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.

From planned neck dissection to PET response to circulating tumour DNA: changes in post-treatment assessment of HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer†.

INTRODUCTION: Circulating tumour human papillomavirus DNA (ctHPVDNA) is an emerging tool to assess post-treatment response in patients with HPV+ oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Its use is not a standard practice, however, with interval F-18 FDG PET/CT and fiberoptic examination preferred. Post-treatment PET/CT at 3 months has a low positive predictive value (PPV), especially in patients with HPV+ OPSCC treated with (chemo)radiation therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare 3-6 month post-treatment PET/CT and ctHPVDNA test results to determine the most effective option for post-treatment response assessment. METHODS: Patients with HPV+ OPSCC that underwent commercially available ctHPVDNA blood testing after curative intent treatment were identified. Demographic, clinical, treatment, surveillance and oncologic outcome information were collected for each patient. Specificity and false positive rate were calculated for post-treatment PET/CT and ctHPVDNA. RESULTS: 80% of patients had Stage I disease. 52% of the population was treated with definitive chemoradiation (43%) or accelerated radiation (9%), with the remaining patients treated with transoral robotic surgery (TORS) +/- risk-adapted adjuvant therapy. In total, 25 patients underwent ctHPVDNA testing and PET/CT at 3-6 months after finishing treatment. At 3-6 months post-treatment, specificity of ctHPVDNA and PET/CT was 96% and 56%, correlating to false positive rates of 4% and 44%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ctHPVDNA is more reliable than PET/CT following treatment in patients with HPV+ OPSCC, and its incorporation in post-treatment response assessment will decrease the rate of anxiety over persistent disease and lead to a decrease in unnecessary medical procedures, including completion of neck dissection.

A Multidisciplinary Central Nervous System Clinic Model for Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery (RADIANS): three-year experience with brain and skull base lesions in a community hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Subspecialty, multidisciplinary care within community hospital settings are limited and remains a challenge. Improving outcomes for central nervous system (CNS) disease rely on integrated subspecialty care between radiation oncology (RadOnc) and neurosurgery (NS). Three-year experience with simultaneous patient evaluation with RadOnc and NS physicians in a community hospital-based CNS clinic model (RADIANS) for brain and skull base lesions (BSBL) are reported. METHODS: Clinical and demographic data were prospectively collected for patients evaluated in RADIANS. Surveys administered and three-year data reviewed. Descriptive statistics reported as mean and percentages for patient characteristics, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients with confirmed BSBL were evaluated between August 2016 and August 2019. Mean age and distance traveled was 61.0 years and 66.5 miles, respectively. Female (N.=39, 58.2%) and male (N.=28, 41.8%) patients had mean Patient Satisfaction Score of 4.77 (0-5 Scale, where 5 is very satisfied; 26 respondents). Forty-three patients had malignant disease (28 brain mets; six with both brain/spine; nine with primary brain), and 24 had benign disease. Post-evaluation treatment: radiation therapy (RT) only (N.=16), neurosurgery (NS) only (N.=12), both RT and NS (N.=15), and no RT/NS intervention (N.=24). Fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery was most common RT delivered; craniotomy with tumor resection was most common NS performed. Treatment outcomes: local control in 33 of 38 (86.8%); radiation necrosis in one of 31 (3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary community hospital-based CNS clinic continues its high patient approval at extended follow-up. Results demonstrate the clinic serves as a regional referral center where patients with BSBL with varying degrees of co-morbidities, systemic disease status, and oncologic staging can be treated with evidence-based treatment modalities yielding high rates of local control and low rates of grade 3 and 4 radiation-induced toxicity, while having access to on-going clinical trials.

The Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Bladder Preservation Approaches in Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which aims to eliminate micrometastatic disease, has been established as the standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing radical cystectomy (RC). This is based on randomized controlled trials showing a survival benefit of NAC prior to RC compared to RC alone. It was anticipated that a similar survival benefit would also be seen when NAC was given prior to bladder preserving approaches, but the e phase III RTOG 8903 study which explored this concept was reported to be a negative study. However, there are a number of important caveats to be considered. First, the profile of patients opting for bladder preservation has changed from the older, frailer non-surgical candidates, to now also include younger, fitter patients opting for bladder preservation and who are also more likely to tolerate NAC. In recent years, there have also been important advances in systemic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation techniques, and supportive care. As such revisitng the role of NAC prior to bladder preserving approaches in MIBC appears warranted.

Geriatric patient outcomes in a multidisciplinary central nervous system community hospital clinic for radiation oncology and neurosurgery (RADIANS).

INTRODUCTION: Management of older adult patients with central nervous system (CNS) cancers requires a patient-centric, multidisciplinary approach. Assessment of neurosurgical and radiation treatment outcomes can assist in establishing guidelines for this patient population. We previously reported on the RADIANS clinic, a novel community hospital-based multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) for CNS cancer care, providing simultaneous radiation oncology and neurosurgery evaluation in a same-day, single-setting clinic. We now provide a focused analysis of our older adult patient population and recommendations for triage and standardization of care. METHODS: Consecutive older adult patients (age ≥ 65) evaluated at the RADIANS clinic for CNS disease were identified and retrospectively reviewed. Observed 30-day neurosurgical outcomes were compared to predicted outcomes determined by the American College of Physicians NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator. One-sample binomial exact tests were used to evaluate binary outcome measures. A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the length of hospital stay. Brier Scores were calculated to assess the deviation between predicted probabilities and observed outcomes for binary outcome measures. Overall survival at 90 days was reported. RESULTS: Fifty-six older adult patients with malignant (42/56) and benign (14/56) CNS disease were evaluated. Mean distance traveled for multidisciplinary evaluation at the RADIANS clinic was 43.4 miles. There was no incidence of radiation-induced toxicity. Mean length of hospital stay for RADIANS patients was significantly shorter by about 1.5 to 3.5 days (95% CI). There was no statistically significant difference for other outcome measures, however, Brier Scores demonstrated that NSQIP was not a good predictive tool for any or serious complications, UTI, venous thromboembolism, return to OR, readmission, or death in our cohort. Local tumor control rate and progression-free survival at 90 days were 97.4% and 76.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of CNS disease outcomes in older adult patients evaluated by radiation oncology and neurosurgery at a community hospital-based MDC. We observed minimal adverse radiation outcomes and high tumor control in our cohort. Findings show significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay for patients evaluated and managed at the RADIANS clinic.

Patterns of Care and Barriers to Utilization of Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Russia.

BACKGROUND: Definitive concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) is offered to only 3% of Russian patients with stage III NSCLC. To determine the patterns of care and barriers to cCRT utilization in Russia, we conducted a survey of practicing radiation oncologists (ROs). METHODS: Electronic IRB-approved survey containing 15 questions was distributed to Russian ROs. Fisher's exact test or Cochran-Armitage test of trend was used to assess the associations between clinical experience, practice type, and patterns of care. RESULTS: We analyzed 58 questionnaires completed by ROs-16 respondents from tertiary referral hospitals, and 42 from community or private centers. A total of 88% of respondents formulate treatment recommendations in multi-disciplinary tumor boards. For unresectable stage III NSCLC, the most common recommendation is sequential CRT (50%), followed by concurrent CRT (40%), with an observed higher utilization of cCRT in tertiary centers (9/16, 56% vs 14/42, 33%). Of the respondents, 31% do not offer cCRT to their pts. Among reasons for avoiding cCRT are (1) poor performance of pts (76%); (2) high toxicity of therapy (55%); (3) lack of consensus among tumor board members (33%); and (4) preference for sequential CRT (31%). Only 3% do not irradiate elective LNs. Eighty-six percent of respondents counsel their NSCLC pts regarding smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite level 1 evidence, cCRT is rarely used in Russia for pts with locally advanced NSCLC, and preference for sequential therapy and concerns over high toxicity are the most common barriers. Education of Russian ROs may increase cCRT utilization, leading to improved survival, notably in the era of maintenance immunotherapy.

Safety and preliminary efficacy of the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Russian patients with genitourinary malignancies.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there is no clinical data pertaining to COVID-19 outcomes and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in Russian patients with genitourinary (GU) malignancies. Aim of our analysis was to describe the characteristics of the COVID-19 infection course as well as preliminary safety and efficacy of Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine in patients with active GU malignancies. METHODS: Patients were retrospectively identified at nine cancer centers in different regions. Patients were included if COVID-19 was diagnosed by a polymerase chain reaction. Data from additional patients with GU cancers who had no positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test before vaccination and who received two doses of Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V) between 11 February and 31 August 2021 were collected for safety assessment. Anonymized data were collected through an online registry covering demographics, treatments, and outcomes. RESULTS: The Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine was well tolerated; no grade 3-5 toxicities were reported in 112 vaccinated metastatic GU cancer patients. The most common grade 1 adverse events (81%) were injection site reactions (76%), flu-like illness (68%), and asthenia (49%). Five patients experienced grade 2 chills (4.5%) and 3 patients had grade 2 fever (2.7%). With median follow-up of 6.2 months, two COVID-19 cases were confirmed by RT-PCR test in the vaccine group (of 112 participants; 1.8%). Eighty-eight patients with COVID-19 disease were included in the analysis. The average age as of the study enrollment was 66 (range 39-81) and the majority of patients were male with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Thirty-six patients (41%) had evidence of metastatic disease, of these 22 patients were receiving systemic therapy. More than half of patients required hospitalization. Fifty-four patients (61%) experienced complications. Sixteen patients who developed COVID-19 pneumonia required mechanical ventilator support. Sixteen patients (18%) died in a median of 23.5 days after the date of COVID-19 diagnosis was established. The 3-month survival rate was 82%. Clinical and/or radiographic progression of cancer during COVID-19 infection or the subsequent 3 months was observed in 10 patients (11.4%). CONCLUSION: Patients with GU malignancies are at increased risk of mortality from COVID-19 infection when compared to the general population. Vaccination could be safe in GU cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: retrospectively registered.

Three-Year Experience of a Multidisciplinary Central Nervous System Clinic Model for Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery (RADIANS) in a Community Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: As academic centers partner and establish healthcare systems with community hospitals, delivery of subspecialty, multidisciplinary care in community hospital settings remains a challenge. Improving outcomes for central nervous system (CNS) disease is related to integrated care between neurosurgery (NS) and radiation oncology (RadOnc) specialties. Our multidisciplinary community hospital-based clinic, RADIANS, previously reported high patient approval of simultaneous evaluation with NS and RadOnc physicians. Three-year experience is now reported. METHODS: Prospectively collected clinical and demographic patient data over three years was done, and surveys administered. Descriptive statistics reported as mean and percentages for patient characteristics, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes. RESULTS: Between August 2016 and August 2019, 101 patients were evaluated. Mean age and distanced traveled was 61.2 years, and 54.9 miles, respectively. Patient Satisfaction Score was 4.79 (0-5 Scale, 5-very satisfied). Most common referral source was medical oncologists. Seventy-two patients had malignant CNS disease (brain mets 28; spine mets 27; both 6; primary brain 9; primary spine 2), 29 had benign CNS disease. Post-evaluation treatment: radiation therapy (RT) only (n=29), neurosurgery (NS) only (n=16), both RT and NS (n=22), and no RT/NS intervention (n=34). Fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery was most common RT delivered; craniotomy with tumor resection was most common NS performed. Treatment outcomes: local control=61/67 (91%); radiation necrosis or radiation-induced myelitis=2/51 (3.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The RADIANS multidisciplinary community hospital-based CNS clinic model is first of its kind to be reported, continuing strong patient approval at extended follow-up. Data indicates the model serves as a regional referral center, delivering evidence-based treatment modalities for complex CNS disease in community hospital settings, yielding high rates of local control and low rates of grade 3 or 4 radiation-induced toxicity.

Society for palliative radiation oncology: report from the Seventh Annual Meeting (2020).

The Society for Palliative Radiation Oncology (SPRO) is an international professional group dedicated to advancing the field of palliative radiation oncology by promoting evidence-based palliative radiotherapy and excellence in primary palliative care through research, education, collaboration, and patient advocacy. SPRO held its 7th Annual Meeting on October 28, 2020 over a virtual platform in association with the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 62nd Annual Meeting. Short and long-term goals for the Society were detailed and the accomplishments since SPRO's 6th Annual Meeting were reviewed. New research was presented during a series of two-minute rapid fire educational sessions given by speakers selected to present in the scientific palliative care track at the ASTRO Annual Meeting. Recipients of the Lifetime Service Award and the Rising Star Award were announced and presented. This Meeting Report summarizes the proceedings of the 7th Annual Meeting and describes future directions for SPRO.

Society for palliative radiation oncology: report from the Eighth Annual Meeting (2021).

The Society for Palliative Radiation Oncology (SPRO) is an international group of clinicians whose primary aim is to advance the field of palliative radiation oncology by promoting evidence-based palliative radiation therapy and excellence in primary palliative care through research, education, collaboration, and patient advocacy. SPRO held its 8th Annual Meeting on November 4th, 2021 in association with the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 63rd Annual Meeting. Accomplishments and goals from the prior year, including SPRO gaining official non-profit status, were discussed. Dr. Dirk Rades from University of Lubeck in Germany gave the keynote address, reviewing critical trials on spinal cord compression and encouraging collaboration on future trials. Recipients of the Lifetime Service Award and the Rising Star Award were announced and presented. This Meeting Report summarizes the proceedings of SPRO's 8th Annual Meeting.

Management of Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer with Bladder Preservation in Russia: a Survey-Based Analysis of Current Practice and the Impact of an Educational Workshop on Clinical Expertise.

Trimodality bladder preservation (BP) is an accepted alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The global utilization of BP is variable, and practice patterns have not been previously studied in Russia. We sought to elucidate the contemporary BP practice patterns in Russia and determine the impact of the BP workshop on attitudes of Russian radiation oncologists (ROs) towards BP. The workshop was focused on patient workup, selection for BP, chemotherapy choices, radiation therapy (RT) contouring and planning, patient counseling. A total of 77 pre- and 32 matched post-workshop IRB-approved surveys, based on the workshop content, were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine baseline clinical experience and patterns of care. The impact was judged by changes in participants' responses. A total of 56% of respondents had experience with delivering bladder-directed RT, and 60% of those treated both operable and inoperable MIBC patients. Only 10% felt uncomfortable offering an operable patient BP modality. Prior to the workshop, almost half of respondents estimated universal poor bladder (44%) and erectile functions (47%) after BP. The workshop resulted in dramatic change in participants' attitudes towards long-term urinary (Stuart-Maxwell test, p < 0.01) and sexual (exact McNemar test, p < 0.01) side effects. Prior to the workshop, only 47% of respondents routinely discussed smoking cessation (SC) with their patients, whereas after workshop, 88% agreed that SC discussion is mandatory (exact McNemar test, p = 0.04). BP for MIBC is commonly used in Russia. Our workshop resulted in dramatically improved understanding of long-term BP toxicities and inspired Russian ROs to incorporate SC counseling into routine clinical management.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Radiation Treatment of Node-Negative Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: Definitive radiation therapy (RT), with or without concurrent chemotherapy, is an alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with localized, muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are either not surgical candidates or prefer organ preservation. We aim to synthesize an evidence-based guideline regarding the appropriate use of RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses literature review using the PubMed and Embase databases. Based on the literature review, critical management topics were identified and reformulated into consensus questions. An expert panel was assembled to address key areas of both consensus and controversy using the modified Delphi framework. RESULTS: A total of 761 articles were screened, of which 61 were published between 1975 and 2019 and included for full review. There were 7 well-designed studies, 20 good quality studies, 28 quality studies with design limitations, and 6 references not suited as primary evidence. Adjuvant radiation therapy after cystectomy was not included owing to lack of high-quality data or clinical use. An expert panel consisting of 14 radiation oncologists, 1 medical oncologist, and 1 urologist was assembled. We identified 4 clinical variants of MIBC: surgically fit patients who wish to pursue organ preservation, patients surgically unfit for cystectomy, patients medically unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and borderline cystectomy candidates based on age with unilateral hydronephrosis and normal renal function. We identified key areas of controversy, including use of definitive radiation therapy for patients with negative prognostic factors, appropriate radiation therapy dose, fractionation, fields and technique when used, and chemotherapy sequencing and choice of agent. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited level-one evidence to guide appropriate treatment of MIBC. Studies vary significantly with regards to patient selection, chemotherapy use, and radiation therapy technique. A consensus guideline on the appropriateness of RT for MIBC may aid practicing oncologists in bridging the gap between data and clinical practice.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Elective Nodal Irradiation for Limited-stage Small-cell Lung Cancer: Survey of US Radiation Oncologists on Practice Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, elective nodal irradiation (ENI) has been used in clinical trials that have established thoracic radiotherapy as instrumental in improving survival for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). However, several reports have suggested that the omission of ENI might be appropriate. Current US practice patterns are unknown regarding ENI for patients with LS-SCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed US radiation oncologists via an institutional review board-approved questionnaire. The questions covered demographics, treatment recommendations, and self-assessed knowledge of key clinical trials. χ2 and Cochran-Armitage tests were used to evaluate for statistically significant correlations between responses. RESULTS: We received 309 responses. Of the respondents, 21% recommended ENI for N0 LS-SCLC, 29% for N1, and 30% for N2; 64% did not recommend ENI for any of these clinical scenarios. The respondents who recommended ENI were more likely to have been practicing for > 10 years (P < .001), more likely to be in private practice (P = .04), and less likely to be familiar with the ongoing Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30610 trial (P = .04). Almost all respondents (93%) prescribed the same radiation dose to the primary disease and involved lymph nodes. When delivering ENI, 36% prescribed the same dose to the involved and elective nodes, and 64% prescribed a lower dose to the elective nodes. CONCLUSION: Nearly two thirds of respondents did not recommend ENI, which represents a shift in practice. A recent large clinical trial that omitted ENI reported greater overall survival than previously reported and lower-than-expected radiation toxicities, lending further evidence that omitting ENI should be considered a standard treatment strategy.