Pan-Canadian consensus recommendations for proton beam therapy access in Canada.

PURPOSE: Proton Beam Therapy (PBT)is a treatment option for select cancer patients. It is currently not available in Canada. Assessment and referral processes for out-of-country treatment for eligible patients vary by jurisdiction, leading to variability in access to this treatment for Canadian cancer patients. The purpose of this initiative was to develop a framework document to inform consistent and equitable PBT access for appropriate patients through the creation of pan-Canadian PBT access consensus recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphiprocess was used to develop pan-Canadian recommendations with input from 22 PBT clinical and administrative experts across all provinces, external peer-review by provincial cancer and system partners, and feedback from a targeted community consultation. This was conducted by electronic survey and live discussion. Consensus threshold was set at 70% agreement. RESULTS: Fourconsensus rounds resulted in a final set of 27 recommendations divided into three categories: patient eligibility (n = 9); program level (n = 10); and system level (n = 8). Patient eligibility included: anatomic site (n = 4), patient characteristics (n = 3), clinical efficacy (n = 2). Program level included: regulatory and staff requirements (n = 5), equipment and technologies (n = 4), quality assurance (n = 1). System level included: referral process (n = 5), costing, budget impact and quality adjusted life years (n = 2), eligible patient estimates (n = 1). Recommendations were released nationally in June 2021 and distributed to all 43 cancer programs in Canada. CONCLUSION: A pan-Canadian consensus-building approach was successful in creating an evidence-based, peer-reviewed suite of recommendations thatsupportapplication of consistent clinical criteria to inform treatment options, facility set-up and access to high quality proton therapy.

Early Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery to the tumor bed of resected brain metastasis for improved local control.

OBJECT: Optimal case management after surgical removal of brain metastasis remains controversial. Although postoperative whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) has been shown to prevent local recurrence and decrease deaths, this modality can substantially decrease neurocognitive function and quality of life. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can theoretically achieve the same level of local control with fewer side effects, although studies conclusively demonstrating such outcomes are lacking. To assess the effectiveness and safety profile of tumor bed SRS after resection of brain metastasis, the authors performed a retrospective analysis of 110 patients who had received such treatment at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke. They designed the study to identify risk factors for local recurrence and placed special emphasis on factors that could potentially be addressed. METHODS: Patients who had received treatment from 2004 through 2013 were included if they had undergone surgical removal of 1 or more brain metastases and if the tumor bed was treated by SRS regardless of the extent of resection or prior WBRT. All cases were retrospectively analyzed for patient and tumor-specific factors, treatment protocol, adverse outcomes, cavity outcomes, and survival for as long as follow-up was available. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for local recurrence and predictors of increased survival times. RESULTS: Median patient age at first SRS treatment was 58 years (range 37-84 years). The most frequently diagnosed primary tumor was non-small cell lung cancer. The rate of gross-total resection was 81%. The median Karnofsky Performance Scale score was 90%. Tumor bed SRS was performed at a median of 3 weeks after surgery. Median follow-up and survival times were 10 and 11 months, respectively. Actuarial local control of the cavity at 12 months was 73%; median time to recurrence was 6 months. According to multivariate analysis, risk factors for recurrence were a longer surgery-to-SRS delay (HR 1.625, p = 0.003) and a lower maximum radiation dose delivered to the cavity (HR 0.817, p = 0.006). Factors not associated with increased recurrence were subtotal or piecemeal resections, prior WBRT, histology of the primary tumor, and larger cavity volume. No factors predictive of survival were identified. Symptomatic radiation-induced enhancement occurred in 6% of patients and leptomeningeal dissemination in 11%. Pathologically confirmed radiation-induced necrosis occurred in 1 (0.9%) patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant tumor bed SRS after the resection of brain metastasis is a valuable alternative to adjuvant WBRT. Risk factors for local recurrence are lower maximum radiation dose and a surgery-to-SRS delay longer than 3 weeks. Outcomes were not worse for patients who had undergone prior WBRT and subtotal or piecemeal resections. Pending the results of prospective randomized controlled trials, the authors' study supports the safety and efficacy of adjuvant SRS after resection of brain metastasis. SRS should be performed as early as possible, ideally within 3 weeks of the surgery.

Radiosurgery scope of practice in Canada: a report of the Canadian association of radiation oncology (CARO) radiosurgery advisory committee.

Radiosurgery has a long history in Canada. Since the treatment of the first patient at the McGill University Health Center in 1985, radiosurgery programs have been developed from coast to coast. These have included multidisciplinary teams of radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, medical physicists, radiation technologists and other health professionals. In 2008, the CARO Board of Directors requested that a working group be formed to define the role of the radiation oncologist in the practice of radiosurgery. Taking into account evolving technology, changing clinical practice and current scope of practice literature, the working group made recommendations as to the role of the radiation oncologists. These recommendations were endorsed by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology board of directors in September 2009 and are present herein. It is recognized that patients benefit from a team approach to their care but it is recommended that qualified radiation oncologists be involved in radiosurgery delivery from patient consultation to follow-up. In addition, radiation oncologists should continue to be involved in the administrative aspects of radiosurgery programs, from equipment selection to ongoing quality assurance/quality improvement.

Retrospective study of 81 patients treated with brachytherapy for endobronchial primary tumor or metastasis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study is to evaluate the role of endobronchial brachytherapy in the palliation of lung cancer (or metastasis) symptoms and its potential impact on overall survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty-one patients were included in this study. Endobronchial brachytherapy catheter was placed under conscious sedation. The projection of the tumor was drawn by the bronchoscopist to help the radiation oncology team to perform the dosimetry. Patients were treated with iridium-192 high-dose rate afterloading unit. Patients were planned to receive 5 Gy in four fractions weekly for a total of 20 Gy. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of the patients were treated for primary lung cancer. The remaining patients were treated for lung metastasis of other primary. Most patients presented dyspnea, cough, or hemoptysis. These three main symptoms were relieved in 85%, 77%, and 100%, respectively. The median survival was 14.7 months and local progression-free survival at 12 months was 77% and at 24 months 64%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Endobronchial brachytherapy is a very effective palliative treatment for endobronchial lesions.

The efficacy and sequencing of a short course of androgen suppression on freedom from biochemical failure when administered with radiation therapy for T2-T3 prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the benefits and sequencing of androgen suppression (AS) administered with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in T2-T3 prostate cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1990 and 1999, 481 patients were entered in 2 successive, prospective, randomized studies, including 161 in the study 1 and 325 in study 2. Eligible patients had clinical stages T2-T3 prostate cancer. In the first study (L-101) subjects were randomly allocated among EBRT alone (group 1), EBRT preceded by 3 months of AS (group 2), and neoadjuvant, concomitant and adjuvant AS for a total of 10 months (group 3). In the second study (L-200) we analyzed neoadjuvant and concomitant AS (total 5 months) vs neoadjuvant, concomitant and short course adjuvant (total 10 months) AS with EBRT. In each study we used a total AS (a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist plus an antiandrogen) and a standard dose of radiation therapy at that time. Patient characteristics were well balanced in regard to age, stage, prostate specific antigen and Gleason score. No biochemical evidence of disease (BNED) was defined as an end point according to the Vancouver rule. RESULTS: In the study 1 at a median followup of 5 years 7-year biochemical-free survival rates were 42%, 66% and 69% in groups 1 to 3, respectively. BNED was significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.009) and between groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.003) but not between groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.6). Multivariate analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model showed an HR of 6.1 for Gleason score (p = 0.001), 1.4 for PSA (p = 0.002), 0.5 for group 1 vs group 2 (p = 0.01) and 0.35 for group 1 vs group 3 (p = 0.008). In study 2 BNED at 4 years was 65%. There was no significant difference between arms 1 and 2 (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of study 1 shows a benefit of using a short course of neoadjuvant AS with EBRT vs EBRT alone for localized T2-T3 prostate cancers. Moreover, in each study adding a short course of adjuvant AS after neoadjuvant 1 provided no more advantage in these patients.