Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation: Association of Dosimetric Parameters With Patient-Reported Outcomes

Purpose: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) after breast-conserving surgery offers a well-tolerated adjuvant radiation therapy option for patients with breast cancer. We sought to describe patient-reported acute toxicity as a function of salient dosimetric parameters during and after an APBI regimen of 40 Gy in 10 once-daily fractions. Methods and Materials: From June 2019 to July 2020, patients undergoing APBI were assigned a weekly, response-adapted, patient reported outcomes-common terminology criteria for adverse events-based acute toxicity assessment. Patients reported acute toxicity during treatment and for up to 8 weeks after treatment. Dosimetric treatment parameters were collected. Descriptive statistics and univariable analyses were used to summarize patient-reported outcomes and their correlation to corresponding dosimetric measures, respectively. Results: Overall, 55 patients who received APBI completed a total of 351 assessments. Median planning target volume was 210 cc (range, 64-580 cc), and median planning target volume:ipsilateral breast volume ratio was 0.17 (range, 0.05-0.44). Overall, 22% of patients reported moderate breast enlargement and 27% reported maximum skin toxicity as severe or very severe. Furthermore, 35% of patients reported fatigue, and 44% of patients reported pain in the radiated area as moderate to very severe. Median time to first report of any moderate to very severe symptom was 10 days (interquartile range, 6-27 days). By 8 weeks after APBI, most patients reported resolution of symptoms, with 16% reporting residual moderate symptoms. Upon univariable analysis, none of the ascertained salient dosimetric parameters were associated with maximum symptoms or with the presence of moderate to very severe toxicity. Conclusions: Weekly assessments during and after APBI showed that patients experienced moderate to very severe toxicities, most commonly skin toxicity, but that these typically resolved by 8 weeks after radiation therapy. More comprehensive evaluations among larger cohorts are warranted to define the precise dosimetric parameters that correspond to outcomes of interest

Multidisciplinary Treatment of Non-Spine Bone Metastases: Results of a Modified Delphi Consensus Process.

Purpose: Local treatment for bone metastases is becoming increasingly complex. National guidelines traditionally focus only on radiation therapy (RT), leaving a gap in clinical decision support resources available to clinicians. The objective of this study was to reach expert consensus regarding multidisciplinary management of non-spine bone metastases, which would facilitate standardizing treatment within an academic-community partnership. Methods and Materials: A multidisciplinary panel of physicians treating metastatic disease across the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance, including community-based partner sites, was convened. Clinical questions rated of high importance in the management of non-spine bone metastases were identified via survey. A literature review was conducted, and panel physicians drafted initial recommendation statements. Consensus was gathered on recommendation statements through a modified Delphi process from a full panel of 17 physicians from radiation oncology, orthopaedic surgery, medical oncology, interventional radiology, and anesthesia pain. Consensus was defined a priori as 75% of respondents indicating agree or strongly agree with the consensus statement. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy was employed to assign evidence strength for each statement. Results: Seventeen clinical questions were identified, of which 11 (65%) were selected for the consensus process. Consensus was reached for 16 of 17 answer statements (94%), of which 12 were approved after Round 1 and additional 4 approved after Round 2 of the modified Delphi voting process. Topics included indications for referral to surgery or interventional radiology, radiation fractionation and appropriate use of stereotactic approaches, and the handling of systemic therapies during radiation. Evidence strength was most commonly C (n = 7), followed by B (n = 5) and A (n = 3). Conclusions: Consensus among a multidisciplinary panel of community and academic physicians treating non-spine bone metastases was feasible. Recommendations will assist clinicians and potentially provide measures to reduce variation across diverse practice settings. Findings highlight areas for further research such as pathologic fracture risk estimation, pre-operative radiation, and percutaneous ablation