Search

ImportanceClinical trials for metastatic malignant neoplasms are increasingly being extended to patients with brain metastases. Despite the preeminence of progression-free survival (PFS) as a primary oncologic end point, the correlation of intracranial progression (ICP) and extracranial progression (ECP) events with overall survival (OS) is poorly understood for patients with brain metastases following stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).ObjectiveTo determine the correlation of ICP and ECP with OS among patients with brain metastases completing an initial SRS course.Design, setting, and participantsThis multi-institutional retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. We included patients who completed an initial course of SRS for brain metastases during the study period, including receipt of single and/or multifraction SRS, prior whole-brain radiotherapy, and brain metastasis resection. Data analysis was performed on November 15, 2022.ExposuresNon-OS end points included intracranial PFS, extracranial PFS, PFS, time to ICP, time to ECP, and any time to progression. Progression events were radiologically defined, incorporating multidisciplinary clinical consensus.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was correlation of surrogate end points to OS. Clinical end points were estimated from time of SRS completion via the Kaplan-Meier method, while end-point correlation to OS was measured using normal scores rank correlation with the iterative multiple imputation approach.ResultsThis study included 1383 patients, with a mean age of 63.1 years (range, 20.9-92.8 years) and a median follow-up of 8.72 months (IQR, 3.25-19.68 months). The majority of participants were White (1032 [75%]), and more than half (758 [55%]) were women. Common primary tumor sites included the lung (757 [55%]), breast (203 [15%]), and skin (melanoma; 100 [7%]). Intracranial progression was observed in 698 patients (50%), preceding 492 of 1000 observed deaths (49%). Extracranial progression was observed in 800 patients (58%), preceding 627 of 1000 observed deaths (63%). Irrespective of deaths, 482 patients (35%) experienced both ICP and ECP, 534 (39%) experienced ICP (216 [16%]) or ECP (318 [23%]), and 367 (27%) experienced neither. The median OS was 9.93 months (95% CI, 9.08-11.05 months). Intracranial PFS had the highest correlation with OS (ρ = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.82-0.85]; median, 4.39 months [95% CI, 4.02-4.92 months]). Time to ICP had the lowest correlation with OS (ρ = 0.42 [95% CI, 0.34-0.50]) and the longest median time to event (median, 8.76 months [95% CI, 7.70-9.48 months]). Across specific primary tumor types, correlations of intracranial PFS and extracranial PFS with OS were consistently high despite corresponding differences in median outcome durations.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cohort study of patients with brain metastases completing SRS suggest that intracranial PFS, extracranial PFS, and PFS had the highest correlations with OS and time to ICP had the lowest correlation with OS. These data may inform future patient inclusion and end-point selection for clinical trials.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a standard of care for many patients with brain metastases. To optimize post-SRS surveillance, this study aimed to validate a previously published nomogram predicting post-SRS intracranial progression (IP). We identified consecutive patients completing an initial course of SRS across two institutions between July 2017 and December 2020. Patients were classified as low- or high-risk for post-SRS IP per a previously published nomogram. Overall survival (OS) and freedom from IP (FFIP) were assessed via the Kaplan−Meier method. Assessment of parameters impacting FFIP was performed with univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. Among 890 patients, median follow-up was 9.8 months (95% CI 9.1−11.2 months). In total, 47% had NSCLC primary tumors, and 47% had oligometastatic disease (defined as ≤5 metastastic foci) at the time of SRS. Per the IP nomogram, 53% of patients were deemed high-risk. For low- and high-risk patients, median FFIP was 13.9 months (95% CI 11.1−17.1 months) and 7.6 months (95% CI 6.4−9.3 months), respectively, and FFIP was superior in low-risk patients (p < 0.0001). This large multisite BM cohort supports the use of an IP nomogram as a quick and simple means of stratifying patients into low- and high-risk groups for post-SRS IP.

The antitumor effects of ionizing radiation (IR) are mediated in part through activation of innate and adaptive immunity. Here we report that gut microbiota influences tumor control following IR. Vancomycin decreased the abundance of butyrate-producing gut bacteria and enhanced antitumor responses to IR. Oral administration of Lachnospiraceae, a family of vancomycin-sensitive bacteria, was associated with increased systemic and intratumoral butyric acid levels and impaired the efficacy of IR in germ-free (GF) mice. Local butyrate inhibited STING-activated type I IFN expression in dendritic cells (DCs) through blockade of TBK1 and IRF3 phosphorylation, which abrogated IR-induced tumor-specific cytotoxic T cell immune responses without directly protecting tumor cells from radiation. Our findings demonstrate that the selective targeting of butyrate-producing microbiota may provide a novel therapeutic option to enhance tumor radiation sensitivity.

The antitumor effects of ionizing radiation (IR) are mediated in part through activation of innate and adaptive immunity. Here we report that gut microbiota influences tumor control following IR. Vancomycin decreased the abundance of butyrate-producing gut bacteria and enhanced antitumor responses to IR. Oral administration of Lachnospiraceae, a family of vancomycin-sensitive bacteria, was associated with increased systemic and intratumoral butyric acid levels and impaired the efficacy of IR in germ-free (GF) mice. Local butyrate inhibited STING-activated type I IFN expression in dendritic cells (DCs) through blockade of TBK1 and IRF3 phosphorylation, which abrogated IR-induced tumor-specific cytotoxic T cell immune responses without directly protecting tumor cells from radiation. Our findings demonstrate that the selective targeting of butyrate-producing microbiota may provide a novel therapeutic option to enhance tumor radiation sensitivity.

A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose-volume histogram [DVH]-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children's Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials.

A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose-volume histogram [DVH]-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children's Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials.

BackgroundRadiotherapy is increasingly used to treat oligometastatic patients. We sought to identify prognostic criteria in oligometastatic patients undergoing definitive hypofractionated image-guided radiotherapy (HIGRT).MethodsExclusively extracranial oligometastatic patients treated with HIGRT were pooled. Characteristics including age, sex, primary tumor type, interval to metastatic diagnosis, number of treated metastases and organs, metastatic site, prior systemic therapy for primary tumor treatment, prior definitive metastasis-directed therapy, and systemic therapy for metastasis associated with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treated metastasis control (TMC) were assessed by the Cox proportional hazards method. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) identified prognostic risk strata for OS and PFS based on pretreatment factors.Results361 patients were included. Primary tumors included non-small cell lung (17%), colorectal (19%), and breast cancer (16%). Three-year OS was 56%, PFS was 24%, and TMC was 72%. On multivariate analysis, primary tumor, interval to metastases, treated metastases number, and mediastinal/hilar lymph node, liver, or adrenal metastases were associated with OS. Primary tumor site, involved organ number, liver metastasis, and prior primary disease chemotherapy were associated with PFS. OS RPA identified five classes: class 1: all breast, kidney, or prostate cancer patients (BKP) (3-year OS 75%, 95% CI 66-85%); class 2: patients without BKP with disease-free interval of 75+ months (3-year OS 85%, 95% CI 67-100%); class 3: patients without BKP, shorter disease-free interval, ≤ two metastases, and age < 62 (3-year OS 55%, 95% CI 48-64%); class 4: patients without BKP, shorter disease-free interval, ≥ three metastases, and age < 62 (3-year OS 38%, 95% CI 24-60%); class 5: all others (3-year OS 13%, 95% CI 5-35%). Higher biologically effective dose (BED) (p < 0.01) was associated with OS.ConclusionsWe identified clinical factors defining oligometastatic patients with favorable outcomes, who we hypothesize are most likely to benefit from metastasis-directed therapy.

BackgroundRadiotherapy is increasingly used to treat oligometastatic patients. We sought to identify prognostic criteria in oligometastatic patients undergoing definitive hypofractionated image-guided radiotherapy (HIGRT).MethodsExclusively extracranial oligometastatic patients treated with HIGRT were pooled. Characteristics including age, sex, primary tumor type, interval to metastatic diagnosis, number of treated metastases and organs, metastatic site, prior systemic therapy for primary tumor treatment, prior definitive metastasis-directed therapy, and systemic therapy for metastasis associated with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treated metastasis control (TMC) were assessed by the Cox proportional hazards method. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) identified prognostic risk strata for OS and PFS based on pretreatment factors.Results361 patients were included. Primary tumors included non-small cell lung (17%), colorectal (19%), and breast cancer (16%). Three-year OS was 56%, PFS was 24%, and TMC was 72%. On multivariate analysis, primary tumor, interval to metastases, treated metastases number, and mediastinal/hilar lymph node, liver, or adrenal metastases were associated with OS. Primary tumor site, involved organ number, liver metastasis, and prior primary disease chemotherapy were associated with PFS. OS RPA identified five classes: class 1: all breast, kidney, or prostate cancer patients (BKP) (3-year OS 75%, 95% CI 66-85%); class 2: patients without BKP with disease-free interval of 75+ months (3-year OS 85%, 95% CI 67-100%); class 3: patients without BKP, shorter disease-free interval, ≤ two metastases, and age < 62 (3-year OS 55%, 95% CI 48-64%); class 4: patients without BKP, shorter disease-free interval, ≥ three metastases, and age < 62 (3-year OS 38%, 95% CI 24-60%); class 5: all others (3-year OS 13%, 95% CI 5-35%). Higher biologically effective dose (BED) (p < 0.01) was associated with OS.ConclusionsWe identified clinical factors defining oligometastatic patients with favorable outcomes, who we hypothesize are most likely to benefit from metastasis-directed therapy.

BackgroundRadiotherapy is increasingly used to treat oligometastatic patients. We sought to identify prognostic criteria in oligometastatic patients undergoing definitive hypofractionated image-guided radiotherapy (HIGRT).MethodsExclusively extracranial oligometastatic patients treated with HIGRT were pooled. Characteristics including age, sex, primary tumor type, interval to metastatic diagnosis, number of treated metastases and organs, metastatic site, prior systemic therapy for primary tumor treatment, prior definitive metastasis-directed therapy, and systemic therapy for metastasis associated with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treated metastasis control (TMC) were assessed by the Cox proportional hazards method. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) identified prognostic risk strata for OS and PFS based on pretreatment factors.Results361 patients were included. Primary tumors included non-small cell lung (17%), colorectal (19%), and breast cancer (16%). Three-year OS was 56%, PFS was 24%, and TMC was 72%. On multivariate analysis, primary tumor, interval to metastases, treated metastases number, and mediastinal/hilar lymph node, liver, or adrenal metastases were associated with OS. Primary tumor site, involved organ number, liver metastasis, and prior primary disease chemotherapy were associated with PFS. OS RPA identified five classes: class 1: all breast, kidney, or prostate cancer patients (BKP) (3-year OS 75%, 95% CI 66-85%); class 2: patients without BKP with disease-free interval of 75+ months (3-year OS 85%, 95% CI 67-100%); class 3: patients without BKP, shorter disease-free interval, ≤ two metastases, and age < 62 (3-year OS 55%, 95% CI 48-64%); class 4: patients without BKP, shorter disease-free interval, ≥ three metastases, and age < 62 (3-year OS 38%, 95% CI 24-60%); class 5: all others (3-year OS 13%, 95% CI 5-35%). Higher biologically effective dose (BED) (p < 0.01) was associated with OS.ConclusionsWe identified clinical factors defining oligometastatic patients with favorable outcomes, who we hypothesize are most likely to benefit from metastasis-directed therapy.

PurposeLeaders in the oncology community are sounding a clarion call to promote "value" in cancer care decisions. Value in cancer care considers the clinical effectiveness, along with the costs, when selecting a treatment. To discuss possible solutions to the current obstacles to achieving value in the use of advanced technologies in oncology, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop, "Appropriate Use of Advanced Technologies for Radiation Therapy and Surgery in Oncology" in July 2015. The present report summarizes the discussions related to radiation oncology.Methods and materialsThe workshop convened stakeholders, including oncologists, researchers, payers, policymakers, and patients. Speakers presented on key themes, including the rationale for a value discussion on advanced technology use in radiation oncology, the generation of scientific evidence for value of advanced radiation technologies, the effect of both scientific evidence and "marketplace" (or economic) factors on the adoption of technologies, and newer approaches to improving value in the practice of radiation oncology. The presentations were followed by a panel discussion with dialogue among the stakeholders.ResultsChallenges to generating evidence for the value of advanced technologies include obtaining contemporary, prospective, randomized, and representative comparative effectiveness data. Proposed solutions include the use of prospective registry data; integrating radiation oncology treatment, outcomes, and quality benchmark data; and encouraging insurance coverage with evidence development. Challenges to improving value in practice include the slow adoption of higher value and the de-adoption of lower value treatments. The proposed solutions focused on engaging stakeholders in iterative, collaborative, and evidence-based efforts to define value and promote change in radiation oncology practice. Recent examples of ongoing or successful responses to the discussed challenges were provided.ConclusionsDiscussions of "value" have increased as a priority in the radiation oncology community. Practitioners in the radiation oncology community can play a critical role in promoting a value-oriented framework to approach radiation oncology treatment.

PurposeMany medical school clerkships have structured curricula; however, most radiation oncology clerkships do not. The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) implemented a curriculum for fourth-year radiation oncology clerkships at 14 institutions. We hypothesized that students completing clerkships with the curriculum would report greater subjective knowledge and comfort to function as a radiation oncology resident compared with students completing clerkships without the curriculum.MethodsThe ROECSG curriculum included three 1-hour lectures and a 1-hour hands-on radiation treatment planning workshop. Applicants to a single radiation oncology residency program in the 2014-2015 academic year were sent an anonymous, validated clerkship experience survey. Students indicated if clerkships were completed at a curriculum site. Likert-type data (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely) are reported as median (interquartile range).ResultsRespondents described 276 clerkship experiences, of which 64 (23.2%) were completed at a curriculum site. Students whose first clerkship was at a curriculum site perceived greater postclerkship confidence in knowledge of radiation biology (3 [3-4] versus 2 [2-3], P

PurposeRadiation oncology curriculum development is challenging because of limited numbers of trainees at any single institution. The goal of this project is to implement and evaluate a standardized medical student clerkship curriculum following the multi-institutional cooperative group research model.MethodsDuring the 2013 academic year, a standardized curriculum was implemented at 11 academic medical centers consisting of three 1-hour lectures and a hands-on radiation treatment planning workshop. After the curriculum, students completed anonymous evaluations using Likert-type scales (1 = "not at all" to 5 = "extremely") and free responses. Evaluations asked students to rate their comfort, before and after the curriculum, with radiation oncology as a specialty, knowledge of radiotherapy planning methods, and ability to function as a radiation oncology resident. Nonparametric statistical tests were used in the analysis.ResultsEighty-eight students at 11 academic medical centers completed the curriculum de novo, with a 72.7% (64 of 88) survey response rate. Fifty-seven students (89.1%) reported intent to pursue radiation oncology as their specialty. Median (interquartile range) student ratings of the importance of curricular content were as follows: overview, 4 (4-5); radiation biology/physics, 5 (4-5); practical aspects/emergencies, 5 (4-5); and planning workshop, 4 (4-5). Students reported that the curriculum helped them better understand radiation oncology as a specialty (5 [4-5]), increased specialty decision comfort (4 [3-5]), and would help the transition to radiation oncology residency (4 [4-5]). Students rated their specialty decision comfort significantly higher after completing the curriculum (4 [4-5] versus 5 [5-5]; P < .001).ConclusionsA national standardized curriculum was successfully implemented at 11 academic medical centers, providing proof of principle that curriculum development can follow the multi-institutional cooperative group research model.

PurposeStudents applying to radiation oncology residency programs complete 1 or more radiation oncology clerkships. This study assesses student experiences and perspectives during radiation oncology clerkships. The impact of didactic components and number of clerkship experiences in relation to confidence in clinical competency and preparation to function as a first-year radiation oncology resident are evaluated.Methods and materialsAn anonymous, Internet-based survey was sent via direct e-mail to all applicants to a single radiation oncology residency program during the 2012-2013 academic year. The survey was composed of 3 main sections including questions regarding baseline demographic information and prior radiation oncology experience, rotation experiences, and ideal clerkship curriculum content.ResultsThe survey response rate was 37% (70 of 188). Respondents reported 191 unique clerkship experiences. Of the respondents, 27% (19 of 70) completed at least 1 clerkship with a didactic component geared towards their level of training. Completing a clerkship with a didactic component was significantly associated with a respondent's confidence to function as a first-year radiation oncology resident (Wilcoxon rank-sum P=.03). However, the total number of clerkships completed did not correlate with confidence to pursue radiation oncology as a specialty (Spearman ρ P=.48) or confidence to function as a first year resident (Spearman ρ P=.43).ConclusionsBased on responses to this survey, rotating students perceive that the majority of radiation oncology clerkships do not have formal didactic curricula. Survey respondents who completed a clerkship with a didactic curriculum reported feeling more prepared to function as a radiation oncology resident. However, completing an increasing number of clerkships does not appear to improve confidence in the decision to pursue radiation oncology as a career or to function as a radiation oncology resident. These results support further development of structured didactic curricula for the radiation oncology clerkship.