Search

Purpose: Most medical students have limited exposure to radiation oncology (RO) before deciding which specialty to choose for residency. This may limit the number and diversity of RO applicants. The purpose of this study was to determine students’ views on a combined pathway program of RO with internal medicine (IM), as well as other related medical specialties, as a potential means of overcoming barriers to interest in RO and the early decision point to solo training in a highly specialized field. Methods and Materials: In July to August 2022, all 299 United States student and postgraduate year 1 members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology were sent an electronic survey assessing their views on advantages and disadvantages of a combined IM/RO training pathway, and interest in several options of combined pathway programs. Results: Eighty participants completed the survey (response rate 27%). Thirty-four (43%) were very or extremely interested in IM/RO residency (median Likert-type rating 3, IQR 2-4). The most important potential advantages of an IM/RO pathway included greater flexibility in employment options (n = 51, 64%), enhanced general medical knowledge to facilitate ambitions in other career pathways (n = 46, 58%), improved patient care (n = 43, 54%), and having a pathway for combined hematologic/oncology and RO board certification (n = 46, 58%). In comparison to IM/RO, participants were significantly more interested in a combined RO and hematology/oncology program (median Likert-type rating 5, IQR 5-5, P = .005). Among the subgroup of 26 survey participants who believed it less likely they would apply for RO residency, 18 (69%) thought an IM/RO pathway would increase their interest in RO (median Likert-type rating 4, IQR 3-5). Interest in IM/RO did not differ by gender, race, or ethnicity. Conclusions: Combined training pathways involving RO were viewed positively by survey respondents, and may be particularly appealing to those less committed to a career in RO. Further research will help guide recommendations for the creation of these programs.

Purpose: Long-term data regarding the disease control outcomes of proton beam therapy (PBT) for patients with favorable risk intact prostate cancer (PC) are limited. Herein, we report our institution's long-term disease control outcomes in PC patients with clinically localized disease who received PBT as primary treatment. Methods: One hundred sixty-six favorable risk PC patients who received definitive PBT to the prostate gland at our institution from 2010 to 2012 were retrospectively assessed. The outcomes studied were biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), biochemical failure, local failure, regional failure, distant failure, PC-specific survival, and overall survival. Patterns of failure were also analyzed. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate independent predictors of BFFS. Results: The median length of follow-up was 8.3 years (range, 1.2–10.5 years). The majority of patients had low-risk disease (58%, n = 96), with a median age of 64 years at the onset of treatment. Of 166 treated men, 13 (7.8%), 8 (4.8%), 2 (1.2%) patient(s) experienced biochemical failure, local failure, regional failure, respectively. Regional failure was seen in an obturator lymph node in 1 patient and the external iliac lymph nodes in the other. None of the patients experienced distant failure. There were 5 (3.0%) deaths, none of which were due to PC. The 5- and 8-year BFFS rate were 97% and 92%, respectively. None of the clinical disease characteristics or treatment-related factors assessed were associated with BFFS on multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling (all P >.05). Conclusion: Disease control rates reported in our assessment of PBT were similar to those reported in previous clinically localized intact PC analyses, which used intensity-modulated radiotherapy, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy as definitive therapy. In addition, BFFS rates were similar, if not improved, to previous PBT studies.

Purpose: Major advances in radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer increase the importance of equity in the use of RT. We sought to assess the evolution of RT utilization disparities in prostate cancer to inform clinicians and health care organizations of persistent areas of need that can be addressed in their practices and policies. Methods and Materials: A comprehensive PubMed literature search was undertaken in June 2020 and subsequently in March 2021. Studies were excluded that were not based in the United States, did not examine health disparities or inequities, did not examine RT or related resource utilization, or did not examine prostate cancer. Discussion: Of 257 studies found, 32 met inclusion criteria. Health disparities were most prominently reported by race, socioeconomic status, geographic location, insurance status, practice characteristics, and age. Older men were less likely to receive definitive RT or prostatectomy. Black men were less likely to receive curative therapy or dose-escalated RT. Black, Hispanic, and Asian men were less likely to receive proton therapy. Lower income was associated with decreased prostate-specific antigen testing and treatment with proton therapy or stereotactic body RT. Medicaid patients were less likely to receive definitive treatments. Rural residents were less likely to receive RT. Minority-serving hospitals were less likely to offer definitive treatments for prostate cancer. Conclusions: Sociodemographic disparities and inequities in RT for prostate cancer persist. Robust efforts are imperative to eliminate disparities to improve outcomes for all patients with prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: The radiation oncology workforce in the United States is comparatively less diverse than the U.S. population and U.S. medical school graduates. Workforce diversity correlates with higher quality care and outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether student members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) are any more diverse than resident members-in-training using the recently established medical student membership category. Methods and Materials: Self-reported sex, race and Hispanic ethnicity, medical school, and degree(s) earned for all medical students (n = 268) and members-in-training (n = 713) were collected from the ASTRO membership database. International members were excluded. The χ2 test was used to assess for differences between subgroups. Results: Compared with members-in-training, student members were more likely to be female (40.0% vs 31.5%, P = .032), black or African American (10.7% vs 4.8%, P = .009), candidates for or holders of a DO rather than MD degree (5.2% vs 1.5%, P = .002), and from a U.S. medical school that is not affiliated with a radiation oncology residency program (30.5% vs 20.9%, P = .001). There was no significant difference in self-reported Hispanic ethnicity (7.3% vs 5.4%, P = .356). There were no indigenous members in either category assessed. Conclusions: Medical student members of ASTRO are more diverse in terms of black race, female sex, and osteopathic training, though not in terms of Hispanic ethnicity or nonmultiracial indigenous background, than the members-in-training. Longitudinal engagement with these students and assessment of the factors leading to specialty retention versus attrition may increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in radiation oncology.

Providing high-quality radiation therapy in medically underserved, low-resource environments can be challenging in the United States. During the American Society of Radiation Oncology 2020 Annual Meeting, the American Society for Radiation Oncology Committee on Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion hosted 4 radiation oncologists from both academic and community practices in an educational session. Speakers discussed creative ways to overcome barriers to equitable cancer care and outcomes for their vulnerable patient populations in both rural and urban settings. Successful tactics have included applying for state-sponsored grants, lobbying hospital leadership for equipment upgrades, implementing quality improvement programs specifically targeting the needs of the patient population, studying novel hypofractionation schedules, monitoring toxicities using wearable devices, and expanding transportation options.

Introduction: African Americans experience the highest burden of cancer incidence and mortality in the United States and have been persistently less likely to receive interventional care, even when such care has been proven superior to conservative management by randomized controlled trials. The presence of disparities in access to radiation therapy (RT) for African American cancer patients has rarely been examined in an expansive fashion. Methods and materials: An extensive literature search was performed using the PubMed database to examine studies investigating disparities in RT access for African Americans. Results: A total of 55 studies were found, spanning 11 organ systems. Disparities in access to RT for African Americans were most prominently study in cancers of the breast (23 studies), prostate (7 studies), gynecologic system (5 studies), and hematologic system (5 studies). Disparities in RT access for African Americans were prevalent regardless of organ system studied and often occurred independently of socioeconomic status. Fifty of 55 studies (91%) involved analysis of a population-based database such as Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Result (SEER; 26 studies), SEER-Medicare (5 studies), National Cancer Database (3 studies), or a state tumor registry (13 studies). Conclusions: African Americans in the United States have diminished access to RT compared with Caucasian patients, independent of but often in concert with low socioeconomic status. These findings underscore the importance of finding systemic and systematic solutions to address these inequalities to reduce the barriers that patient race provides in receipt of optimal cancer care.

There is currently much interest in identifying and mitigating gender inequity within medicine, the greater workforce and society as a whole. We provide an evidence-based review of current and historical trends in gender diversity in the RO physician workforce and identify potential barriers to diversity and inclusion in training, professional development, and career advancement. Next, we move to actionable items, addressing methods to mitigate bias, harassment, and other impediments to professional productivity and characterizing leadership lessons and imperatives for departmental, institutional, and organizational leaders.

Purpose: Although both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) offer effective long-term disease control for localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data directly comparing the 2 modalities. Methods: The data from 334 patients treated with conventionally fractionated (79.2 GyRBE in 44 fractions) PBT or IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance factors associated with biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Age, race, and comorbidities (not BFFS associates) remained imbalanced after matching. Univariable and covariate-adjusted multivariable (MVA) Cox regression models were used to determine if modality affected BFFS. Results: Of 334 patients, 176 (52.7%) were included in the matched cohort with exact matching to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. With a median follow-up time of 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.8-10.2 years), long-term BFFS was similar between the IMRT and PBT matched arms with 8-year estimates of 85% (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 91% (95% CI: 82%-96%, P = .39), respectively. On MVA, modality was not significantly associated with BFFS in both the unmatched (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.63, P = .47) and matched (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.33, P = .78) cohorts. Prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) were also similar (P > .05). However, in an unmatched analysis, the PBT arm had significantly fewer incidences of secondary cancers within the irradiated field (0.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%-3.1% versus 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-9.0%, P = .028). Conclusions: Both PBT and IMRT offer excellent long-term disease control for PCa, with no significant differences between the 2 modalities in BFFS, PCSS, and OS in matched patients. In the unmatched cohort, fewer incidences of secondary malignancy were noted in the PBT group; however, owing to overall low incidence of secondary cancer and imbalanced patient characteristics between the 2 groups, these data are strictly hypothesis generating and require further investigation.

Purpose: Recent single institution, phase II evidence has demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of ultra-hypofractionated, preoperative photon therapy in 5 fractions for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Our purpose was to evaluate the dosimetric benefits of modern scanning beam proton therapy compared with conventional photon radiation therapy (RT) for the neoadjuvant treatment of adult extremity STS. Materials and Methods: Existing proton and photon plans for 11 adult patients with STS of the lower extremities previously treated preoperatively with neoadjuvant RT at our center were used to create proton therapy plans using Raystation Treatment Planning System v10.A. Volumes were delineated, and doses reported consistent with International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements reports 50, 62, and 78. Target volumes were optimized such that 100% clinical target volume (CTV) was covered by 99% of the prescription dose. The prescribed dose was 30 Gy for PT and RT delivered in 5 fractions. For proton therapy, doses are reported in GyRBE = 1.1 Gy. The constraints for adjacent organs at risk (OARs) within 1 cm of the CTV were the following: femur V30Gy ≤ 50%, joint V30Gy < 50%, femoral head V30Gy ≤ 5cm3,stripV12 ≤ 10%, and skin V12 < 50%. Target coverage goals, OAR constraints, and integral dose were compared by Student t test with P < .05 significance. Results: A minimum 99% CTV coverage was achieved for all plans. OAR dose constraints were achieved for all proton and photon plans; however, mean doses to the femur (10.7 ± 8.5 vs 16.1 ± 7.7 GyRBE), femoral head (2.0 ± 4.4 vs 3.6 ± 6.4 GyRBE), and proximal joint (1.8 ± 2.4 vs 3.5 ± 4.4 GyRBE) were all significantly lower with PT vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (all P < .05). Integral dose was significantly reduced for proton vs photon plans. Conformity and heterogeneity indices were significantly better for proton therapy. Conclusion: Proton therapy maintained target coverage while significantly reducing integral and mean doses to the proximal organs at risk compared with RT. Further prospective investigation is warranted to validate these findings and potential benefit in the management of adult STS.

Purpose: To compare spatially fractionated radiation therapy (GRID) treatment planning techniques using proton pencil-beam-scanning (PBS) and photon therapy. Materials and Methods: PBS and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) GRID plans were retrospectively generated for 5 patients with bulky tumors. GRID targets were arranged along the long axis of the gross tumor, spaced 2 and 3 cm apart, and treated with a prescription of 18 Gy. PBS plans used 2- to 3-beam multiple-field optimization with robustness evaluation. Dosimetric parameters including peak-to-edge ratio (PEDR), ratio of dose to 90% of the valley to dose to 10% of the peak VPDR(D90/D10), and volume of normal tissue receiving at least 5 Gy (V5) and 10 Gy (V10) were calculated. The peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR), VPDR(D90/D10), and organ-at-risk doses were prospectively assessed in 2 patients undergoing PBS-GRID with pretreatment quality assurance computed tomography (QACT) scans. Results: PBS and VMAT GRID plans were generated for 5 patients with bulky tumors. Gross tumor volume values ranged from 826 to 1468 cm3. Peak-to-edge ratio for PBS was higher than for VMAT for both spacing scenarios (2-cm spacing, P = .02; 3-cm spacing, P = .01). VPDR(D90/D10) for PBS was higher than for VMAT (2-cm spacing, P =.004; 3-cm spacing, P = .002). Normal tissue V5 was lower for PBS than for VMAT (2-cm spacing, P = .03; 3-cm spacing, P = .02). Normal tissue mean dose was lower with PBS than with VMAT (2-cm spacing, P = .03; 3-cm spacing, P = .02). Two patients treated using PBS GRID and assessed with pretreatment QACT scans demonstrated robust PVDR, VPDR(D90/D10), and organs-at-risk doses. Conclusions: The PEDR was significantly higher for PBS than VMAT plans, indicating lower target edge dose. Normal tissue mean dose was significantly lower with PBS than VMAT. PBS GRID may result in lower normal tissue dose compared with VMAT plans, allowing for further dose escalation in patients with bulky disease.

Recent events have reaffirmed that racism is a pervasive disease plaguing the United States and infiltrating the fabric of this nation. As health care professionals dedicated to understanding and alleviating disease, many radiation oncologists have failed to acknowledge how structural racism affects the health and well-being of the patients we aim to serve. The literature is full of descriptive statistics showing the higher incidence and mortality experienced by the Black population for health conditions ranging from infant mortality to infectious disease, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Acknowledgment that the root of health disparities experienced by Black people in this country are based in racism is essential to moving the nation and the field of radiation oncology forward. With this lens, a brief overview of structural and institutional racism shapes a discussion of what radiation oncologists and the organizations that represent them can do to address this scourge. As members of a technological field, we often harness the power of data to advance human health and approach challenging diseases with optimism that multidisciplinary effort can produce cure. A few principles to mitigate the longstanding issues of Black marginalization within the field have been recommended via the ATIP (Acknowledgment, Transparency, Intentionality, and rePresentation) and LEADS (Learn, Engage, Advocate, Defend, Support) approaches. However, additional introspection is encouraged. Just as individuals, practices, and organizations rallied to determine how best to address the issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the same investigational fervor must be applied to the issue of racism to combat this sinister and often deadly disease.

Recent events have reaffirmed that racism is a pervasive disease plaguing the United States and infiltrating the fabric of this nation. As health care professionals dedicated to understanding and alleviating disease, many radiation oncologists have failed to acknowledge how structural racism affects the health and well-being of the patients we aim to serve. The literature is full of descriptive statistics showing the higher incidence and mortality experienced by the Black population for health conditions ranging from infant mortality to infectious disease, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Acknowledgment that the root of health disparities experienced by Black people in this country are based in racism is essential to moving the nation and the field of radiation oncology forward. With this lens, a brief overview of structural and institutional racism shapes a discussion of what radiation oncologists and the organizations that represent them can do to address this scourge. As members of a technological field, we often harness the power of data to advance human health and approach challenging diseases with optimism that multidisciplinary effort can produce cure. A few principles to mitigate the longstanding issues of Black marginalization within the field have been recommended via the ATIP (Acknowledgment, Transparency, Intentionality, and rePresentation) and LEADS (Learn, Engage, Advocate, Defend, Support) approaches. However, additional introspection is encouraged. Just as individuals, practices, and organizations rallied to determine how best to address the issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the same investigational fervor must be applied to the issue of racism to combat this sinister and often deadly disease.

Implicit bias is one of the most insidious and least recognizable mechanisms that can cause inequity and disparities. There is increasing evidence that both implicit and explicit biases have a negative effect on patient outcomes and patient-physician relationships. Given the impact of Implicit bias, a joint session between ASTROs Committee on Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and the National Cancer Institute (the ASTRO-National Cancer Institute Diversity Symposium) was held during the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, to address the effect of implicit bias in radiation oncology through real life and synthesized hypothetical scenario discussions. Given the value of this session to the radiation oncology community, the scenarios and discussion are summarized in this manuscript. Our goal is to heighten awareness of the multiple settings in which implicit bias can occur as well as discuss resources to address bias.