Search

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess the potential real-world effect of the recently reported SC.24 trial on spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) utilization. We estimated the proportion of patients treated with conventional radiation therapy (CRT) who would have been eligible for spine SBRT per trial inclusion criteria and analyzed the potential estimated increased costs to our institution. Methods and Materials: This was a retrospective review of patients who received spine CRT at our institution between August and October 2020. Data abstracted included demographics, SC.24 eligibility criteria, provider-reported pain response, and survival. A cost analysis and time survey was performed using institutional and provincial data. Results: Of 73 patients reviewed, 24 patients (33%) were eligible. The most common exclusion factors included irradiation of ≥3 consecutive spinal segments (n = 32, 44%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >2 (n = 17, 23%), and symptomatic spinal cord compression (n = 13, 18%). Of eligible patients, the mean age was 68.92 years, median spinal instability in neoplasia score was 8 (interquartile range, 7-9), and median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2). The most common primary cancer types among eligible patients were lung (n = 10) and breast (n = 4). The median survival of eligible patients was 10 months (95% confidence interval, 4 months to not reached) with 58% surviving longer than 3 months. Of patients who had subjective pain documented after CRT, 54% had at least some response. The cost of spine SBRT was estimated at CA$4764.80 compared with $3589.10 for CRT, and tasks for spine SBRT took roughly 3 times as long as those for CRT. Conclusions: One-third of patients who received palliative spine CRT met eligibility criteria for SC.24. This possible expanded indication for spine SBRT can have a substantial effect on resource utilization. These data may be useful in guiding resource planning at institutions looking to commence a spine SBRT program.

Purpose: We examined whether female authorship, traditionally underrepresented in the radiation oncology (RO) literature, has improved during the past decade, and whether the introduction of double-blind peer review (where reviewers are blinded to author names and vice-versa) improved female authorship rates. Methods: We analyzed authorship lists during a 10-year period (2007-2016) from the 2 highest impact-factor RO journals: The International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP) and Radiotherapy and Oncology (R&O). From each journal, 20 articles per year were randomly selected. Gender trends of the first, second, last, and collaborating authors (defined as all other positions), were analyzed. A one-sample proportion test was used to compare US female senior authorship (2012-2016) with the 2015 benchmark for female US academic radiation oncologists (30.6%). Results: Across 400 articles, the mean ± standard deviation percentage of female authors was 30.9% ± 22.0% with 34.8% of first, 36.7% of second, and 25.4% of last authors being female. The total percentage of female authors per year increased from 2007 to 2016 (P = .005), with no significant increase in the percentage of first (P = .250), second (P = .063), or last (P = .213) female authors. Double-blind peer review was associated with an increase in the mean percentage of female authors (2007-2011: 27.4% vs 2012-2016: 34.0%; P = .012). The proportion of US female senior authors in the latter period (27.6%) and the proportion of female US academic radiation oncologists (30.6%) were not significantly different (P = .570). Conclusions: Although the percentage of female authors in RO has increased during the past decade, this did not correspond to a higher representation of women in high-profile authorship positions. Introduction of double-blind peer review was associated with a rise in female authorship. The proportion of female US senior authors and academic radiation oncologists is similar, suggesting that senior authorship rates are approaching appropriate levels in the United States.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to disrupt nearly all facets of daily life, residency programs must ensure the safety and wellness of their residents while maintaining a commitment to their training and advancement. In addition to standard clinical training, radiation oncology residency programs integrate highly specialized elements specific to the delivery of radiation therapy. Few publications have addressed the significant effects of the pandemic on medical training and even fewer have addressed concerns specific to radiation oncology. We report our experience developing a resident-led adaptation of our training program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim of assisting other programs to meet this challenge.