Comparison of Tumor Bed Delineation Using a Novel Radiopaque Filament Marker Versus Surgical Clips for Targeting Breast Cancer Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Accuracy of tumor bed (TB) delineation is essential for targeting boost doses or partial breast irradiation. Multiple studies have shown high interobserver variability with standardly used surgical clip markers (CMs). We hypothesize that a radiopaque filament marker (FM) woven along the TB will improve TB delineation consistency. METHODS: An FDA-approved FM was intraoperatively used to outline the TB of patients undergoing lumpectomy. Between January 2020 and January 2022, consecutive patients with FM placed after either (1) lumpectomy or (2) lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction were identified and compared with those with CM. Six "experts" (radiation oncologists specializing in breast cancer) across 2 institutions independently defined all TBs. Three metrics (volume variance, dice coefficient, and center of mass [COM] deviation). Two-tailed paired samples t tests were performed to compare FM and CM cohorts. RESULTS: Twenty-eight total patients were evaluated (14 FM and 14 CM). In aggregate, differences in volume between expert contours were 29.7% (SD ± 58.8%) with FM and 55.4% (SD ± 105.9%) with CM ( P < 0.001). The average dice coefficient in patients with FM was 0.54 (SD ± 0.15), and with CM was 0.44 (SD ± 0.22) ( P < 0.001). The average COM deviation was 0.63 cm (SD ± 0.53 cm) for FM and 1.05 cm (SD ± 0.93 cm) for CM; ( P < 0.001). In the subset of patients who underwent lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction, the difference in average volume was 21.8% (SD ± 20.4%) with FM and 52.2% (SD ± 64.5%) with CM ( P <0.001). The average dice coefficient was 0.53 (SD ± 0.12) for FM versus 0.39 (SD ± 0.24) for CM ( P < 0.001). The average COM difference was 0.53 cm (SD ± 0.29 cm) with FM versus 1.25 cm (SD ± 1.08 cm) with CM ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: FM consistently outperformed CM in the setting of both standard lumpectomy and complex oncoplastic reconstruction. These data suggest the superiority of FM in TB delineation.

Unsealed Source: Scope of Practice for Radiopharmaceuticals Among United States Radiation Oncologists.

Purpose: Our purpose was to determine the utilization of and barriers to implementation of radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) among U.S. radiation oncologists. Methods and Materials: An anonymous, voluntary 21-item survey directed toward attending radiation oncologists was distributed via social media platforms (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Student Doctor Network). Questions assessed practice characteristics, specific RPT prescribing patterns, RPT prescribing interest, and perceived barriers to RPT implementation. Nonparametric χ2 test was used for correlation statistics. Results: Of the 142 respondents, 131 (92.3%) practiced in the United States and were included for this analysis. Respondents were well balanced in terms of practicing region, population size served, practice setting, and years in practice. Forty-eight percent (n = 63) reported prescribing at least 1 RPT. An additional 7% (n = 8) participate in RPT administration without billing themselves. Among those that actively prescribed RPT, the mean cumulative cases per month was 4.2 (range, 1-5). The most commonly prescribed radionuclides were radium-223 (40%; mean 2.8 cases/mo), iodine-131 (18%; mean 2.3 cases/mo), yttrium-90 (13%; mean 3.4 cases/mo), "other" (8%), samarium-153 (6%; mean 1.0 cases/mo), and strontrium-89 and phosphorous-32 (2% each; mean 1.8 and 0.4 cases/mo, respectively). Of those who answered "other," lutetium-177 dotatate was most commonly prescribed (8%). No significant (P < .05) association was noted between practice type, practice location, years of practice, or practice volume with utilization of any RPTs. Most radiation oncologists (56%, n = 74) responded they would like to actively prescribe more RPT, although 27% (n = 35) were indifferent, and 17% (n = 22) said they would not like to prescribe more RPT. Perceived barriers to implementation were varied but broadly categorized into treatment infrastructure (44%, n = 57), interspecialty relations (41%, n = 53), lack of training (23%, n = 30), and financial considerations (16%, n = 21). Conclusions: Among surveyed U.S. radiation oncologists, a significant number reported prescribing at least 1 RPT. The majority expressed interest in prescribing additional RPT. Wide-ranging barriers to implementation exist, most commonly interspecialty relations, treatment infrastructure, lack of training, and financial considerations.

Successful Full-term Pregnancies After High-dose Pelvic Radiotherapy for Ewing Sarcoma: A Case Report.

Survivors of childhood cancer are at risk of long-term sequelae that arise as a consequence of cancer treatment. Radiation and chemotherapy treatment in pediatric female patients can have detrimental impacts on fertility, particularly in those with pelvic tumor involvement. We report 2 successful natural full-term pregnancies with vaginal delivery in a woman 12 years after biopsy, irradiation (55.5 Gy), and multi-agent chemotherapy for treatment of pelvic Ewing sarcoma. Both children were born healthy, with no complications in pregnancy or delivery. Fertility preservation and risk assessment following chemotherapy/radiation therapy is evolving, providing new data to effectively counsel and treat young women.

Predictors of Distant Failure After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Stages I to IIA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as an effective treatment modality for patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with excellent local control rates. Despite this, there is a predominant pattern of distant failure. We sought to identify factors that help predict which patients with stages I to IIA NSCLC treated with SBRT are at highest risk of distant failure, so that we may utilize these factors in the future to help determine which patients may benefit from the addition of systemic therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 292 patients treated with SBRT for early stage NSCLC from 2006 to 2016 at 2 institutions. Patients were classified by T stage, tumor size, location and histology, pretreatment positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) standardized uptake value (SUV), smoking status, and age. The primary endpoint of the study was distant failure. We aimed to analyze if patient characteristics could be identified that predicted for distant failure through the use of competing risk analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 21.9 months. The median dose of radiation and fractionation delivered was 50 Gy (range, 45-65 Gy) in 5 fractions (range, 3-13 fractions). The median patient age was 72.8 years (interquartile range, 65.4-79.7 years). The 2-year distant failure was 22.0%, and overall survival at 2 years was found to be 61.0%. For every 1-year increase in patient age, the hazard of distant failure at any given time was 3% lower (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.99; P = .04). None of the remaining characteristics emerged as significant risk factors for distant failure on univariable or multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our cohort had distant failure and survival rates comparable with what has been described in the literature. Although we were unable to identify factors outside of age that correlated to risk of distant failure, this topic warrants further investigation, as distant failure is the primary pattern of failure with SBRT when used as the primary management for early-stage NSCLC. Additional molecular studies are needed to further inform on the role of systemic therapy in patients with early-stage NSCLC to improve clinical outcomes.