pneumonitis with a 1-year cumulative incidence of 27.8% (95% CI: 21.9-35.4). Seventeen (8.9%) patients experienced grade 3 + pneumonitis and 4 grade 5 (2.1%). Dosimetric predictors of pneumonitis included ipsilateral and total lung volume receiving 5 Gy or greater (V5Gy), V10Gy, V20Gy, V40Gy, and mean dose and contralateral V40Gy. Heart V5Gy, V10Gy, and mean dose were also significant variables. Overall survival estimates at 1 and 3 years were 87.4% (95% CI: 82.4-92.8) and 60.3% (95% CI: 47.9-74.4), respectively. CONCLUSION: We report a risk of pneumonitis higher than that seen on RTOG 0617 and comparable to the PACIFIC study. Multiple lung and heart dosimetric factors were predictive of pneumonitis.

Oncologic Outcomes for Head and Neck Skin Malignancies Treated with Protons.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) is the standard treatment for patients with inoperable skin malignancies of the head and neck region (H&N), and as adjuvant treatment post surgery in patients at high risk for local or regional recurrence. This study reports clinical outcomes of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for these malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed cases involving 47 patients with H&N malignancies of the skin (squamous cell, basal cell, melanoma, Merkel cell, angiosarcoma, other) who underwent IMPT for curative intent between July 2016 and July 2019. Overall survival was estimated via Kaplan-Meier analysis, and oncologic outcomes were reported as cumulative incidence with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: The 2-year estimated local recurrence rate, regional recurrence rate, local regional recurrence rate, distant metastasis rate, and overall survival were 11.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1%-30.3%), 4.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-17.4%), 15.5% (95% CI, 7%-34.3%), 23.4% (95% CI, 5.8%-95.5%), and 87.2% (95% CI, 75.7%-100%), respectively. No patient was reported to have a grade 3 or higher adverse event during the last week of treatment or at the 3-month follow-up visit. CONCLUSION: IMPT is safe and effective in the treatment of skin malignancies of the H&N.

Comparative analysis of acute toxicities and patient reported outcomes between intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: IMPT improves normal tissue sparing compared to VMAT in treating oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Our aim was to assess if this translates into clinical benefits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: OPC patients treated with definitive or adjuvant IMPT or VMAT from 2013 to 2018 were included. All underwent prospective assessment using patient-reported-outcomes (PROs) (EORTC-QLQ-H&N35) and provider-assessed toxicities (CTCAEv4.03). End-of-treatment and pretreatment scores were compared. PEG-tube use, hospitalization, and narcotic use were retrospectively collected. Statistical analysis used the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test with propensity matching for PROs/provider-assessed toxicities, and t-tests for other clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 46 IMPT and 259 VMAT patients were included; median follow-up was 12 months (IMPT) and 30 months (VMAT). Baseline characteristics were balanced except for age (p = 0.04, IMPT were older) and smoking (p < 0.01, 10.9% IMPT >20PYs, 29.3% VMAT). IMPT was associated with lower PEG placement (OR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.12-0.59; p = 0.001) and less hospitalization ≤60 days post-RT (OR = 0.21; 95% CI:0.07-0.6, p < 0.001), with subgroup analysis revealing strongest benefits in patients treated definitively or with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). IMPT was associated with a relative risk reduction of 22.3% for end-of-treatment narcotic use. Patients reported reduced cough and dysgeusia with IMPT (p < 0.05); patients treated definitively or with CRT also reported feeling less ill, reduced feeding tube use, and better swallow. Provider-assessed toxicities demonstrated less pain and mucositis with IMPT, but more mucosal infection. CONCLUSION: IMPT is associated with improved PROs, reduced PEG-tube placement, hospitalization, and narcotic requirements. Mucositis, dysphagia, and pain were decreased with IMPT. Benefits were predominantly seen in patients treated definitively or with CRT.

Post-mastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy after immediate breast reconstruction: Initial report of reconstruction outcomes and predictors of complications.

PURPOSE: To report reconstructive outcomes of patients treated with post-mastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) following immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive women with breast cancer who underwent implant-based IBR and post-mastectomy IMPT were included. Clinical characteristics, dosimetry, and acute toxicity were collected prospectively and reconstruction complications retrospectively. RESULTS: Fifty-one women were treated between 2015 and 2017. Forty-two had bilateral reconstruction with unilateral IMPT. The non-irradiated contralateral breasts served as controls. Conventional fractionation (median 50 Gy/25 fractions) was administered in 37 (73%) and hypofractionation (median 40.5 Gy/15 fractions) in 14 (27%) patients. Median mean heart, ipsilateral lung V20Gy, and CTV-IMN V95% were 0.6 Gy, 13.9%, and 97.4%. Maximal acute dermatitis grade was 1 in 32 (63%), 2 in 17 (33%), and 3 in 2 (4%) patients. Surgical site infection (hazard ratio [HR] 13.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-104.03, p = 0.0012), and unplanned surgical intervention (HR 9.86, 95% CI 1.24-78.67, p = 0.0068) were more common in irradiated breasts. Eight of 51 irradiated breasts and 2 of 42 non-irradiated breasts had reconstruction failure (HR 3.59, 95% CI 0.78-16.41, p = 0.084). Among irradiated breasts, hypofractionation was significantly associated with reconstruction failure (HR 4.99, 95% CI 1.24-20.05, p = 0.024), as was older patient age (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.24, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: IMPT following IBR spared underlying organs and had low rates of acute toxicity. Reconstruction complications are more common in irradiated breasts, and reconstructive outcomes appear comparable with photon literature. Hypofractionation was associated with higher reconstruction failure rates. Further investigation of optimal dose-fractionation after IBR is needed.