ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to evaluate trends and assess outcomes in radiation therapy (RT) boost modality and total dose among medically inoperable endometrial cancer (EC) patients with locoregional disease. METHODS: Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I - IIIC2 inoperable EC treated with RT ± chemotherapy were analyzed. Practice patterns compared external beam RT (EBRT) versus high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT) boost and total RT dose (palliative: ≤3000 cGy, definitive low dose [DLD]: 4500 - 6249 cGy, definitive high dose [DHD]: ≥6250 cGy) over time. Kaplan-Meier method evaluated overall survival (OS) and Cox proportional hazard modeling assessed variables associated with OS. RESULTS: NCDB included 1755 total cases, of which 1209 received a radiotherapy boost. From 2004 to 2019, boost modality rates differed with increasing utilization of BT consolidation and a decreasing rate of palliation. Predictors of a palliative dose were stage III disease, Black race, N2 disease, and poorly or undifferentiated grade. Multivariable analysis found BT boost was associated with lower mortality compared to EBRT (HR: 0.81, CI: 0.68-0.97; pâ¯=â¯0.019). Mortality rates were higher for palliation versus DHD. Additional factors associated with inferior survival were increasing age, worse Charlson-Deyo score, higher T stage, higher N stage, and moderately, poorly, or undifferentiated grade. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of BT boost for locoregionally confined, medically inoperable EC has increased since 2004. Brachytherapy consolidation remains an effective RT modality for medically inoperable EC, associated with lower mortality compared to EBRT consolidation.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: AAPM Task Group No. 263U1 (Update to Report No. 263 - Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology) disseminated a survey to receive feedback on utilization, gaps, and means to facilitate further adoption. METHODS: The survey was created by TG-263U1 members to solicit feedback from physicists, dosimetrists, and physicians working in radiation oncology. Questions on the adoption of the TG-263 standard were coupled with demographic information, such as clinical role, place of primary employment (e.g., private hospital, academic center), and size of institution. The survey was emailed to all AAPM, AAMD, and ASTRO members. RESULTS: The survey received 463 responses with 310 completed survey responses used for analysis, of whom most had the clinical role of medical physicist (73%) and the majority were from the United States (83%). There were 83% of respondents who indicated that they believe that having a nomenclature standard is important or very important and 61% had adopted all or portions of TG-263 in their clinics. For those yet to adopt TG-263, the staffing and implementation efforts were the main cause for delaying adoption. Fewer respondents had trouble adopting TG-263 for organs at risk (29%) versus target (44%) nomenclature. Common themes in written feedback were lack of physician support and available resources, especially in vendor systems, to facilitate adoption. CONCLUSIONS: While there is strong support and belief in the benefit of standardized nomenclature, the widespread adoption of TG-263 has been hindered by the effort needed by staff for implementation. Feedback from the survey is being utilized to drive the focus of the update efforts and create tools to facilitate easier adoption of TG-263.