Search

The influence of inoculum preparation in EUCAST broth dilution and Etest to detect the coexistence of resistant and susceptible Candida subpopulations (defined as polyresistance [PR]) was evaluated. Cocultures of two echinocandin-resistant and susceptible clinical C. glabrata strains were used to simulate the occurrence of mixed populations in clinical samples, and antifungal susceptibility testing was performed with standard and modified approaches of inoculum preparation.

Purpose The use of brachytherapy continues to be a vital application of radiation oncology for various cancers. Despite this, there has been a decrease in the utilization of brachytherapy in many cancers. Social media in medicine facilitates engagement and advocacy. We launched a social media campaign to bring awareness of brachytherapy throughout the world with #ThisIsBrachytherapy hashtag on July 17, 2019. Methods and Materials #ThisIsBrachytherapy hashtag was registered with Symplur Healthcare Hashtag Project. We collected total tweet counts, retweet counts, impression counts, geolocation, top 10 influencers, associated hashtags, associated words, and word sentiment score. Results The campaign launched on July 17, 2019, had a total of 145 tweets on that day with 213,416 impressions. Twenty-seven accounts (45%) were identified as physicians. Top countries which tweeted, among those with information available, included the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Since July 17, 2019, there has been an increase in tweets using #ThisIsBrachytherapy, with 1990 total tweets with 1,999,248 impressions. Fifty-four percent (1030) of the tweets contained photos and 319 contained links. This was from 462 unique users. Word sentiment was overwhelmingly positive. Associated hashtags with #ThisIsBrachytherapy included most commonly #radonc, #brachytherapy, #brachy, #prostatecancer, and #pcsm. Conclusions The #ThisIsBrachytherapy inaugural campaign was successful and has continued to grow throughout the months after the initiation. By continuing to advocate for brachytherapy through the social media campaign #ThisIsBrachytherapy, we can empower radiation oncologists, especially trainees, and patients to address underutilization.

Purpose: The barriers generally facing women wishing to pursue careers in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) in the United States have been well described. However, additional layers of cultural beliefs and needs may pose further obstructions to women in certain cultural subgroups who wish to enter STEMM. Recognition of the challenges faced by such subgroups is important and culturally sensitive educational and training approaches may be necessary. Methods: We therefore created a science mentoring and education program incorporating the specific requirements of our test group, young Orthodox Jewish women. Our goals were to facilitate their knowledge, skills, and attitudes to embark on a scientific career in biomedicine. Interventions were designed to target physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual areas of growth with each intervention crafted to the sensitivity of the women's cultural and religious backgrounds. Results: Over the course of 6 years, we enrolled 59 Orthodox Jewish women, ages 16-20 years. These women spent their summers as part of the larger Summer Internship Program (SIP) at the National Institutes of Health. They participated in cohort sizes ranging from 6 to 26 in dozens of multilevel experiences in the SIP over 6-10 weeks. Participants reported strengthening interest to pursue careers in health care-related fields. Other graduates committed to pursue careers in the general sciences, and other graduate studies. Conclusion: This unique educational platform shows promise for other intersectional groups approaching educational barriers to careers in STEMM.

Objectives: Many factors influence the outcome of in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST), including endpoint definition, inoculum sizes, time and temperature of incubation, and growth medium used. This European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) Excellence center driven study investigated multiple colony testing (MCT) of five separate colonies to investigate the prevalence of polyresistance (PR), defined as heterogeneous MICs from a same-species Candida culture irrespective of the underlying resistance mechanism. Methods: Candida spp. MCT for fluconazole and anidulafungin was performed by Etest prospectively comprising 405 clinical samples. MCT results were compared to the real-life routine MIC data and PR was assessed. Candida colonies displaying strong PR were selected for genotyping using multilocus sequence typing and random amplified polymorphic DNA assays for C. lusitaniae. Results: Candida PR was observed in 33 of 405 samples (8.1%), with higher rates for non-albicans species (26/186, 14%) than for C. albicans (7/219, 3.2%), and for fluconazole than for anidulafungin. MCT detected acquired resistance more often than routine AFST (18/405, 4.5%) and 9 of the 161 investigated blood cultures showed PR (5.6%). Multilocus sequence typing and random amplified polymorphic DNA did not reveal a uniform genetic correlate in strains studied. Conclusions: This study shows that Candida single MIC-values obtained in routine diagnostics may be incidental, as they fail to detect PR and resistant subpopulations reliably. The reasons for PR seem to be manifold and should be regarded as a phenotypical expression of genomic variability irrespective of the underlying resistance mechanism, which may help to interpret ambiguous and non-reproducible AFST results.

The proportion of female trainees in radiation oncology has generally declined despite increasing numbers of female medical students; as a result, radiation oncology is among the bottom 5 specialties in terms of the percentage of female applicants. Recently, social media has been harnessed as a tool to bring recognition to underrepresented groups within medicine and other fields. Inspired by the wide-reaching social media campaign of #ILookLikeASurgeon to promote female physicians, members of the Society for Women in Radiation Oncology penned a new hashtag and launched the #WomenWhoCurie social media campaign on Marie Curie's birthday November 7th, as part of their strategy to raise public awareness. From November 6, 2018 until November 10, 2018, the #WomenWhoCurie hashtag delivered 1,135,000 impressions, including 408 photos from all over the world including United States, Spain, Canada, France, Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Japan, the Netherlands, India, Ecuador, Panama, Brazil, and Nigeria. Alongside continued gender disparity research, social media should continue to be used as a tool to engage the community and spur conversations to formulate solutions for gender inequity.

Purpose/Objective(s) Gender & racial/ethnic leadership disparities have been independently identified in academic hematology/oncology (HO) and radiation oncology (RO). Here, we evaluate gender and racial/ethnic intersectionality from the trainee to the leadership level. Materials/Methods All ACGME accredited HO and RO training program websites were queried to identify constituent trainees, academic faculty, program directors (PD) and department chairs (DC), with a leadership position defined as PD or DC. Individual gender & race/ethnicity was determined using externally validated software tools, publicly available descriptors, and image review. We grouped individuals into 6 categories: White Male (WM), White Female (WF), Asian Male (AM), Asian Female (AF), Underrepresented Groups in Medicine (as defined by AAMC) Male (URMM) and Female (URMF). The chi-squared goodness-of-fit test was applied to examine if deviations exist between the observed vs. expected proportions of gender/race dyads in trainees, PD, and DC compared to academic faculty. Results We identified 7,722 individuals from 2019-2020: 1,759 trainees (HO = 1525; RO = 234), 5,726 faculty (HO = 4834; RO = 892), 242 PD (HO = 149; RO = 93) and 237 DC (HO = 144; RO = 93). Leadership positions were most often comprised by WM (52.6%), and least often comprised by URMF (2.9%). Combined HO/RO analysis revealed significant differences in the observed representation of trainees & DC vs expected levels based on total faculty, respectively: WM (33.7% & 60.3% vs. 42.3%), WF (19.2% & 13.9% vs. 22.3%), AM (20.75% & 16.9% vs. 16.4%), AF (17.9% & 2.5% vs. 12.7%), URMM (4.09% & 5.5% vs. 3.5%) and URMF (4.3% & 0.8% vs. 2.8%), P Conclusion Gender & racial/ethnic disparity is present in academic oncology. Specifically, women of all races/ethnicities are proportionally underrepresented in DC positions in HO and RO programs. These data can serve as a benchmark to raise awareness and monitor progress towards a more balanced workforce in oncology.

Introduction We aimed to characterize the most influential radiation oncologists on Twitter, the correlation between their Twitter activity and their academic profiles as measured by the Scopus H-index as well as their activity around the American Society for Radiation Oncologists (ASTRO) 2018 meeting. Methods We defined radiation oncology influencers as any radiation oncologist with 500 or more followers on Twitter through the first two weeks of August 2019. We collected their available characteristics, their Scopus H-index, and Twitter metrics. We examined their general Twitter activity as well as their specific activity before, during, and after the 2018 ASTRO annual meeting. We identified the most frequent tweet content categories for each influencer. Results We identified 48 radiation oncologist influencers; 79% were male, 75% were based in the United States, and 94% were affiliated with an academic center. Among them, 44% had high H-indices of ≥21, an average value in academic faculty for full professors or department heads. There were no correlations between H-index and Twitter metrics such as the number of individuals the influencer was following (p = 0.58), the number of followers (p = 0.66), the number of tweets (p = 0.88), and the number of likes (p = 0.54). During the period around ASTRO 2018, the mean number of tweets per influencer was 4437 (range 87-93,000). Conclusion Current radiation oncology influencers are predominantly North American males from academic institutions. A correlation between academic productivity as measured by the H-index and Twitter metrics was not demonstrated. The fact that some influencers had a low H-index supports that a high academic profile as measured by traditional metrics is not necessary to have a voice in the Twitter radiation oncology community.

Introducing a physician without a professional title may reinforce bias in medicine by influencing perceived credibility. We evaluated differences in the use of professional titles in introductions of speakers at recent American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meetings.We reviewed recordings from the 2017 to 2019 ASTRO Annual Meetings and included complete introductions of speakers with a doctoral degree. Professional introduction was defined as "Doctor" or "Professor" followed by the speaker's full or last name. We collected use of professional introduction, introducer gender, speaker gender, and speaker professional and demographic variables. Identified speakers were sent surveys to collect self-reported demographic data. Analysis was performed using χOf 3267 presentations reviewed, 1226 (38%) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 805 (66%) speakers and 710 (58%) introducers were men. Professional introductions were used in 74% (2017), 71% (2018), and 69% (2019) of the presentations. There was no difference in the use of professional introductions for male and female speakers (71% vs 73%; P = .550). On MVA, male introducers were associated with decreased use of professional address (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.49; P.001). At the 2019 conference, professional introduction was less likely to be used (2019 vs 2017: OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = 0.026). Those who self-identified as Asian/Pacific Islander were twice as likely to receive a professional introduction compared with those who identified as white (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.07-3.64; P = .033).Male introducers were significantly less likely to introduce any speaker, regardless of gender, by their professional title, and overall use of professional introductions decreased from 2017 to 2019. Furthermore, no difference in professional introduction use by speaker gender was identified at the recent ASTRO meetings. Implementing speaker guidelines could increase the use of professional introductions and raise awareness of unconscious bias at future ASTRO meetings.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to examine the correlation between Twitter mentions and the number of academic citations of radiation oncology articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS We reviewed all 178 clinical manuscripts of the 2 most important radiation oncology journals and "Brachytherapy," and all clinical manuscripts relating to radiation oncology from the top 10 impact factor oncology journals, published between January and February 2018. We collected the record of citations utilizing Scopus and Google Scholar platforms and the number of times an article was tweeted about using the "Altmetric Bookmarklet." χ test was used to compare distributions between groups and the Pearson coefficient was used for correlations between the Twitter metrics and academic citations. RESULTS Overall, 71% of all articles were tweeted about at least once. There was a significant correlation between the number of tweets and the number of citations in Google Scholar (r=0.55, P

Importance Women are underrepresented in medical leadership positions; however, representation of women among academic oncology leadership is unknown. Objectives To evaluate representation of women overall and in leadership positions in academic medical oncology (MO), radiation oncology (RO), and surgical oncology (SO) programs and to examine the association of women leadership with overall faculty representation of women per program. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cross-sectional study, MO, RO, and SO training program websites were queried from October 2018 through June 2019. All faculty from 265 of 273 accredited MO, RO, and SO training programs (97.1%) were included. Exposure Gender. Main Outcomes and Measures Observed proportions of women in leadership positions compared with the expected proportion of overall women faculty in MO, RO, and SO were assessed. Rates of representation of women across each MO, RO, and SO program’s faculty based on the presence or absence of a woman in a leadership position were compared. Results Of 6030 total faculty, only 2164 (35.9%) were women. Total representation of women among MO, RO, and SO faculty was 37.1% (1563 of 4215), 30.7% (389 of 1269), and 38.8% (212 of 546), respectively. Women composed only 21.7% (30 of 138), 11.7% (11 of 94), and 3.8% (1 of 26) of MO, RO, and SO chair positions, respectively. The observed proportion of women in chair positions was significantly lower than the expected proportion for MO, RO, and SO. In all, 47.9%, 33%, and 18.5% of MO, RO, and SO programs, respectively, had at least 1 woman in a leadership position (program director or chair). Programs with 1 or more women in a leadership position were associated with a higher mean (SD) percentage of women faculty than those without at least 1 woman leader in MO (40.7% [12.5%] vs 33.1% [11.0%];P Conclusions and Relevance Gender disparity exists in academic MO, RO, and SO faculty, which is magnified at the chair level. Programs in MO and RO with a woman physician in a leadership position were associated with a higher percentage of women faculty, but this was not true for SO. These data will serve as a benchmark to monitor progress toward a more balanced workforce.

Each year Clinical Cancer Advances: ASCO’s Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer highlights the most important clinical research advances of the past year, including the Advance of the Year, and identifies priority areas where ASCO believes research efforts should be focused moving forward. In 2020, ASCO names the Refinement of Surgical Treatment of Cancer as the Advance of the Year. Years of progress in developing new systemic cancer therapies has not only improved patient survival and quality of life but is now transforming surgical approaches to cancer treatment. The emergence of novel systemic therapies combined in new and better ways is significantly changing the role of cancer surgery. ASCO’s selection of Refinement of Surgical Treatment of Cancer as the 2020 Advance of the Year recognizes recent strides seen in the effectiveness of these treatments in reducing the amount of surgery, and even the need for it, while increasing the number of patients who can undergo surgery when needed. Other advances highlighted in the report include progress in cancer prevention, molecular diagnostics, and cancer treatment—surgery, radiotherapy, combination therapy, immunotherapy, and other types of therapies. The report also features ASCO's 2020 list of Research Priorities to Accelerate Progress Against Cancer. These priorities represent promising areas of research that have the potential to significantly improve the knowledge base for clinical decision-making and address vital unmet needs in cancer care. A MESSAGE FROM ASCO’S PRESIDENT Shortly before I was elected President of ASCO, I attended the 65th birthday party of a current patient. She had been diagnosed 10 years earlier with metastatic breast cancer and hadn’t been sure she wanted to move forward with further treatment. With encouragement, she elected to participate in a clinical trial of an investigational drug that is now widely used to treat breast cancer. Happily, here we were, celebrating with her now-married daughters, their husbands, and three beautiful grandchildren, ages 2, 4, and 8. Such is the importance of clinical trials and promising new therapies. Clinical research is about saving and improving the lives of individuals with cancer. It’s a continuing story that builds on the efforts of untold numbers of researchers, clinicians, caregivers, and patients. ASCO’s Clinical Cancer Advances report tells part of this story, sharing the most transformative research of the past year. The report also includes our latest thinking on the most urgent research priorities in oncology. ASCO’s 2020 Advance of the Year—Refinement of Surgical Treatment of Cancer—highlights how progress drives more progress. Surgery has played a fundamental role in cancer treatment. It was the only treatment available for many cancers until the advent of radiation and chemotherapy. The explosion in systemic therapies since then has resulted in significant changes to when and how surgery is performed to treat cancer. In this report, we explore how treatment successes have led to less invasive approaches for advanced melanoma, reduced the need for surgery in renal cell carcinoma, and increased the number of patients with pancreatic cancer who can undergo surgery. Many research advances are made possible by federal funding. With the number of new US cancer cases set to rise by roughly a third over the next decade, continued investment in research at the national level is crucial to continuing critical progress in the prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer. While clinical research has translated to longer survival and better quality of life for many patients with cancer, we can’t rest on our laurels. With ASCO’s Research Priorities to Accelerate Progress Against Cancer, introduced last year and updated this year, we’ve identified the critical gaps in cancer prevention and care that we believe to be most pressing. These priorities are intended to guide the direction of research and speed progress. Of course, the effectiveness or number of new treatments is meaningless if patients don’t have access to them. High-quality cancer care, including clinical trials, is out of reach for too many patients. Creating an infrastructure to support patients is a critical part of the equation, as is creating connections between clinical practices and research programs. We have much work to do before everyone with cancer has equal access to the best treatments and the opportunity to participate in research. I know that ASCO and the cancer community are up for this challenge. Sincerely, Howard A. “Skip” Burris III, MD, FACP, FASCO ASCO President, 2019-2020

Purpose: Resident physicians use social media (SM) for many reasons. We sought to characterize current SM use by radiation oncology (RO) trainees for education and professional development. Methods and Materials: An anonymous 40-question survey was sent by e-mail to RO residents in the 2018 to 2019 academic year. SM platform use, time spent on SM, professional use, and opinions regarding SM use were assessed. Descriptive statistics and a univariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify factors associated with perceptions of SM and spending >25% of SM time for academic or professional purposes. Results: Of the 615 residents surveyed, 149 responded (24% response rate). Facebook (73%), theMednet (62%), Instagram (59%), Twitter (57%), and Doximity (50%) were the top SM platforms used. Most respondents (53%) reported 60 minutes per day over the past week. Residents with an RO mentor on SM (n = 35; 24%; odds ratio [OR]: 2.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-6.08; P = .010), those participating in RO discussions on SM (n = 71; 48%; OR: 2.85; 95% CI, 1.42-5.72; P = .003), and those interacting with professional societies (n = 69; 46%; OR: 7.11; 95% CI, 3.32-15.24; P < .001) were more likely to spend >25% of their SM time on professional/academic purposes. The vast majority of respondents agreed that SM exposed them to novel educational content (82%) and was helpful for career development (65%). In addition, 69% agreed that SM can improve clinical skills and knowledge. A substantial minority agreed that SM distracts them from studying (38%) or they felt pressure to have a SM presence (29%). Conclusions: Most RO residents reported that SM provides novel educational content and can help with career development. Potential disadvantages of SM for trainees may include distraction and pressure to maintain a SM presence. SM use by RO trainees merits further research to optimize its potential for education and professional development.

10503 Background: Gender bias can be reinforced through the use of gender-subordinating language and differences in the forms of address. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. Methods: A retrospective observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO annual meetings was conducted. Data were extracted by mixed-gender coders. Professional address was defined as professional title followed by full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. Results: 2511 videos were reviewed and 812 met inclusion criteria. Regarding speakers’ characteristics, 530 (65%) were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 743 (92%) held a MD or MD-PhD degree, and 484 (60%) were an associate or full professor. Female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address compared to male speakers (61% vs. 81%, p < 0.001). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared to male speakers (53% vs. 80%, p < 0.01). No gender differences in professional address were observed for female introducers (p = 0.13). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared to female introducers (24% vs. 7%, p < 0.01). In a multivariable regression including gender, race, degree, and academic rank, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared to female speakers (OR: 2.67, 95%CI: 1.81-3.94, p < 0.01). Black speakers of both genders were less likely to receive a professional address compared to NHW (OR: 0.10, 95%CI: 0.01-0.53, p < 0.01). Female gender was a predictor for a non-professional form of address (first name only) (OR: 9.50, 95%CI: 4.38-20.62, p < 0.01). Conclusions: When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared to male speakers. Selective use of forms of address may strengthen gender bias; more research is needed to explore the causes of this disparity and its influence.

The incidence of non-melanomatous skin cancer (NMSC) increases with age and there are specific considerations regarding management of NMSC for the older patient population. Here we will review current data regarding treatment considerations and options for older patients with NMSC. Hypofractionated regimens and high-dose brachytherapy may be non-surgical treatment options for older patients with NMSC. Other less aggressive strategies such as active surveillance can also be considered in some settings. Management of NMSC in the older patient population requires a thorough assessment of comorbidities, frailty, and life expectancy. Additionally, discussions regarding goals of care and quality of life (QOL) issues are especially important in this population. Older patients with NMSC in particular may benefit from a tailored treatment plan based on current available data rather than a broad application of general treatment guidelines for NMSC.

This survey study evaluates the association of gender and parenthood status with conference attendance among career oncologists.

Emerging modalities of communication have transformed the landscape of information dissemination particularly in the context of health care. Within oncology, stakeholders in all roles have formed both role-specific and multidisciplinary communities within the modalities of social media. Two platforms with particularly high adoption and penetration within oncologic practice for clinicians and general oncologic care as well as for patients and the community have been Facebook and Twitter. On both platforms, patients have come together to form disease-specific (or even mutation-specific) groups ripe with discussion on all aspects of their cancer, including disease and treatment symptoms, novel therapeutics, and clinical trial participation. Similarly, clinicians have united within professional communities to facilitate collaboration and community building in this rapidly changing medical practice landscape. Here, we investigate the current state of stakeholder engagement within social media and review strategies and platforms to maximize the impact of social media for patients and clinicians.

10520 Background: Female underrepresentation in academic medicine leadership is well-documented; however, oncology specific data are scarce. This study evaluates female leadership representation in academic medical oncology (MO), radiation oncology (RO) and surgical oncology (SO) programs. Furthermore, we examine the impact of female leadership on overall female faculty representation. Methods: A total of 264 (96%) Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education actively accredited MO [144 of 153], RO [93 of 94] and SO [27 of 27] training programs were included. The gender of overall faculty and those in leadership positions (program director and departmental chair/division chief) of each program was determined using hospital websites from 10/01/18 to 01/27/19. The chi-squared goodness-of-fit test was used to examine whether the observed proportion of females in leadership positions deviates significantly from the expected proportion based on the actual proportion of overall female faculty in MO, RO and SO. Two-sample t-tests were used to compare rates of female faculty representation across each program based on the presence/absence of female in a leadership position for MO, RO and SO. Results: Female faculty representation in MO, RO and SO was 37.1% (1,554/4,191), 30.7% (389/1,269) and 38.8% (212/546), respectively. Female representation in leadership positions was 31.5% (82/260), 17.4% (31/178) and 11.1% (5/45), respectively. The observed proportion of females in leadership positions was significantly lower than the expected proportion of females in leadership positions for RO (17.4% vs. 30.7%, p = .0001) and SO (11.1% vs. 38.8%, p = .0001), and demonstrated a trend towards significance for MO (31.5% vs. 37.1%, p = .063). 47.9%, 33% and 18.5% of MO, RO and SO programs had ≥1 female in a leadership position, respectively. Programs that had a female in a leadership position had a higher mean percentage of overall female faculty than those that did not: 41.0% vs 35.0% (p = .0006), 36.0% vs 26.0% (p = .0002) and 39.0% vs 32.0% (p = .348) for MO, RO and SO, respectively. Conclusions: Gender disparity exists in academic MO, RO and SO faculty and is magnified at the leadership level. Programs with a female physician in a leadership position are associated with a higher percentage of female faculty.

Objective There are no randomized data to support the use of postoperative radiation for salivary gland malignancies. This study uses the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to describe the epidemiology of salivary gland cancer patients and to investigate whether treatment with adjuvant radiation improves overall survival. Methods and materials A total of 8243 patients diagnosed with a major salivary gland cancer were identified from the NCDB. All patients received primary surgical resection of their malignancy. Patients were risk-stratified by adverse features, and overall survival rates were determined. Patients were considered high risk if they had extracapsular extension and/or positive margin after resection. Patients were considered intermediate risk if they did not meet the criteria for high risk but had pT3-T4 disease, pN+ disease, lymphovascular space invasion, adenoid cystic histology, or grade 2-3 disease. Patients who did not meet criteria for high or intermediate risk were considered low risk. Overall patient demographics, disease characteristics, treatment factors, and outcomes were summarized with descriptive statistics and analyzed with STATA. Results Median follow-up in this cohort was 42.4 months, with the median age of 58 years. Patients in the high-risk group had greater survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P = .002; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.91) if they received adjuvant radiation therapy. In contrast, patients in the intermediate- (HR, 1.01; P = .904; 95% CI, 0.85-1.20) and low-risk groups (HR, 0.85; P = .427; 95% CI, 0.57-1.26) did not experience a survival benefit with adjuvant radiation therapy. Conclusions This large analysis compared survival outcomes between observation and adjuvant radiation alone in risk-stratified patients after resection of major salivary glands using a national database. The use of adjuvant radiation for high-risk major salivary gland cancers appears to offer a survival benefit. Although an overall survival benefit was not seen in low- and intermediate-risk salivary gland cancers, this study could not address impact on local control because of the limitations of the NCDB.

199 Background: Patients with advanced breast cancer may experience ulcerative breast lesions. Breast cancer with ulcerative lesions has been shown to severely affect a patient’s quality of life (QoL). The role of palliative radiation therapy (RT) in the management of ulcerative breast lesions needs to be further explored. Methods: IRB-approval was obtained to retrospectively review the radiation treatment records for all patients who underwent palliative RT for breast cancer at our urban academic medical center. A total of 13 patients were identified, and we herein report their demographics, treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes. Results: The mean age of the patients receiving palliative RT for ulcerative breast cancer was 64 years. All patients had stage IV disease when they were evaluated for RT. All patients received prior systemic chemotherapy with a mean of four chemotherapeutic agents, the most common of which was Capecitabine. The mean radiation dose received for palliative RT was 27.54 Gy in 11 fractions with a median dose of 30 Gy in 15 fractions. Six (46%) of the patients received prior RT to the same breast, with a median dose of 59.5 Gy in 31 fractions. Among these six patients, the average interval between initial RT and ulcerative breast lesion was 69.5 months. The median overall survival in all patients since ulcerative breast lesion was 5 months and the mean survival did not differ between patients with previous history of RT and RT-naïve patients (4.50 vs. 4.57; p = 0.95). Six out of the 9 (69%) patients who received ≥ 30 Gy reported clinical improvement, whereas none of the 4 patients who received < 30 Gy reported any benefit. There were no radiation-associated toxicities reported by patients. Conclusions: These data suggest that palliative RT ( ≥ 30 Gy) is an efficacious treatment for ulcerative breast cancer with minimal toxicity. Prior RT should not be a contraindication as patients with previous history of RT have similar outcomes compared to RT-naïve patients.

Defining prognostic factors is a crucial initial step for determining the management of patients with brain metastases. Randomized trials assessing radiosurgery have commonly limited inclusion criteria to 1 to 4 brain metastases, in part due to multiple retrospective studies reporting on the number of brain metastases as a prognostic indicator. The present study reports on the survival of patients with 1 to 4 versus ≥5 brain metastases treated with radiosurgery. We evaluated a retrospective multi-institutional database of 1523 brain metastases in 507 patients who were treated with radiosurgery (Gamma Knife or Cyberknife) between 2001 and 2014. A total of 243 patients were included in the analysis. Patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases were compared with patients with ≥5 brain metastases using a standard statistical analysis. Cox hazard regression was used to construct a multivariable model of overall survival (OS). To find covariates that best separate the data at each split, a machine learning technique Chi-squared Automated Interaction Detection tree was utilized. On Pearson correlation, systemic disease status, number of intracranial metastases, and overall burden of disease (number of major involved organ systems) were found to be highly correlated (P

The presentation of a MALT lymphoma in the bladder is exceedingly rare. Furthermore, the optimal treatment of primary MALT confined to the bladder remains to be defined. Here, we report a case of a 65-year-old female with primary MALT lymphoma treated with definitive radiation therapy. The patient received a total dose of 30 Gy in 20 equal daily fractions to the bladder and tolerated the treatment well. In addition, we have extensively reviewed the relevant literature to better define the optimal management of this rare disease. In conclusion, primary MALT lymphoma of the bladder represents a rare malignancy with excellent prognosis if detected at an early stage. For early stage disease, definitive radiation represents an excellent treatment modality with a minimal side-effect profile.