Search

Purpose: Our multisite academic radiation department reviewed our experience with transitioning from weekly primarily retrospective to daily primarily prospective peer review to improve plan quality and decrease the rate of plan revisions after treatment start., Methods and Materials: This study was an institutional review board-approved prospective comparison of radiation treatment plan review outcomes of plans reviewed weekly (majority within 1 week after treatment start) versus plans reviewed daily (majority before treatment start, except brachytherapy, frame-based radiosurgery, and some emergent plans). Deviations were based on peer comments and considered major if plan revisions were recommended before the next fraction and minor if modifications were suggested but not required. Categorical variables were compared using χ 2 distribution tests of independence; means were compared using independent t tests., Results: In all, 798 patients with 1124 plans were reviewed: 611 plans weekly and 513 plans daily. Overall, 76 deviations (6.8%) were noted. Rates of any deviation were increased in the daily era (8.6% vs 5.2%; P = .026), with higher rates of major deviations in the daily era (4.1% vs 1.6%; P = .012). Median working days between initial simulation and treatment was the same across eras (8 days). Deviations led to a plan revision at a higher rate in the daily era (84.1% vs 31.3%; P < .001)., Conclusions: Daily prospective peer review is feasible in a multisite academic setting. Daily peer review with emphasis on prospective plan evaluation increased constructive plan feedback, plan revisions, and plan revisions being implemented before treatment start., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: We used two models to simulate a proposed noninferiority trial of radiotherapy (RT) omission in low-risk invasive breast cancer to illustrate how modeling could be used to predict the trial's outcomes, inform trial design, and contribute to practice debates., Methods: The proposed trial was a prospective randomized trial of no-RT vs RT in women age 40 to 74 years undergoing lumpectomy and endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I breast cancer with an Oncotype DX score of 18 or lower. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free interval (RFI), including locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence, and breast cancer death. Noninferiority required the two-sided 90% confidence interval of the RFI hazard ratio (HR) for no-RT vs RT to be entirely below 1.7. Model inputs included published data. The trial was simulated 1000 times, and results were summarized as percent concluding noninferiority and mean (standard deviation) of hazard ratios for Model GE and Model M, respectively., Results: Noninferiority was demonstrated in 18.0% and 3.7% for the two models. The respective means (SD) of the RFI hazard ratios were 1.8 (0.7) and 2.4 (0.9); most were locoregional recurrences. The mean five-year RFI rates for no-RT vs RT (SD) were 92.7% (2.9%) vs 95.5% (2.2%) and 88.4% (2.0%) vs 94.5% (1.6%). Both models showed little or no difference in breast cancer-specific or overall survival. Alternative definitions of low risk based on combinations of age and grade produced similar results., Conclusions: The proposed trial was unlikely to show noninferiority of omitting radiotherapy even using alternative definitions of low-risk, as the endpoint included local recurrence. Future trials regarding radiotherapy should address absolute reduction in recurrence and impact of type of recurrence on the patient.

Background: Radiotherapy after breast conservation has become the standard of care. Prior meta-analyses on effects of radiotherapy predated availability of gene expression profiling (GEP) to assess recurrence risk and/or did not include all relevant outcomes. This analysis used GEP information with pooled individual-level data to evaluate the impact of omitting radiotherapy on recurrence and mortality., Methods: We considered trials that evaluated or administered radiotherapy after lumpectomy in women with low-risk breast cancer. Women included had undergone lumpectomy and were treated with hormonal therapy for stage I, ER+ and/or PR+, HER2- breast cancer with Oncotype scores no greater than 18. Recurrence-free interval (RFI), type of RFI (locoregional or distant), and breast cancer-specific and overall survival were compared between no radiotherapy and radiotherapy using adjusted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: The final sample included 1778 women from seven trials. Omission of radiotherapy was associated with an overall adjusted hazard ratio of 2.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38 to 4.89, P = .003) for RFI. There was a statistically significant increase in any first locoregional recurrence (P = .001), but not distant recurrence events (P = .90), or breast cancer-specific (P = .85) or overall survival (P = .61). Five-year RFI rate was high (93.5% for no radiotherapy vs 97.9% for radiotherapy; absolute reduction = 4.4%, 95% CI = 0.7% to 8.1%, P = .03). The effects of radiotherapy varied across subgroups, with lower RFI rates for those with Oncotype scores of less than 11 (vs 11-18), older (vs younger), and ER+/PR+ status (vs other)., Conclusions: Omission of radiotherapy in hormone-sensitive patients with low recurrence risk may lead to a modest increase in locoregional recurrence event rates, but does not appear to increase the rate of distant recurrence or death.