Search

Purpose: Recruiting prospective physicians to radiation oncology can be challenging, because of limited familiarity with the field. The Assistant Clinical Research Coordinator (ACRC) program can help provide trainees early exposure to radiation oncology. Methods and Materials: The ACRC program involves hiring a college graduate to provide administrative and research support for faculty members. The program was developed with our institution's clinical trials office, which provided guidance on regulatory compliance and training. A structured selection process identifies top candidates, and a rigorous onboarding process ensures smooth transitions between ACRCs. We report characteristics and outcomes of ACRC employees and surveyed them to assess their program experience using a Likert scale. Results: From 2005 to 2023, the ACRC program paired 73 ACRCs with faculty. Most faculty (68%) are currently supported by ACRCs. In 2023, 113 applications were received for 4 positions. ACRCs have contributed to research publications (293 as coauthors and 43 as first authors) and taken on leadership roles in the department. Most program alumni have attended medical school (34 of 64 program graduates; 53%). Eight have chosen to specialize in radiation oncology (13%; 2 applying into radiation oncology, 1 in residency, and 5 attendings). Of the 25% of alumni who responded to our survey, 77% responded that the mentorship provided by the ACRC program was very or extremely effective in guiding their academic development. All respondents rated the research opportunities as good or excellent, and 77% rated the clinical experience opportunities as good or excellent. Most (77%) reported that the ACRC program had substantial or significant influence on their choice of career path. Conclusions: The ACRC program provides an opportunity to address recruitment challenges in radiation oncology by offering early exposure to the field, clinical research skills, and mentorship. With the strong interest in our job posting this year, there is potential to expand this program to other institutions.

Purpose: An evolutionary action scoring algorithm (EAp53) based on phylogenetic sequence variations stratifies patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) bearing TP53 missense mutations as high-risk, associated with poor outcomes, or low-risk, with similar outcomes as TP53 wild-type, and has been validated as a reliable prognostic marker. We performed this study to further validate prior findings demonstrating that EAp53 is a prognostic marker for patients with locally advanced HNSCC and explored its predictive value for treatment outcomes to adjuvant bio-chemoradiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Eighty-one resection samples from patients treated surgically for stage III or IV human papillomavirus-negative HNSCC with high-risk pathologic features, who received either radiation therapy + cetuximab + cisplatin (cisplatin) or radiation therapy + cetuximab + docetaxel (docetaxel) as adjuvant treatment in a phase 2 study were subjected to TP53 targeted sequencing and EAp53 scoring to correlate with clinical outcomes. Due to the limited sample size, patients were combined into 2 EAp53 groups: (1) wild-type or low-risk; and (2) high-risk or other. Results: At a median follow-up of 9.8 years, there was a significant interaction between EAp53 group and treatment for overall survival (P = .008), disease-free survival (P = .05), and distant metastasis (DM; P = .004). In wild-type or low-risk group, the docetaxel arm showed significantly better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.11, [0.03-0.36]), disease-free survival (HR 0.24, [0.09-0.61]), and less DM (HR 0.04, [0.01-0.31]) than the cisplatin arm. In high-risk or other group, differences between treatments were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The docetaxel arm was associated with better survival than the cisplatin arm for patients with wild-type or low-risk EAp53. These benefits appear to be largely driven by a reduction in DM.

Purpose: Spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT), which delivers highly nonuniform dose distributions instead of conventionally practiced homogeneous tumor dose, has shown high rates of clinical response with minimal toxicities in large-volume primary or metastatic malignancies. However, prospective multi-institutional clinical trials in SFRT are lacking, and SFRT techniques and dose parameters remain variable. Agreement on dose prescription, technical administration, and clinical and translational design parameters for SFRT trials is essential to enable broad participation and successful accrual to rigorously test the SFRT approach. We aimed to develop a consensus for the design of multi-institutional clinical trials in SFRT, tailored to specific primary tumor sites, to help facilitate development and enhance the feasibility of such trials. Methods and Materials: Primary tumor sites with sufficient pilot experience in SFRT were identified, and fundamental trial design questions were determined. For each tumor site, a comprehensive consensus effort was established through disease-specific expert panels. Clinical trial design criteria included eligibility, SFRT technology and technique, dose and fractionation, target- and normal-tissue dose parameters, systemic therapies, clinical trial endpoints, and translational science considerations. Iterative appropriateness rank voting, expert panel consensus reviews and discussions, and public comment posting were used for consensus development. Results: Clinical trial criteria were developed for head and neck cancer and soft-tissue sarcoma. Final consensus among the 22 trial design categories each (a total of 163 criteria) was high to moderate overall. Uniform patient cohorts of advanced bulky disease, standardization of SFRT technologies and dosimetry and physics parameters, and collection of translational correlates were considered essential to trial design. Final guideline recommendations and the degree of agreement are presented and discussed. Conclusions: This consensus provides design guidelines for the development of prospective multi-institutional clinical trials testing SFRT in advanced head and neck cancer and soft-tissue sarcoma through in-advance harmonization of the fundamental clinical trial design among SFRT experts, potential investigators, and the SFRT community.