Search

• Many head/neck squamous cell cancer patients develop recurrence or second primary. • Re-irradiation is a curative treatment option for these patients. • However, it is associated with significant risk of toxicity. • Pulsed Reduced Dose Rate radiation may reduce re-irradiation toxicity. Pulsed reduced dose rate (PRDR) radiation (RT) is a re-irradiation (Re-RT) technique that potentially overcomes dose/volume constraints in the setting of previous RT. There is minimal data for its use for recurrent or secondary primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). In this study, we report preliminary data from our institution of a consecutive cohort of HNSCC patients who received PRDR Re-RT. Nine patients received PRDR Re-RT from August 2020 to January 2023 and had analyzable data. Intensity modulated RT was used for treatment delivery and a wait time between 20 cGy arc/helical deliveries was used to achieve the effective low dose rate. Data collected included patient demographic information, prior interventions, diagnosis, radiation therapy dose and fractionation, progression free survival, overall survival, and toxicity rates. The median time to PRDR-RT from completion of initial RT was 13 months (range, 6–50 months). All but one patient underwent salvage surgery prior to PRDR-RT. The median follow-up after Re-RT was 7 months. The median OS from PRDR-RT was 7 months (range, 1–32 months). Median PFS was 7 months (range, 1–32 months). One patient (11.1 %) had acute grade 3 toxicity, and two patients (22.2 %) had late grade 3 toxicities. There were no grade 4+ toxicities. PRDR Re-RT is a feasible treatment strategy for patients with recurrent or second primary HNSCC. Initial findings from this retrospective review suggest reasonable survival outcomes and potentially improved toxicity; prospective data is needed to establish the safety and efficacy of this technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of post mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in patients with N1mic breast cancer has not been well defined. A retrospective analysis was performed using the SEER database to evaluate the impact of PMRT on survival in patients with N1mic breast cancer. Women with T1-T2, N1mic, M0 breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Univariate analysis to assess for differences in survival with respect to covariates was performed using the log rank test while multivariate analysis was performed with Cox proportional hazards regression. Sub-cohort analysis with propensity score matching was used to assess differences in survival among patients undergoing PMRT vs no PMRT. Comparisons were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. Among 5878 patients, 1202 (20%) underwent PMRT. On univariate analysis, PMRT was a significant predictor of CSS, but not OS. There was no difference in either OS or CSS between the PMRT vs no PMRT groups on multivariate Cox regression analysis and after propensity score matching. Among patients with T1-T2, N1mic, M0 breast IDC from the SEER database, there was no difference in either OS or CSS among patients who underwent PMRT vs no PMRT. These results suggest that PMRT does not impact survival among breast cancer patients with N1mic disease. However, additional prospective studies with longer follow up are necessary for further evaluation. • In women with N1mic breast cancer, there was no difference in overall survival with or without adjuvant radiation. • CSS was worse among women undergoing adjuvant radiation on univariate analysis, but not on multivariate analysis. • After propensity score matching, no significant difference was observed in survival between women undergoing PMRT vs no PMRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Physicians encourage patients to be informed about their health care options, but much of the online health care-related resources can be beneficial only if patients are capable of comprehending it. This study's aim was to assess the readability level of online patient education resources for radiation oncology to conclude whether they meet the general public's health literacy needs as determined by the guidelines of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA).Methods: Radiation oncology-related internet-based patient education materials were downloaded from 5 major professional websites (American Society for Radiation Oncology, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, American Brachytherapy Society, RadiologyInfo.org, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group). Additional patient education documents were downloaded by searching for key radiation oncology phrases using Google. A total of 135 articles were downloaded and assessed for their readability level using 10 quantitative readability scales that are widely accepted in the medical literature.Results: When all 10 assessment tools for readability were taken into account, the 135 online patient education articles were written at an average grade level of 13.7 ± 2.0. One hundred nine of the 135 articles (80.7%) required a high school graduate's comprehension level (12th-grade level or higher). Only 1 of the 135 articles (0.74%) met the AMA and NIH recommendations for patient education resources to be written between the third-grade and seventh-grade levels.Conclusion: Radiation oncology websites have patient education material written at an educational level above the NIH and AMA recommendations; as a result, average American patients may not be able to fully understand them. Rewriting radiation oncology patient education resources would likely contribute to the patients' understanding of their health and treatment options, making each physician-patient interaction more productive and efficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]