Search

PurposeNumerous publications during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy. This project assessed aggregate changes in the quality of the evidence supporting these schedules to establish a comprehensive evidence base for future reference and highlight aspects for future study.Methods and materialsBased on a systematic review of published recommendations related to dose fractionation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 expert panelists assigned to 14 disease groups named and graded the highest quality of evidence schedule(s) used routinely for each condition and also graded all COVID-era recommended schedules. The American Society for Radiation Oncology quality of evidence criteria were used to rank the schedules. Process-related statistics and changes in distributions of quality ratings of the highest-rated versus recommended COVID-19 era schedules were described by disease groups and for specific clinical scenarios.ResultsFrom January to May 2020 there were 54 relevant publications, including 233 recommended COVID-19-adapted dose fractionations. For site-specific curative and site-specific palliative schedules, there was a significant shift from established higher-quality evidence to lower-quality evidence and expert opinions for the recommended schedules (P = .022 and P < .001, respectively). For curative-intent schedules, the distribution of quality scores was essentially reversed (highest levels of evidence "pre-COVID" vs "in-COVID": high quality, 51.4% vs 4.8%; expert opinion, 5.6% vs 49.3%), although there was variation in the magnitude of shifts between disease sites and among specific indications.ConclusionsA large number of publications recommended hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules across numerous major disease sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by a lower quality of evidence than the highest-quality routinely used dose fractionation schedules. This work provides an evidence-based assessment of these potentially practice-changing recommendations and informs individualized decision-making and counseling of patients. These data could also be used to support radiation therapy practices in the event of second waves or surges of the pandemic in new regions of the world.

PurposeBecause of the unprecedented disruption of health care services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) identified an urgent need to issue practice recommendations for radiation oncologists treating head and neck cancer (HNC) in a time of limited resources and heightened risk for patients and staff.Methods and materialsA panel of international experts from ASTRO, ESTRO, and select Asia-Pacific countries completed a modified rapid Delphi process. Topics and questions were presented to the group, and subsequent questions were developed from iterative feedback. Each survey was open online for 24 hours, and successive rounds started within 24 hours of the previous round. The chosen cutoffs for strong agreement (≥80%) and agreement (≥66%) were extrapolated from the RAND methodology. Two pandemic scenarios, early (risk mitigation) and late (severely reduced radiation therapy resources), were evaluated. The panel developed treatment recommendations for 5 HNC cases.ResultsIn total, 29 of 31 of those invited (94%) accepted, and after a replacement 30 of 30 completed all 3 surveys (100% response rate). There was agreement or strong agreement across a number of practice areas, including treatment prioritization, whether to delay initiation or interrupt radiation therapy for intercurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection, approaches to treatment (radiation dose-fractionation schedules and use of chemotherapy in each pandemic scenario), management of surgical cases in event of operating room closures, and recommended adjustments to outpatient clinic appointments and supportive care.ConclusionsThis urgent practice recommendation was issued in the knowledge of the very difficult circumstances in which our patients find themselves at present, navigating strained health care systems functioning with limited resources and at heightened risk to their health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this consensus statement is to ensure high-quality HNC treatments continue, to save lives and for symptomatic benefit.

Tumor hypoxia is an adverse prognostic factor in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We assessed whether patients with hypoxic HNSCC benefited from the addition of nimorazole to definitive intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). NIMRAD was a phase 3, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-anonymized trial of patients with HNSCC unsuitable for concurrent platinum chemotherapy or cetuximab with definitive IMRT (NCT01950689). Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive IMRT (65 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks) plus nimorazole (1.2 g/m2 daily, before IMRT) or placebo. The primary endpoint was freedom from locoregional progression (FFLRP) in patients with hypoxic tumors, defined as greater than or equal to the median tumor hypoxia score of the first 50 patients analyzed (≥0.079), using a validated 26-gene signature. The planned sample size was 340 patients, allowing for signature generation in 85% and an assumed hazard ratio (HR) of 0.50 for nimorazole effectiveness in the hypoxic group and requiring 66 locoregional failures to have 80% power in a 2-tail log-rank test at the 5% significance level. Three hundred thirty-eight patients were randomized by 19 centers in the United Kingdom from May 2014 to May 2019, with a median follow-up of 3.1 years (95% CI, 2.9-3.4). Hypoxia scores were available for 286 (85%). The median patient age was 73 years (range, 44-88; IQR, 70-76). There were 36 (25.9%) locoregional failures in the hypoxic group, in which nimorazole + IMRT did not improve FFLRP (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.36-1.44; P =.35) or overall survival (adjusted HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.53-1.72; P =.88) compared with placebo + IMRT. Similarly, nimorazole + IMRT did not improve FFLRP or overall survival in the whole population. In total (N = 338), 73% of patients allocated nimorazole adhered to the drug for ≥50% of IMRT fractions. Nimorazole + IMRT caused more acute nausea compared with placebo + IMRT (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 G1+2: 56.6% vs 42.4%, G3: 10.1% vs 5.3%, respectively; P <.05). Addition of the hypoxia modifier nimorazole to IMRT for locally advanced HNSCC in older and less fit patients did not improve locoregional control or survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]