ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for Communication: Radiation Oncology.

BACKGROUND: This practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the American Radium Society (ARS). Timely, accurate, and effective communications are critical to quality and safety in contemporary medical practices. Radiation oncology incorporates the science and technology of complex, integrated treatment delivery and the art of providing care to individual patients. Through written physical and/or electronic reports and direct communication, radiation oncologists convey their knowledge and evaluation regarding patient care, clinical workup, and treatment provided to others in the management of the patient. Applicable practice parameters need to be revised periodically regarding medical record documentation for professional and technical components of services delivered. METHODS: This practice parameter was developed and revised according to the process described under the heading "The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards" on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Both societies have reviewed and approved the document. RESULTS: This practice parameter addresses radiation oncology communications in general, including (a) medical record, (b) electronic, and (c) doctor-patient communications, as well as specific documentation for radiation oncology reports such as (a) consultation, (b) clinical treatment management notes (including inpatient communication), (c) treatment (completion) summary, and (d) follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: The radiation oncologist's participation in the multidisciplinary management of patients is reflected in timely, medically appropriate, and informative communication with patients, caregivers, referring physician, and other members of the health care team. The ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for Communication: Radiation Oncology is an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate communication regarding radiation oncology care for patients.

ED visits, hospital admissions and treatment breaks in head/neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.

Objectives: Radiation therapy (RT) is an integral part of treatment of head/neck cancer (HNC) but is associated with many toxicities. We sought to evaluate sociodemographic, pathologic, and clinical factors associated with emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions (HA), and RT breaks in HNC patients undergoing curative-intent RT. Methods: We completed a Level 3 (Oxford criteria for evidence-based medicine) analysis of a cohort of HNC patients who underwent curative-intent RT at our institution from 2013 to 2017. We collected demographic characteristics and retrospectively assessed for heavy opioid use, ED visits or HA during RT as well as RT breaks. Treatment breaks were defined as total days to RT fractions ratio ≥1.6. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression analyses were done to determine the association of various sociodemographic, pathologic, and clinical characteristics with ED visits, HA and RT treatment breaks. Results: The cohort included 376 HNC patients (294 male, 82 female, median age 61). On multivariable analysis, significant factors associated with ED visits during RT were heavy opioid use and black race. Receipt of concomitant chemotherapy was the only factor associated with hospital admissions during RT. Advanced age, lower socioeconomic class, glandular site, and receipt of chemotherapy were all independently associated with RT breaks. Lower cancer stage and lack of substance abuse history were independently associated with lack of treatment breaks. Conclusion: HNC patients with factors such as heavy opioid use, Black race, receipt of concomitant chemotherapy, and lower socioeconomic class may require closer monitoring during RT.

Opioid use patterns in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiation therapy: Single-institution retrospective analysis characterizing patients who did not require opioid therapy.

BACKGROUND: We had previously analyzed the variables that determine the rates of opioid use at 1-year postradiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer. Here we analyze the variables associated with opioid abstinence during and in the 12 months after radiotherapy at our institution. METHODS: We identified a cohort of patients with head and neck cancer who received radiotherapy as part of curative treatment at our institution. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine socioeconomic and clinical factors associated with opioid abstinence. RESULTS: The cohort included 376 patients. On multivariable analysis, patients from an upper-income class (p = 0.004), black race (p = 0.004), older (p = 0.008), with dependent children (p < 0.001) or receiving surgery (p = 0.002) were more likely to abstain from opioids, while patients using analgesic mouthwash (p = 0.009) or higher pain scale (p = 0.002) were less likely. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic and treatment characteristics are associated with opioid abstinence during and following radiation treatment in patients with head and neck cancer.

Long-term opioid use in curative-intent radiotherapy: One-Year outcomes in head/neck cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: No study has determined the incidence of long-term opioid use, or risk factors for long-term use, ≥1 year after radiotherapy. METHODS: Medical records of 276 head/neck cancer patients were retrospectively assessed for persistent opioid use 1-year after curative-intent radiotherapy. Numerous potential risk factors were assessed and the physicians' documented reasons for continued use were qualitatively categorized as suspected opioid use disorder (OUD) or as medically indicated for control of ongoing pain. RESULTS: Of note, 20 of 276 patients continued using opioids long-term. High maximum opioid dose and the use of opioids and/or psychotropics/non-opioid analgesics at the radiation oncology intake visit were associated with this outcome. Three patients continued due to suspected OUD and 17 due to medical indications. CONCLUSION: Of note, 7.2% of patients developed long-term opioid use, which was associated with high maximum opioid dose and early initiation of opioids and/or psychotropics/non-opioid analgesics. Physicians cited medical indications as the primary reason for continued use.

Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for early-stage glottic cancers with and without the air cavity in the planning target volume.

For early-stage glottic cancers, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been shown to have comparable local control to 3D-conformal radiotherapy with the advantage of decreased dose to the carotid arteries. The planning target volume (PTV) for early glottic cancers typically includes the entire larynx, plus a 3 to 5 mm uniform margin. The air cavity within the larynx creates a challenge for the inverse optimization process as the software attempts to "build up" dose within the air. This unnecessary attempt at dose build-up in air can lead to hot spots within the rest of the PTV and surrounding soft tissue. We hypothesized that removal of the air from the PTV would decrease hot spots and allow for a more homogeneous plan while still maintaining adequate coverage of the PTV. We analyzed 20 consecutive patients with early-stage glottic cancer, T1-2N0, who received IMRT at our institution from April 2015 to December 2016. Each patient received 63 to 65.25 Gy in 2.25 Gy per fraction. Two plans were created for each case: one in which the PTV included the laryngeal air cavity and one in which the air cavity was subtracted from the PTV to create a new PTV-air structure. Dosimetric variables were collected for PTV-air structure from both IMRT plans, including V100%, D98% D2%, and D0.2%. Dosimetric variables for spinal cord and the carotid arteries were also recorded. Homogeneity index (HI) defined as D98/D2 was calculated. Two-sided t-tests were used to compare dosimetric variables. The median PTV volume was 69.9 cc (standard deviation [SD] ± 28.7 cc) and the median air cavity volume removed was 11.0 cc (SD ± 3.4 cc). A 2-sided t-test revealed a statistically significant decrease in max dose (112.7% vs 108.8%, p value = 0.0002) and improvement of HI (0.93 vs 0.91, p value = 0.0023) for the PTV air in the IMRT plan optimized for PTV air, which had air excluded, compared to the IMRT plan optimized for PTV with air included. There was no significant worsening of PTV-air coverage or significant increase in doses to the organs at risk (OARs). The removal of the air cavity from the PTV for early-stage glottic cancers does not compromise PTV coverage or sparing of OARs and can result in a more homogeneous IMRT plan. A more homogeneous plan has the potential to reduce treatment morbidity, although further study is warranted to investigate the clinical impact of air cavity removal from the PTV.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for early glottic cancer: transition to a new standard of care?

For decades, the standard of care for radiation treatment of early larynx cancers has been conventional treatment using opposed lateral fields encompassing the larynx and overlying neck structures, including the adjacent carotid arteries. While intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has replaced conventional radiotherapy for all other head/neck cancer situations, the use of IMRT to treat early glottic cancers remains controversial. The article reviews the published experience with IMRT for this clinical situation and provides a detailed review of the literature on radiation-induced carotid toxicity and how it might apply to the controversy. Finally, we discuss whether the radiation oncology community should transition to IMRT as a new standard of care for the treatment of early glottic cancers.