Quality of Large Language Model Responses to Radiation Oncology Patient Care Questions.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in simulating human-like dialogue. Their efficacy in accurate patient-clinician communication within radiation oncology has yet to be explored. Objective: To determine an LLM's quality of responses to radiation oncology patient care questions using both domain-specific expertise and domain-agnostic metrics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study retrieved questions and answers from websites (accessed February 1 to March 20, 2023) affiliated with the National Cancer Institute and the Radiological Society of North America. These questions were used as queries for an AI LLM, ChatGPT version 3.5 (accessed February 20 to April 20, 2023), to prompt LLM-generated responses. Three radiation oncologists and 3 radiation physicists ranked the LLM-generated responses for relative factual correctness, relative completeness, and relative conciseness compared with online expert answers. Statistical analysis was performed from July to October 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The LLM's responses were ranked by experts using domain-specific metrics such as relative correctness, conciseness, completeness, and potential harm compared with online expert answers on a 5-point Likert scale. Domain-agnostic metrics encompassing cosine similarity scores, readability scores, word count, lexicon, and syllable counts were computed as independent quality checks for LLM-generated responses. Results: Of the 115 radiation oncology questions retrieved from 4 professional society websites, the LLM performed the same or better in 108 responses (94%) for relative correctness, 89 responses (77%) for completeness, and 105 responses (91%) for conciseness compared with expert answers. Only 2 LLM responses were ranked as having potential harm. The mean (SD) readability consensus score for expert answers was 10.63 (3.17) vs 13.64 (2.22) for LLM answers (P < .001), indicating 10th grade and college reading levels, respectively. The mean (SD) number of syllables was 327.35 (277.15) for expert vs 376.21 (107.89) for LLM answers (P = .07), the mean (SD) word count was 226.33 (191.92) for expert vs 246.26 (69.36) for LLM answers (P = .27), and the mean (SD) lexicon score was 200.15 (171.28) for expert vs 219.10 (61.59) for LLM answers (P = .24). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the LLM generated accurate, comprehensive, and concise responses with minimal risk of harm, using language similar to human experts but at a higher reading level. These findings suggest the LLM's potential, with some retraining, as a valuable resource for patient queries in radiation oncology and other medical fields.

Determining risk and predictors of head and neck cancer treatment-related lymphedema: A clinicopathologic and dosimetric data mining approach using interpretable machine learning and ensemble feature selection.

Background and purpose: The ability to determine the risk and predictors of lymphedema is vital in improving the quality of life for head and neck (HN) cancer patients. However, selecting robust features is challenging due to the multicollinearity and high dimensionality of radiotherapy (RT) data. This study aims to overcome these challenges using an ensemble feature selection technique with machine learning (ML). Materials and methods: Thirty organs-at-risk, including bilateral cervical lymph node levels, were contoured, and dose-volume data were extracted from 76 HN treatment plans. Clinicopathologic data was collected. Ensemble feature selection was used to reduce the number of features. Using the reduced features as input to ML and competing risk models, internal and external lymphedema prediction capability was evaluated with the ML models, and time to lymphedema event and risk stratification were estimated using the risk models. Results: Two ML models, XGBoost and random forest, exhibited robust prediction performance. They achieved average F1-scores and AUCs of 84 ± 3.3 % and 79 ± 11.9 % (external lymphedema), and 64 ± 12 % and 78 ± 7.9 % (internal lymphedema). Predictive ML and risk models identified common predictors, including bulky node involvement, high dose to various lymph node levels, and lymph nodes removed during surgery. At 180 days, removing 0-25, 26-50, and > 50 lymph nodes increased external lymphedema risk to 72.1 %, 95.6 %, and 57.7 % respectively (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Our approach, involving the reduction of HN RT data dimensionality, resulted in effective ML models for HN lymphedema prediction. Predictive dosimetric features emerged from both predictive and competing risk models. Consistency with clinicopathologic features from other studies supports our methodology.

Comparative Analysis of US Guidelines for the Management of Cutaneous Squamous Cell and Basal Cell Carcinoma.

Background: This study presents a comparative analysis of recently published guidelines to manage cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (cBCC) within the United States (US). Methods: A PubMed database search was performed for the time period between June 1, 2016, and December 1, 2022. A comprehensive comparison was performed in the following clinical interest areas: staging and risk stratification, management of primary tumor and regional nodes with curative intent, and palliative treatment. Results: Guidelines from 3 organizations were analyzed: the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). The guidelines used different methodologies to grade evidence, making comparison difficult. There was agreement that surgery is the preferred treatment for curative cBCC and cSCC. For patients ineligible for surgery, there was a consensus to recommend definitive radiation. AAD and NCCN recommended consideration of other topical modalities in selected low-risk cBCC. Postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) was uniformly recommended in patients with positive margins that could not be cleared with surgery and in patients with nerve invasion. The definition and extent of nerve invasion varied. All guidelines recommended surgery as the primary treatment in patients with lymph node metastases in a curative setting. The criteria used for PORT varied; NCCN and ASTRO used lymph node size, number of nodes, and extracapsular extension for recommending PORT. Both NCCN and ASTRO recommend consideration of systemic treatment along with PORT in patients with extracapsular extension. Conclusion: US guidelines provide contemporary and complementary information on the management of cBCC and cSCC. There are opportunities for research, particularly in the areas of staging, indications for adjuvant treatment in curative settings, extent of nerve invasion and prognosis, and the role of systemic treatments in curative and palliative settings.

Dosimetric evaluation of high-Z inhomogeneity with modern algorithms: A collaborative study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate modern dose calculation algorithms with high-Z prosthetic devices used in radiation treatment. METHODS: A bilateral hip prosthetic patient was selected to see the effect of modern algorithms from the commercial system for plan comparisons. The CT data with dose constraints were sent to various institutions for dose calculations. The dosimetric parameters, D98%, D90%, D50% and D2% were compared. A water phantom with an actual prosthetic device was used to measure the dose using a parallel plate ionization chamber. RESULTS: Dosimetric variability in PTV coverage was significant (>10%) among various treatment planning algorithms. The comparison of PTV dosimetric parameters, D98%, D90%, D50% and D2% as well as organs at risk (OAR) have large discrepancies compared to our previous publication with older algorithms (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.02.007) but provides realistic dose distribution with better homogeneity index (HI). Backscatter and forward scatter attenuation of the prosthesis was measured showing differences <15.7% at the interface among various algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Modern algorithms dose distributions have improved greatly compared to older generation algorithms. However, there is still significant differences at high-Z-tissue interfaces compared to the measurements. To ensure accuracy, it's important to take precautions avoiding placing any prosthesis in the beam direction and using type C algorithms.

Hippocampus sparing volumetric modulated arc therapy in patients with loco-regionally advanced oropharyngeal cancer.

This study aimed to assess the incidental radiation exposure of the hippocampus (HC) in locoregionally-advanced oropharyngeal cancer patients undergoing volumetric modulated arc therapy and the feasibility of HC-sparing plan optimization. The initial plans were generated without dose-volume constraints to the HC and were compared with the HC-sparing plans. The incidental Dmean_median doses to the bilateral, ipsilateral and contralateral HC were 2.9, 3.1, and 2.5 Gy in the initial plans and 1.4, 1.6, and 1.3 Gy with HC-sparing. It was feasible to reduce the HC dose with HC-sparing plan optimization without compromising target coverage and/or dose constraints to other OARs.

Emergence of MR-Linac in Radiation Oncology: Successes and Challenges of Riding on the MRgRT Bandwagon.

The special issue of JCM on "Advances of MRI in Radiation Oncology" provides a unique forum for scientific literature related to MR imaging in radiation oncology. This issue covered many aspects, such as MR technology, motion management, economics, soft-tissue-air interface issues, and disease sites such as the pancreas, spine, sarcoma, prostate, head and neck, and rectum from both camps-the Unity and MRIdian systems. This paper provides additional information on the success and challenges of the two systems. A challenging aspect of this technology is low throughput and the monumental task of education and training that hinders its use for the majority of therapy centers. Additionally, the cost of this technology is too high for most institutions, and hence widespread use is still limited. This article highlights some of the difficulties and how to resolve them.

Development of a core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There is variation in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of basal cell carcinoma. This can prevent effective meta-analyses from answering important clinical questions. OBJECTIVE: To identify a recommended minimum set of core outcomes for basal cell carcinoma clinical trials. METHODS: Patient and professional Delphi process to cull a long list, culminating in a consensus meeting. To be provisionally accepted, outcomes needed to be deemed important (score, 7-9, with 9 being the maximum) by 70% of each stakeholder group. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five candidate outcomes identified via a systematic literature review and survey of key stakeholders were reduced to 74 that were rated by 100 health care professionals and patients in 2 Delphi rounds. Twenty-seven outcomes were provisionally accepted. The final core set of 5 agreed-upon outcomes after the consensus meeting included complete response; persistent or serious adverse events; recurrence-free survival; quality of life; and patient satisfaction, including cosmetic outcome. LIMITATIONS: English-speaking patients and professionals rated outcomes extracted from English language studies. CONCLUSION: A core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma has been developed. The use of relevant measures may improve the utility of clinical research and the quality of therapeutic guidance available to clinicians.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 1.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancers address tumors arising in the oral cavity (including mucosal lip), pharynx, larynx, and paranasal sinuses. Occult primary cancer, salivary gland cancer, and mucosal melanoma (MM) are also addressed. The specific site of disease, stage, and pathologic findings guide treatment (eg, the appropriate surgical procedure, radiation targets, dose and fractionation of radiation, indications for systemic therapy). The NCCN Head and Neck Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's most recent recommendations regarding management of HPV-positive oropharynx cancer and ongoing research in this area.

Transferability of patients for radiation treatment between unmatched machines.

PURPOSE: The feasibility of transferring patients between unmatched machines for a limited number of treatment fractions was investigated for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. METHODS: Eighty patient-plans were evaluated on two unmatched linacs: Elekta Versa HD and Elekta Infinity. Plans were equally divided into pelvis 3DCRT, prostate VMAT, brain VMAT, and lung VMAT plans. While maintaining the number of monitor units (MUs), plans were recalculated on the machine not originally used for treatment. Relative differences in dose were calculated between machines for the target volume and organs at risk (OARs). Differences in mean dose were assessed with paired t-tests (p < 0.05). The number of interchangeable fractions allowable before surpassing a cumulative ±5% difference in dose was determined. Additionally, patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements using ArcCHECK for both machines were compared with distributions calculated on the machine originally used for treatment using gradient compensation (GC) with 2%/2-mm criteria. RESULTS: Interchanging the two machines for pelvic 3DCRT and VMAT (prostate, brain, and lung) plans resulted in an average change in target mean dose of 0.9%, -0.5%, 0.6%, 0.5%, respectively. Based on the differences in dose to the prescription point when changing machines, statistically, nearly one-fourth of the prescribed fractions could be transferred between linacs for 3DCRT plans. While all of the prescribed fractions could typically be transferred among prostate VMAT plans, a rather large number of treatment fractions, 31% and 38%, could be transferred among brain and lung VMAT plans, respectively, without exceeding a ±5% change in the prescribed dose for two Elekta machines. Additionally, the OAR dosage was not affected within the given criterion with change of machine. CONCLUSIONS: Despite small differences in calculated dose, transferring patients between two unmatched Elekta machines with similar multileaf collimator (MLC)-head for target coverage and minimum changes in OAR dose is possible for a limited number of fractions (≤3) to improve clinical flexibility and institutional throughput along with patient satisfaction. A similar study could be carried out for other machines for operational throughput.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Extramammary Paget Disease.

IMPORTANCE: Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a frequently recurring malignant neoplasm with metastatic potential that presents in older adults on the genital, perianal, and axillary skin. Extramammary Paget disease can precede or occur along with internal malignant neoplasms. OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the care of adults with EMPD. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A systematic review of the literature on EMPD from January 1990 to September 18, 2019, was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Libraries. Analysis included 483 studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluation of the findings led to the development of clinical care recommendations for EMPD. FINDINGS: The key findings were as follows: (1) Multiple skin biopsies, including those of any nodular areas, are critical for diagnosis. (2) Malignant neoplasm screening appropriate for age and anatomical site should be performed at baseline to distinguish between primary and secondary EMPD. (3) Routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy or lymph node dissection is not recommended. (4) For intraepidermal EMPD, surgical and nonsurgical treatments may be used depending on patient and tumor characteristics, although cure rates may be superior with surgical approaches. For invasive EMPD, surgical resection with curative intent is preferred. (5) Patients with unresectable intraepidermal EMPD or patients who are medically unable to undergo surgery may receive nonsurgical treatments, including radiotherapy, imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, carbon dioxide laser therapy, or other modalities. (6) Distant metastatic disease may be treated with chemotherapy or individualized targeted approaches. (7) Close follow-up to monitor for recurrence is recommended for at least the first 5 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinical practice guidelines for EMPD provide guidance regarding recommended diagnostic approaches, differentiation between invasive and noninvasive disease, and use of surgical vs nonsurgical treatments. Prospective registries may further improve our understanding of the natural history of the disease in primary vs secondary EMPD, clarify features of high-risk tumors, and identify superior management approaches.

Evaluating dysphagia and xerostomia outcomes following transoral robotic surgery for patients with oropharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We assessed long-term patient-reported dysphagia and xerostomia outcomes following definitive surgical management with transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) via a cross-sectional survey study. METHODS: Patients with OPC managed with primary oropharyngeal surgery as definitive treatment at least 1 year ago between 2015 and 2019 were identified. The M. D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) and Xerostomia Inventory (XI) scores were compared across treatment types (i.e., no adjuvant therapy [TORS-A] vs. adjuvant radiotherapy [TORS+RT] vs. adjuvant chemoradiotherapy [TORS+CT/RT]). RESULTS: The sample had 62 patients (10 TORS-A, 30 TORS+RT, 22 TORS+CT/RT). TORS-A had clinically and statistically significantly better MDADI scores than TORS+RT (p = 0.03) and TORS+CT/RT (p = 0.02), but TORS+RT and TORS+CT/RT were not significantly different. TORS-A had clinically and statistically significantly less XI than TORS+RT (p < 0.01) and TORS+CT/RT (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with OPC who have undergone TORS+RT or TORS+CT/RT following surgery face clinically worse dysphagia and xerostomia outcomes relative to patients who undergo TORS-A.

Single Fraction Radiation for Myeloid Sarcoma Is as Effective as Multi-Fraction Regimens for Tumor Regression and Control.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Myeloid sarcoma is a rare extramedullary manifestation of immature myeloid/monocyte cells. Radiotherapy (RT) yields good local control, but data on different fractionation schemes are limited. The goal of this retrospective study was to share our institutional experience and assess volumetric regression with differential fractionation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated patients treated for myeloid sarcoma between 2000 and 2019 and categorized them into Group A (treated with RT) and Group B (no RT). We assessed local control using cumulative incidence function analysis. Post-treatment imaging sequences were analyzed for volumetric calculations. RESULTS: Forty-four patients with 80 lesions were assessed. Twenty-three patients with 52 lesions received RT (Group A), and 6 lesions received a single fraction of RT. There were 2 instances of local progression in Group A and 8 in Group B, with a cumulative incidence function estimate of local progression in Group A of 2.4% at 1 year and 6.9% at 2 years, significantly reduced compared to 29.7% and 35.5% in Group B, respectively (hazard ratio 0.13 [95% confidence interval 0.030.63], P = .011). No lesion treated with a single fraction of RT developed local progression. Volumetric analysis for 19 chronologically followed lesions (including 3 treated with a single fraction) revealed no difference in regression between single or multi-fraction treatment. CONCLUSION: RT for myeloid sarcoma yields excellent local control and may be as effective in a single fraction as more protracted courses, though this requires validation. For a diagnosis associated with poor survival, a single palliative fraction may be optimal with potential for higher utilization.

Adaptability and Resilience of Academic Radiation Oncology Personnel and Procedures during COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive response to the unprecedented SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) challenges for public health and its impact on radiation oncology patients and personnel for resilience and adaptability is presented. METHODS: The general recommendations included working remotely when feasible, implementation of screening/safety and personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines, social distancing, regular cleaning of treatment environment, and testing for high-risk patients/procedures. All teaching conferences, tumor boards, and weekly chart rounds were conducted using a virtual platform. Additionally, specific recommendations were given to each section to ensure proper patient treatments. The impact of these measures, especially adaptability and resilience, were evaluated through specific questionnaire surveys. RESULTS: These comprehensive COVID-19-related measures resulted in most staff expressing a consistent level of satisfaction in regard to personal safety, maintaining a safe work environment, continuing quality patient care, and continuing educational activities during the pandemic. There was a significant reduction in patient treatments and on-site patient visits with an appreciable increase in the number of telemedicine e-visits. CONCLUSIONS: Survey results demonstrated substantial adaptability and resilience, including in the rapid recovery of departmental activities during the reactivation phase. In the event of a future public health emergency, the measures implemented may be adopted with good outcomes by radiation oncology departments across the globe.

Treatment plan quality control using multivariate control charts.

PURPOSE: Statistical process control tools such as control charts were recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 218 for radiotherapy quality assurance. However, the tools needed to analyze multivariate, correlated data that are often encountered in treatment plan quality measures, are lacking. In this study, we develop quality control tools that can model multivariate plan quality measures with correlations and account for patient-specific risk factors, without adding a significant burden to clinical workflow. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multivariate, quality control chart is developed that includes a risk-adjustment model, Hotelling's T2 statistic, and principal component analysis (PCA). Principal component analysis accounts for correlations among a set of organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume histogram (DVH) points that serves as proxies for plan quality. Risk-adjustment models estimate the principal components from PCA using a set of patient- and treatment-specific risk factors. The resulting residuals from the risk-adjustment models are used to compute the Hotelling's T2 statistic; the corresponding multivariate control chart is then plotted based on the beta distribution followed by the statistic. Further, the box-cox transformation is used to account for non-normality in DVH points. We investigate the application of the proposed methodology via three multivariate control charts - a conventional chart that ignores risk-adjustment and PCA, a risk-adjusted chart ignoring PCA, and a PCA-based, risk-adjusted chart. These control charts are evaluated on 69 head-and-neck cases. RESULTS: The conventional multivariate control chart fails to account for important patient-specific risk factors, including volumes and cross-sectional areas of the tumor and OARs and distances in-between. This failure leads to a larger number of false alarms. While the multivariate risk-adjusted control chart is able to reduce false alarms, it fails to account for correlations in DVH points. The multivariate PCA-based, risk-adjusted control chart can detect unusual plans after accounting for the correlations. By replanning, improvements are shown on an unusual plan identified by both risk-adjusted methods. CONCLUSIONS: The multivariate risk-adjusted control chart developed here enables quality control of plans prior to delivery. This methodology is generic and can be readily applied for other radiotherapy quality assurance protocols, such as gamma analysis pass rates.

Caution warranted for low-dose radiation therapy for Covid-19.

Covid-19 is a morbid respiratory disease that has caused desperate times on a global scale due to the lack of any effective medical treatment. Some in the radiation community are actively proposing low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) for managing the viral pneumonia associated with Covid-19. This commentary provides a rationale for exercising caution against such a decision as the efficacy of LDRT for viral diseases is unknown, while its long-term adverse risks are well known.

A Risk-Adjusted Control Chart to Evaluate Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Plan Quality.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a quality control framework for intensity modulated radiation therapy plan evaluations that can account for variations in patient- and treatment-specific risk factors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patient-specific risk factors, such as a patient's anatomy and tumor dose requirements, affect organs-at-risk (OARs) dose-volume histograms (DVHs), which in turn affects plan quality and can potentially cause adverse effects. Treatment-specific risk factors, such as the use of chemotherapy and surgery, are clinically relevant when evaluating radiation therapy planning criteria. A risk-adjusted control chart was developed to identify unusual plan quality after accounting for patient- and treatment-specific risk factors. In this proof of concept, 6 OAR DVH points and average monitor units serve as proxies for plan quality. Eighteen risk factors are considered for modeling quality: planning target volume (PTV) and OAR cross-sectional areas; volumes, spreads, and surface areas; minimum and centroid distances between OARs and the PTV; 6 PTV DVH points; use of chemotherapy; and surgery. A total of 69 head and neck cases were used to demonstrate the application of risk-adjusted control charts, and the results were compared with the application of conventional control charts. RESULTS: The risk-adjusted control chart remains robust to interpatient variations in the studied risk factors, unlike the conventional control chart. For the brainstem, the conventional chart signaled 4 patients with unusual (out-of-control) doses to 2% brainstem volume. However, the adjusted chart did not signal any plans after accounting for their risk factors. For the spinal cord doses to 2% brainstem volume, the conventional chart signaled 2 patients, and the adjusted chart signaled a separate patient after accounting for their risk factors. Similar adjustments were observed for the other DVH points when evaluating brainstem, spinal cord, ipsilateral parotid, and average monitor units. The adjustments can be directly attributed to the patient- and treatment-specific risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: A risk-adjusted control chart was developed to evaluate plan quality, which is robust to variations in patient- and treatment-specific parameters.