Search

PURPOSE To generate and present survey results on important issues relevant to treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) focusing on developing countries. METHODS A panel of 99 PCa experts developed more than 300 survey questions of which 67 questions concern the main areas of interest of this article: treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in developing countries. A larger panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create the recommendations for treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this article. RESULTS The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion and not on a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations considered cost-effectiveness as well as the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. Results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION The voting results and recommendations presented in this article can guide physicians managing localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for treatment of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in developing countries have not been defined, this article will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

PURPOSE A group of international urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on prostate cancer (PCa) in developing countries. The results are reviewed and summarized, and recommendations on consensus statements for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa focused on developing countries were developed. METHODS A panel of experts developed more than 300 survey questions of which 66 questions concern the principal areas of interest of this paper: very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries. A larger panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create the recommendations for treatment and follow-up for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this manuscript. RESULTS The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion not a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations consider cost-effectiveness and the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. The results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support management for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for treatment for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries have not been developed, this document will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: Several prospective randomized trials have shown that hypofractionation has the same efficacy and safety as the conventional fractionation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. There are many benefits of hypofractionation, including a more convenient schedule for the patients and better use of resources, which is especially important in low- and middle-income countries like Brasil. Based on these data, the Brazilian Society of Radiotherapy (Sociedade Brasileira de Radioterapia) organized this consensus to guide and support the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer in Brasil. METHODS: The relevant literature regarding moderate hypofractionation (mHypo) and ultra-hypofractionation (uHypo) was reviewed and discussed by a group of experts from public and private centers of different parts of Brasil. Several key questions concerning clinical indications, outcomes and technological requirements for hypofractionation were discussed and voted. For each question, consensus was reached if there was an agreement of at least 75% of the panel members. RESULTS: The recommendations are described in this article. CONCLUSION: This initiative will assist Brazilian radiation oncologists and medical physicists to safely treat localized prostate cancer patients with hypofractionation.

Breast cancer is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, with adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) being considered standard of care after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Older patient population can present multiple running comorbidities and less aggressive tumor behavior, and the absolute impact of adjuvant RT on local control can be low. This article aims to review the available literature about the impact of adjuvant RT, discussing characteristics to identify lower risk cases, and advantages and disadvantages of the omission of adjuvant radiotherapy in this group.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths. In Brazil, it is likewise the second most common cancer among men, second only to non-melanoma skin cancers. The aim of this consensus is to align different opinions and interpretations of the medical literature in a practical and patient-oriented approach. The first Brazilian Consensus on the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer was published in 2017, with the goal of reducing the heterogeneity of therapeutic conduct in Brazilian patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We acknowledge that in Brazil the incorporation of different technologies is a big challenge, especially in the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), which allows for the disparity in the options available to patients treated in different institutions. In order to update the recommendations and to make them objective and easily accessible, once more a panel of specialists was formed in order to discuss and elaborate a new Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer. This Consensus was written through a joint initiative of the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC) and the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU) to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of patients with prostate cancer.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic brought several challenges to cancer practice, especially to ensure continuity of treatment during this period, minimizing the risks of transmission to a vulnerable population. For Radiation Oncology departments in Brazil, this contingency has become even more complex due to the significant impact observed in different sectors of society, the large number of cases and deaths by COVID-19. This study estimated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Brazilian Radiation Oncology departments and the coping measures used in the country. Methods and Materials The Brazilian Radiotherapy Society (SBRT) developed a questionnaire with 14 questions, sent to all heads of Radiation Oncology departments in the country, between May and June 2020. These data were evaluated regarding cases confirmed and deaths by COVID-19 in epidemiological week 28, on July 11, 2020. Results One hundred twenty-six questionnaires from different regions were answered, representing 44% of the country’s services. A drop in the number of patients was observed in 61% of services. This drop was observed both in patients from the public and supplementary private health insurance systems. Regarding patients and employees with COVID-19, we observe that services that primarily treat SUS patients reported significantly fewer cases of the disease. About half of the services had collaborators and patients during radiotherapy with a positive diagnosis of COVID-19. Among the coping measures, the services used intensified hygiene and cleanliness, distance, restrictions on access to companions and other changes in daily practice. Conclusions Thus, there was an important drop in the number of radiotherapy patients in the country during the pandemic, and this impact happened in a similar way among the services, regardless of their characteristics and coping measures adopted during the pandemic., The Brazilian Radiotherapy Society (SBRT) developed a questionnaire for estimated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Brazilian Radiation Oncology departments (RO). These data were evaluated regarding cases confirmed and deaths by COVID-19 on July 11, 2020. 126 questionnaires were answered (44% of the RO). A drop in the number of patients was observed in 61% of RO, being observed both in patients from the public and supplementary private health insurance systems.

Purpose Penile cancer is highly prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, with significant morbidity and mortality rates. The first Brazilian consensus provides support to improve penile cancer patients’ outcomes, based on expert’s opinion and evidence from medical literature. Methods Fifty-one Brazilian experts (clinical oncologists, radiation oncologists, urologists, and pathologists) assembled and voted 104 multiple-choice questions, confronted the results with the literature, and ranked the levels of evidence. Results Healthcare professionals need to deliver more effective communication about the risk factors for penile cancer. Staging and follow-up of patients include physical examination, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Close monitoring is crucial, because most recurrences occur in the first 2–5 years. Lymph-node involvement is the most important predictive factor for survival, and management depends on the location (inguinal or pelvic) and the number of lymph nodes involved. Conservative treatment may be helpful in selected patients without compromising oncological outcomes; however, surgery yields the lowest rate of local recurrence. Conclusion This consensus provides an essential decision-making orientation regarding this challenging disease.

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates are significantly higher in low- and middle-income countries compared with the United States and other developed countries. This disparity is caused by decreased access to screening, often coupled with low numbers of trained providers offering cancer prevention and treatment services. However, similar disparities are also found in underserved areas of the United States, such as the Texas-Mexico border, where cervical cancer mortality rates are 30% higher than in the rest of Texas. To address these issues, we have adopted the Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) program, a low-cost telementoring model previously proven to be successful in increasing local capacity, improving patient management skills, and ultimately improving patient outcomes in rural and underserved areas. We use the Project ECHO model to educate local providers in the management of cervical dysplasia in a low-resource region of Texas and have adapted it to inform strategies for the management of advanced cervical and breast cancer in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. This innovative approach, using ECHO, is part of a larger strategy to enhance clinical skills and develop collaborative projects between academic centers and partners in low-resource regions.

Background Heart-sparing techniques are time and resource intensive, although not all patients require the use of these strategies. This study evaluates the performance of different distance metrics in predicting the need for breath-hold radiotherapy in left-sided breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. Methods Fifty left-sided breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy to the breast from a single institution were retrospectively studied. The left breast and organs at risk were contoured in accordance to guidelines and a plan with tangents was obtained using the free-breathing CT in supine position. Heart (mean heart dose (MHD), heart V25 Gy) and left anterior descending artery dosimetry were computed and compared against distance metrics under investigation (Contact Heart, 4th Arch and 5th Arch). Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to determine optimal cut-points for distance metrics for dosimetric end points. Receiver operating characteristic curves and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the association between distance metrics and dosimetric endpoints. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of dosimetric end points. Results The mean MHD and heart V25 Gy were 2.3 Gy and 10.4 cm3, respectively. With tangents, constraints for MHD (

Background: Hypofractionated (HRT) prostate radiation therapy has the potential to deliver a higher biologically effective dose over a shorter time compared with conventional fractionation (CRT). HRT, giving fewer fractions each with higher dose, might improve the therapeutic ratio, resource use and patient convenience but the toxicity is still controversial. Our objective was to compare the gastroinstestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity of HRT versus CRT. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials studies in PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases published through December 2016 was done. Only randomized trials that evaluated patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing CRT or HRT were included. In these studies, the daily dose was 1.8 Gy or 2 Gy per day for CRT and 2.4 to 3.4 Gy for HRT. Results: 7317 patients in nine studies were analyzed. Six studies included acute GU toxicity data which showed similar rates for both HRT and CRT (32.6vs. 31.9%; RD 0.00; 95% CI; −0.03,0.03; p = .81; I2 = 0%). Similarly, seven studies showed no difference in late GU toxicity based on treatment schedule (28.7 vs. 28.0%; RD −0.01; 95% CI; −0.04,0.03; p = .67; I2 = 52%). GI toxicity at three months after radiotherapy was higher in patients treated with HRT in six studies (27.5 vs. 21.9%; RD 0.06; 95% CI; 0.02,0.10; p = .004; I2 = 39%); however, eight studies showed GI toxicity 12 months or more after radiotherapy that was statistically the same (12.9 HRT vs. 16.2% CRT; RD −0.01; 95% CI; −0.04,0.02; p = .41; I2 = 58%). Conclusion: In meta-analysis of the available randomized trials on moderate HRT versus CRT for prostate cancer, acute and late GU toxicity were similar for both treatment schemes. While HRT was associated with higher acute GI toxicity, late toxicity was similar.

Context Currently, standard treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer (MPCa) is androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Recent studies suggested that local treatment of MPCa is related to increase of survival of those patients, as observed in other tumors. Objective To evaluate the impact of local treatment on overall survival and cancer specific survival in 3 and 5 years in patients with MPCa. Materials and Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of population studies published at PubMed, Scielo, Lilacs, Cochrane and EMBASE databases until June 2016. Several large cohorts and Post-Roc studies were included, that evaluated patients with MPCa submitted to local treatment (LT) using radiotherapy (RDT), surgery (RP) or brachytherapy (BCT) or not submitted to local treatment (NLT). Results 34.338 patients were analyzed in six included papers, 31.653 submitted to NLT and 2.685 to LT. Overall survival in three years was significantly higher in patients submitted to LT versus NLT (64.2% vs. 44.5%; RD 0.19, 95% CI, 0.17-0.21; p

236 Background: The MD Anderson Cancer Network includes 29 distinct Radiation Oncology facilities spread across metropolitan Houston area locations, national partnerships, and international affiliates. Standard performance indicators (PIs) were developed to monitor the quality and safety of radiation treatment at these facilities spread across the globe. Methods: Stakeholders from Radiation Oncology nursing, dosimetry, physics, radiation therapy, and clinical operations identified PIs that measure safe, efficient, and effective radiation oncology care. PIs are collected monthly from each facility and are reported in a scorecard that includes performance goals. The appropriateness and effectiveness of the PIs are reviewed annually to determine if PIs need to be added, removed, or revised. Results: As the network expanded, scorecard use expanded from 11 facilities in 2013 to 29 facilities in 2019. Select PIs are summarized in the table. Scorecard composition has evolved over time. PIs such as completion of simulation orders and treatment planning directives were removed once consistently reaching 100% after improved monitoring, process improvements, and implementation of hard stops. The scorecard has been especially useful when onboarding new facilities, as evidenced by PIs increasingly meeting performance thresholds in the first year after joining the network. For example, one facility increased PI compliance from 61% to 100% the first year after joining the network. Conclusions: It is feasible to develop and implement a performance indicator scorecard across a large radiation oncology network. The scorecard permits timely assessment of quality indicators, provides oversight, and is effective in stabilizing operations at newly on-boarded radiation oncology practices. [Table: see text]

235 Background: Quality and safety reporting is one of the most important aspects of creating a culture of safety. As part of a multidisciplinary Cancer Network, the Radiation Oncology Division at the lead institution devised an electronic incident reporting system that was implemented at the Network partners to define, standardize, quantify, and trend incidents in the radiation oncology treatment and care process. The purpose of this study is to assess robustness of the system, initial trends seen, and potential to improve quality and safety of the Network practice. Methods: Beginning in January 2017, the incident reporting system at the lead institution was configured to provide inclusion of 13 partnering radiation oncology facilities. Over one year, the organizations were on-boarded and trained on the use of the application. Descriptive analyses of the data from the use of this new reporting system were used in this study. Results: From January 1, 2017 to April 30 2018, a total of 832 incident reports were submitted by 13 different facilities. The average number of days from event submission to resolution was reduced to 10.25 days, compared with up to 60 days before implementation of the new central reporting system. The change in reporting rate was variable across the partner sites following implementation of the new system. The most frequent event types reported included ineffective communication (13%), planning-related problems (5%), incomplete or missing simulation orders (5%), and scheduling error or conflict (4%). Conclusions: Implementation of a centralized reporting system across a network of partner sites has greatly improved the overall reporting process, with reduced event resolution time and increased capability of tracking and trending incidents. By standardizing incident reporting across institutions, there are multiple opportunities to augment a strong culture of safety.