Personalized medicine in radiation oncology and radiation sensitivity index: Pathbreaking genomic way to define the role of radiation in cancer management.

ABSTRACTS: The technological developments associated with the branch of Radiation Oncology have been directed towards precise delivery of the dose, leading to improved survival in various solid malignancies. Radiation therapy as a treatment modality, is an integral component of more than half of the diagnosed malignancies. In spite of the role of adaptive radiation therapy evolving over the last decade, the fundamental question remains as to the difference in radiation response between individuals. Recently, the role of the radiosensitivity index has emerged, which has shown immense potential in the development of biologically driven tumor radiation therapy. The role of these novel methods of genome-based molecular assays needs to be explored to help in decision-making between radical treatment options for various malignancies and reduce the associated toxicity burden. In this article, we explore the current evidence available for various malignancy sites and provide a comprehensive review of the predictive values of various molecular markers available and their impact on the radiosensitivity index.

A randomized study for dosimetric assessment and clinical impact of bone marrow sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy on hematological and gastrointestinal toxicities in cervical cancer.

Background: Cervical cancer requires multimodality therapy, resulting in acute toxicities. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is postulated to spare bone marrow (BM) and bowel to reduce acute hematological and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities of chemoradiotherapy. Patients and Methods: This is a prospective randomized phase III study enrolling patients with Stage IB to IVA cervical carcinoma in two arms receiving either three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) or IMRT from December 2017 to December 2019. The primary objective was to compare the hematologic toxicities (Grade 2 or more neutropenia as the primary factor) and the secondary objectives were to compare GI toxicities, and dosimetric analysis for volumes of BM, and bowel irradiated. SPSS version 20 was used for all statistical calculations. Results: Eighty patients with histopathologically confirmed cervical cancer were randomized to receive IMRT or 3DCRT (40 in each arm). The median age of the patients was 56.5 (36-67) and 59.5 (37-68) years, respectively, in IMRT and 3DCRT arms. The median dose of external radiation was 50 Gy in 25 fractions, and of brachytherapy was 24 Gy in 3 fractions in both the arms. The incidence of grade ≥2 neutropenia was 42.5% and 15% in the 3DCRT and IMRT arms, respectively (P < 0.001). All patients received concurrent chemotherapy with cisplatin, with the median number of cycles being 5 (range 3-5) in both the arms. All five cycles of concurrent chemotherapy could be completed in 25 (62.5%) patients in the IMRT arm and 24 (60%) patients in the 3DCRT arm. Conclusions: IMRT significantly reduces acute hematologic and GI toxicities compared with 3DCRT with a better dosimetry profile.

A retrospective study on clinical factors influencing intra-fraction motion using volumetric imaging for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Objectives: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the spine is challenging due to high-dose gradients sparing the cord in the treatment plans. We present our findings of initial setup error and intrafraction motion from Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. Materials and methods: A total of 47 patients treated with spine SBRT with a total of 154 fractions following a fractionation schedule of 16 Gy in 1, 24 Gy in 2, and 30 Gy in 5 fractions were part of this study. Pre-treatment CBCT was used for localization of the target and couch shifts were applied based on target volume matching to the planning CT image set. Post-treatment CBCT was acquired for all fractions. Intrafraction motion (IFM) was calculated by matching post-treatment CBCT to planning CT for the target volume. Results: The average Intrafraction motion was 1.6 ± 0.9 mm for the study cohort. The average and standard deviation of intrafraction motion were 0.4 ± 1.1 (AP), 0.3 ± 0.9 (SI) and 0.2 ± 1.2 (RL) respectively. The average Initial setup error tabulated from the offline review showed a mean value of 7.8 ± 5.3 mm. The average and standard deviation of the initial setup error were 2.5 ± 5.5 (AP), 2.4 ± 5.3(SI), and 0.8 ± 4.5(RL) respectively. The correlation of intrafraction motion with body mass index (BMI) and the number of consecutive vertebrae levels did not show any statistical significance, however, there was a significant association with gender as women showed more IFM. Conclusions: Our study on intrafraction motion from CBCT images reinforced the importance of immobilization and imaging for positioning spine SBRT patients. Advances in knowledge: The need for CBCT and imagining for positional errors is emphasized while treating with SBRT spine and the need for proper immobilization techniques.

Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncology Residency Training in India and a Novel Online Academic Solution: Results of an Online Survey.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a global effect on the training of residents of medicine because of what has been required in the pandemic. The field of oncology has not been spared, as prepandemic training schedules have not been available for residents. We conducted an online survey to understand the effect of the pandemic and the effect of online teaching schedules as a measure to help residents of oncology in their training. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An online survey consisting of 31 questions was sent through various social media platforms based on the training pattern before the onset of COVID-19, effect of the pandemic on educational activities, and the effect of online academic activities on residency training and learning. The survey addressed the need for online academics as an alternate mode of teaching. The survey was left open for a period of 4 weeks with participation requests from the various branches of oncology, including radiation, surgical and medical oncology, onco-anesthesia, palliative oncology, neuro-oncology, and so forth. The frequencies obtained in the survey were analyzed using descriptive statistical analyses. RESULTS: After a 4-week period, there were 255 responses received from students of oncology from various specialties. Around 69.8.1% of respondents (n = 178) were junior residents, followed by senior residents (n = 72; 28.2%). The majority of the respondents were radiation oncologists (n = 204; 80%). Around 70.9% had an ongoing structured teaching program related to oncology training, with the majority (40.3%) of them having more than 3 hours every week of oncology-based training. Another 31.3% reported having 1 to 2 hours of such training every week, and 60.8% of participants agreed their training was affected by pandemic and related safety regulations. Most students (90.9%) found the online teaching sessions helped maintain training qualities as they were in the pre-COVID times. About 69.1% of the students felt that the quality of these online sessions was better compared with the institute-based onsite classroom teaching. However, as is expected, 77.6% of them agreed that their hands-on training was affected in the pandemic. When asked if online teaching can replace every aspect of classroom teaching, 66.7% of respondents did not agree. The majority (83.9%) felt that students should be given the opportunity to present a given topic under the supervision of a senior faculty member experienced and expert in that topic. The students pointed out the lack of practical exposure as the most common deficiency, followed by the lack of direct interaction with the teaching faculty. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has limited the access to essential training in the branches of oncology, and though online sessions cannot replace the hands-on training and clinical exposure needed for the students, online academics and webinars have proven to be an effective tool to minimize that effect and can lead to a positive outcome, as shown by the survey. A combination of online and onsite training modules may be the future of teaching and training in our country.

A phase III randomised trial of trans-abdominal ultrasound in improving application quality and dosimetry of intra-cavitary brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Intra-cavitary brachytherapy (ICB) remains an integral part of radiotherapy treatment in cervical cancer. Two-dimensional X ray point-based planning remains common and blind insertion leads to uterine perforations and higher toxicity. We conducted a randomised controlled trial of using trans-abdominal ultrasound in performing ICB to reduce perforation and organ at risk doses. PATIENT AND METHODS: The present study is a phase III open label randomised controlled trial of ultrasound guided ICB conducted on invasive cervical cancer patients. Patients were randomised by a simple computer-generated randomization chart into Arm A (No Ultrasound guidance) and Arm B (ICB with ultrasound guidance). The uterine perforation rates, tandem length change rates, bladder doses, rectal dose and procedure times were compared. Fischer exact test was used to compare the arms and p value <0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were randomised. With US assistance, the uterine perforation rate was 1.25% (n = 1). In the non-US assistance arm the perforation rate was 12.5% (n = 10) (p = 0.005). Mean time to complete the entire procedure was significantly shortened from 26 min to 19 min favouring the US arm (p = 0.001). Dosimetric assessment between the two groups showed significant decrease in dose received by the various organs at risk with US assistance. CONCLUSION: The present study confirms significant improvement in application quality as well as dosimetry with reduction in procedure time. Trans-Abdominal US should be routinely used for ICB procedures, particularly in resource limited settings.

Brachytherapy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a review on the practice changes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a havoc across the globe, and has significantly affected oncology services, especially radiation therapy due to the need of social distancing as a measure for the pandemic mitigation. Brachytherapy, being an integral part of radiation therapy, posts a dilemma related to the practice of evidence-based oncology. It requires a significant amount of resources and personnel, thereby increasing the risk of exposure to the virus. There has been a significant amount of papers published providing the best available alternatives to external radiation; however, there is a lack of literature on the practice of brachytherapy. In times of the pandemic, deploying brachytherapy as a treatment modality can act as a double-edged sword and therefore, judicious use is warranted in such times of crisis. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the role of brachytherapy in various forms and different malignancy sites.

Brachytherapy in head and neck malignancies: Indian Brachytherapy Society (IBS) recommendations and guidelines.

PURPOSE: Brachytherapy (BT) forms major treatment modality in squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck cancers (HNC). However, there is a dearth of literature and guidelines for the use in various indications. High-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) in Indian scenario is an important treatment modality, and the recommendations in this guidelines aim to provide the necessary recommendations for the use of HDR-BT for uniform application across the country in patients with HNC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A panel consisting of members of the Indian Brachytherapy Society (IBS), based on their clinical experience was invited. The process involved defining important steps, precautions, target volumes and indications, thorough literature review, and discussion with fellow members. The guidelines were established and formulated the recommendations for HDR-BT based on available evidences and individual experience for sites, relevant to Indian settings. RESULTS: The IBS recommends the use of HDR brachytherapy as a part of treatment of head and neck tumors. The scope of these guidelines and recommendations included practical suggestions, ensuring efficient use of brachytherapy treatment as radical with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost, palliative and adjuvant as definitive, or re-radiation as salvage for HNC in India. The IBS has made specific site-wise recommendations for previously untreated and recurrent HNC patients on their selection criteria, implant techniques, target volume definition, and HDR treatment parameters, such as time, dose rate, total dose, and fractionation schedules. Limited experience exists with HDR-BT in patients with head and neck cancers in India and across the globe. CONCLUSIONS: IBS provided a consensus statement and guidelines for the head and neck brachytherapy and believed that these recommendations will overcome the fear of practicing radiation oncologists. This should generate interest amongst students and will help radiation oncologists all across the country to use the art of brachytherapy carefully in HNC patients, with better curative and salvage options.

Radiation oncology in times of COVID-2019: A review article for those in the eye of the storm - An Indian perspective.

The global COVID-2019 pandemic has presented to the field of radiation oncology a management dilemma in providing evidence-based treatments to all cancer patients. There is a need for appropriate measures to be taken to reduce infectious spread between the medical healthcare providers and the patient population. Such times warrant resource prioritization and to continue treatment with best available evidence, thereby reducing the risk of COVID-2019 transmission in times where the workforce is reduced. There has been literature presented in different aspects related to providing safety measures, running of a radiation department and for the management of various cancer subsites. In this article, we present a comprehensive review for sustaining a radiation oncology department in times of the COVID-2019 pandemic.

High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy in recurrent head and neck cancer: an effective salvage option.

PURPOSE: High-dose-rate (HDR) interstitial brachytherapy has an established role in head and neck malignancies and offers good survival rates; however, there is scant data on improved local control (LC) and treatment-related complications in recurrent cases. We present our results in patients with recurrent head and neck cancers treated with HDR interstitial brachytherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with recurrent head and neck cancers were treated with HDR interstitial brachytherapy using Iridium 192 between 2009 and 2016. Of these, 75% received radical brachytherapy, and 25% received external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by brachytherapy boost. Treatment sites included oral cavity (15/25) and oropharynx (10/25). Median dose of 4.5 Gy was administered twice per day, with median total brachytherapy dose of 40.5 Gy in radical and 27 Gy for EBRT cases. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 25 months, 4 local recurrences were observed within first year of follow-up. Two-year local control and overall survival outcomes for the entire group were 75% and 68%, respectively. Local control rate with radical BRT vs. BRT as a boost following EBRT was found to be significant (2-year LCR 62% vs. 85%; p < 0.02). Dosimetric assessment revealed D90 - 4.08 Gy, V100 - 94.1%, V150 - 24.7%, and V200 - 10.1%. Xerostomia, altered taste, and dysphagia were the major complications commonly grade 1 and 2. Grade 3 toxicity was only 2%. Pre-treatment volume > 85 cc had a negative impact on overall survival (26 months vs. 12 months; p = 0.02), and interval time between primary and recurrence more than 15 months had an impact on the local control rate (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Results of HDR interstitial brachytherapy have shown acceptable local control and overall survival rates along with tolerable toxicities and morbidity in recurrent head and neck cancers.

High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy in head and neck cancer: do we need a look back into a forgotten art - a single institute experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the treatment outcomes with high-dose-rate (HDR) interstitial brachytherapy (HDR-BRT) in head and neck cancers (HNC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with HNC as per American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging criteria were analyzed retrospectively between 2008 and 2015. Forty-two patients received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with HDR-BRT and 16 patients received BRT alone. The survival was calculated with respect to median biological equivalent doses (BED) and median 2 Gy equivalent dose (EQD2), keeping α/ß = 10 for tumor. Loco-regional control and disease free survival was assessed. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 25 months (2-84 months). The disease-free survival (DFS) probability at year 1 was 82.7%, and 68% at year 7. The overall survival probability was 91.3% at year 1 and 85.8% at year 7. The local control rate was 70%. The rate of recurrence was 30%. Distant metastasis rate was 17.2%. The median BED and EQD2, respectively, were 86.78 Gy and 71.6 Gy. The DFS was 74.1% and 75.9% in patients receiving a dose more than median BED and EQD2, respectively, and was 64.8% and 61.5% for less than the median dose. CONCLUSIONS: The overall outcome was good with implementation of HDR-BRT used alone or as boost, and shows DFS as better when the dose received is more than the median BED and median EQD2. The role of HDR-BRT in HNC is a proven, effective, and safe treatment method with excellent long term outcome as seen in this study, which reflects the need for reviving the forgotten art and science of interstitial brachytherapy in HNC.