Search

Purpose: For patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), locoregional failure and second primary tumors are common indications for adjuvant reirradiation (re-RT). Given an absence of clear consensus on the role of adjuvant re-RT, we sought to assess histopathologic risk factors of patients with HNSCC and their resulting outcomes after adjuvant re-RT with proton therapy. Methods and Materials: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with HNSCC who underwent salvage surgery at our institution followed by adjuvant re-RT with proton therapy over 1.5 years. All included patients received prior radiation therapy. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate locoregional recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Results: The cohort included 22 patients, with disease subsites, including oropharynx, oral cavity, hypopharynx, larynx, and nasopharynx. Depending on adverse pathologic features, adjuvant re-RT to 66 Gy (32% of cohort) or 60 Gy (68%), with (59%) or without (41%) concurrent systemic therapy was administered. The majority (86%) completed re-RT with no reported treatment delay; 3 patients experienced grade ≥3 acute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicity and no patient required enteral feeding tube placement during re-RT. Median follow-up was 21.0 months (IQR, 11.7-25.2 months). Five patients had biopsy-proven disease recurrences a median of 5.9 months (IQR, 3.8-9.7 months) after re-RT. Locoregional recurrence-free survival was 95.2%, 70.2%, 64.8% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. OS was 100%, 79.2%, and 79.2% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Four patients had osteoradionecrosis on imaging a median of 13.2 months (IQR, 8.7-17.4 months) after re-RT, with 2 requiring surgical intervention. Conclusions: Adjuvant re-RT for patients with HNSCC was well-tolerated and offered reasonable local control in this high-risk cohort but appears to be associated with a risk of osteoradionecrosis. Additional study and longer follow-up could help define optimal patient management in this patient population.

Purpose: Limited data are currently available on clinical outcomes after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for pediatric and adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer. We aimed to perform a systematic review and study-level meta-analysis to characterize associated local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and toxicity after SBRT. Methods and Materials: Relevant studies were queried using a Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study Design (PICOS)/Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)/Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) selection criteria. Primary outcomes were 1-year and 2-year LC as well as incidence of acute and late grade 3 to 5 toxicities, with secondary outcomes of 1-year overall survival and 1-year PFS. Outcome effect sizes were estimated with weighted random effects meta-analyses. Mixed-effects weighted regression models were performed to examine potential correlations between biologically effective dose (BED10), LC, and toxicity incidence. Results: Across 9 published studies, we identified 142 pediatric and AYA patients with 217 lesions that were treated with SBRT. Estimated 1-year and 2-year LC rates were 83.5% (95% confidence interval, 70.9%-96.2%) and 74.0% (95% CI, 64.6%-83.4%), respectively, with an estimated acute and late grade 3 to 5 toxicity rate of 2.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-5.4%; all grade 3). The estimated 1-year OS and PFS rates were 75.4% (95% CI, 54.5%-96.3%) and 27.1% (95% CI, 17.3%-37.0%), respectively. On meta-regression, higher BED10 was correlated with improved 2-year LC with every 10 Gy10 increase in BED10 associated with a 5% improvement in 2-year LC (P = .02) in sarcoma-predominant cohorts. Conclusions: SBRT provided durable LC for pediatric and AYA patients with cancer with minimal severe toxicities. Dose escalation may result in improved LC for sarcoma-predominant cohorts without a subsequent increase in toxicity. However, further investigations with patient-level data and prospective inquiries are indicated to better define the role of SBRT based on patient and tumor-specific characteristics.

Purpose: It is well-documented that gender disparities exist in academic radiation oncology departments. The purpose of this study was to analyze gender differences in research productivity during residency among recent graduates of radiation oncology training programs in the United States (US). Methods and Materials: We used several publicly available sources to create a database of US radiation oncology residents who graduated between 2015 and 2019. We systematically collected gender information from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System National Provider Identifier Registry and Medicare claims registry. Postresidency employment information was collected using several publicly available sources. PubMed was queried to identify first-author publications of residents. A secondary analysis of metadata including impact factor, number of citations, modified Hirsch index (h index), and type of publication was performed. A multivariable linear regression was performed to evaluate the effect of gender on research productivity during residency. Results: There were 910 total graduates identified during this period and who were entered into this database, of whom all had available gender information. Female trainees comprised 29.0% (n = 264) of RO residents and had fewer first-author publications and citations, had lower mean modified h index, and were published in journals with lower impact factors. On multivariable linear regression analysis, female gender was independently associated with decreased total number of publications (P = .005), mean number of citations (P < .001), and modified h index (P = .001) when controlling for residency size and advanced (PhD or master's) degrees. Conclusions: In the US, female RO trainees had lower research productivity, which was not explained by advanced degrees or residency size. A significant gender gap in trainee research productivity persists, which has known implications in terms of academic achievement, promotions, and career trajectory. Future interventions to improve resident research productivity and mentorship are warranted.

Purpose: While a rising share of scientific research articles are being published in open access (OA) journals, their impact on resident research in radiation oncology is unknown. Thus, we sought to determine the number, content, and costs of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles radiation oncology residents in the United States (US) published in OA journals in recent years. Methods and Materials: We built a database of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles published by US radiation oncology residents who graduated between 2015 and 2019. We then classified each journal in which these articles appeared as either OA or non-OA and obtained the current article-processing charge (APC) for each publication that appeared in an OA journal. Results: The residents in this study published 2637 first-author, PubMed-searchable articles, 555 of which (21.0%) appeared in 138 OA journals. The number of publications in OA journals per resident increased from 0.47 for the class of 2015 to 0.79 for the class of 2019. Publications in OA journals garnered fewer citations than those in non-OA journals (8.9 vs 14.9, P < .01). Furthermore, 90.6% of OA journals levy an APC for original research reports (median, $1896), which is positively correlated with their 2019 impact factor (r = 0.63, P < .01). Aggregate APCs totaled $900,319.21 and appeared to increase over the study period. Conclusions: The number of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles published by graduating US radiation oncology residents in OA journals rose significantly between 2015 and 2019. To maximize the benefits of OA publishing in the future, US radiation oncology residents will need to ensure that they use vetted OA journals to publish their research findings and avoid predatory journals.

Purpose: The abscopal effect is defined when a form of local therapy causes tumor regression of both the target lesion and any untreated tumors. Herein cases of the abscopal effect were systematically reviewed and a patient-level data analysis was performed for clinical predictors of both duration of response and survival. Methods and Materials: The Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study (PICOS) design approach, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) literature selection process, and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were used to find articles published before September 2019 in MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were (1) population: patients with reported abscopal response; (2) intervention: documented treatment(s); (3) control: none; (4) outcomes: overall and progression-free survival; and (5) setting: retrospective case reports. Time from treatment until abscopal response and time from abscopal response until progression/death were calculated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted for survival outcomes. Results: Fifty studies (n = 55 patients) were included. Median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 58-70) and 62% were male. Fifty-four (98%) patients received radiation therapy, 34 (62%) received radiation therapy alone, 5 (9.1%) underwent surgery, 4 (7.3%) received chemotherapy, and 11 (20%) received immunotherapy. Median total dose was 32 Gy (IQR, 25.5-48 Gy) and median dose per fraction was 3 Gy (IQR, 2-7.2). Median time until abscopal response was 4 months (IQR, 1-5; min 0.5, max 24). At 5 years, overall survival was 63% and distant progression-free survival was 45%. No variables had statistical significance in predicting duration of response or survival. Conclusions: Almost all reported cases of the abscopal response are after radiation therapy; however, there are no known predictors of duration of response or survival in this population.