Adjuvant vs. salvage radiation therapy in men with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy: Survey of North American genitourinary expert radiation oncologists

INTRODUCTION: The management of patients with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy (RP) is controversial. Level 1 evidence demonstrates that adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) improves survival compared to no treatment; however, it may overtreat up to 30% of patients, as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using salvage RT on observation arms failed to reveal a survival advantage of adjuvant RT. We, therefore, sought to determine the current view of adjuvant vs. salvage RT among North American genitourinary (GU) radiation oncology experts. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision-making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to opinions regarding adjuvant vs. salvage RT for this patient population. Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Forty-two of 88 radiation oncologists completed the survey; 23 (54.8%) recommended adjuvant RT and 19 (45.2%) recommended salvage RT. Recommendation of active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease was a significant predictor of salvage RT recommendation (p=0.034), and monthly patient volume approached significance for recommendation of adjuvant over salvage RT; those seeing <15 patients/month trended towards recommending adjuvant over salvage RT (p=0.062). No other demographic factors approached significance. CONCLUSIONS: There is dramatic polarization among North American GU experts regarding optimal management of patients with high-risk features after RP. Ongoing RCTs will determine whether adjuvant RT improves survival over salvage RT. Until then, the almost 50/50 division seen from this analysis should encourage practicing clinicians to discuss the ambiguity with their patients

Is moderate hypofractionation accepted as a new standard of care in north america for prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy? Survey of genitourinary expert radiation oncologists

INTRODUCTION: Several recent randomized clinical trials have evaluated hypofractionated regimens against conventionally fractionated EBRT and shown similar effectiveness with conflicting toxicity results. The current view regarding hypofractionation compared to conventional EBRT among North American genitourinary experts for management of prostate cancer has not been investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision - making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to opinions regarding the default EBRT dose and fractionation for a hypothetical example of a favorable intermediate - risk prostate cancer (Gleason 3 + 4). Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Forty - two respondents (48%) completed the survey. We excluded from analysis two respondents who selected radical hypofractionation with 5 - 12 fractions as a preferred treatment modality. Among the 40 analyzed respondents, 23 (57.5%) recommend conventional fractionation and 17 (42.5%) recommended moderate hypofractionation. No demographic factors were found to be associated with preference for a fractionation regimen. Support for brachytherapy as a first choice treatment modality for low - risk prostate cancer was borderline significantly associated with support for moderate hypofractionated EBRT treatment modality (p = 0.089). CONCLUSIONS: There is an almost equal split among North American GU expert radiation oncologists regarding the appropriateness to consider moderately hypofractionated EBRT as a new standard of care in management of patients with prostate cancer. Physicians who embrace brachytherapy may be more inclined to support moderate hypofractionated regimen for EBRT. It is unclear whether reports with longer followups will impact this balance, or whether national care and reimbursement policies will drive the clinical decisions. In the day and age of patient - centered care delivery, patients should receive an objective recommendation based on available clinical evidence. The stark division among GU experts may influence the design of future clinical trials utilizing EBRT for patients with prostate cancer

RADIANS: A Multidisciplinary Central Nervous System Clinic Model for Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery Practice

Background Radiation therapy for central nervous system disease commonly involves collaboration between Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery. We describe our early experience with a multidisciplinary clinic model. Methods In 2016, the novel RADIANS (RADIation oncology And NeuroSurgery) clinic model was initiated at a community hospital. Disease and treatment demographics were collected and analyzed. Patient satisfaction was assessed via a blinded survey questionnaire. Results Forty-two patients have been seen since the inception of RADIANS. The median age was 65; and the median patient distance from RADIANS was 42.7 miles (mean = 62.6; range = 0.7–285). Half of the patients traveled >50 miles to receive care, and >80% were seen for central nervous system metastases. Of the patients receiving radiation, 75% received stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy. The mean overall satisfaction from 0 (not satisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) was 4.8. Conclusions The RADIANS clinic model has proved viable and well-liked by patients in a community setting, with the majority of radiation therapy administered being stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy rather than conventional fractionation

Impact of Travel Distance on Radiation Treatment Modality for Central Nervous System Disease

Background Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as a popular alternative to conventional radiation therapy (RT) over the past 15 years. Unfortunately, the impact of patient distance from radiation treatment centers and utilization of SBRT versus conventional RT has been sparsely investigated. This report represents the first analysis of the impact of patient distance on radiation treatment modality for central nervous system (CNS) disease. Materials and Methods Since the inception of our RADIation oncology And Neuro-Surgery (RADIANS) multidisciplinary clinic at a community hospital in 2016, 27 patients have received either SBRT or conventional RT as their sole radiation treatment modality for CNS disease. Twenty-four (88.9%) presented with metastatic disease. Fisher’s exact test evaluated the relationship between patient residence from treatment (in miles) and radiation treatment modality received. Results Mean patient distance from our RADIANS clinic was 50.6 miles (median = 15.3). Twenty-one patients (77.8%) received SBRT; the remaining six received conventional RT. Mean patient distance from SBRT was 63.6 miles, and mean patient distance for conventional RT was 5.1 miles; this finding was statistically significant (p = 0.0433; 95% confidence interval = 1.9–115.1). Conclusion Our findings indicate that patients with CNS disease who receive SBRT over conventional RT are statistically more likely to reside further from treatment centers. This is similar to findings of national studies comparing proton versus photon treatment for pediatric solid malignancies. The results from our work have implications for neuro-oncology treatment and the development of community hospital-based clinic models similar to RADIANS in the future

Dramatic polarization in genitourinary expert opinions regarding the clinical utility of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in prostate cance

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the opinions of North American genitourinary (GU) experts regarding inclusion of technologies such as prostate - specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and C - 11 choline positron emission tomography (PET) into routine practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was distributed to North American GU experts. Questions pertained to the role of PSMA and C - 11 PET in PCa management. Participants were categorized as "supporters" or "opponents" of incorporation of novel imaging techniques. Opinions were correlated with practice patterns. RESULTS: Response rate was 54% and we analyzed 42 radiation oncologist respondents. 17 participants (40%) have been in practice for > 20 years and 38 (90%) practice at an academic center. 24 (57%) were supporters of PSMA and 29 (69%) were supporters of C - 11. Supporters were more likely to treat pelvic nodes (88% vs. 56%, p < 01) and trended to be more likely to treat patients with moderate or extreme hypofractionation (58% vs. 28%, p = 065). Supporters trended to be more likely to offer brachytherapy boost (55% vs. 23%, p = 09), favor initial observation and early salvage over adjuvant radiation (77% vs. 55%, p = 09), and to consider themselves expert brachytherapists (69% vs. 39%, p = 09). CONCLUSIONS: There is a polarization among GU radiation oncology experts regarding novel imaging techniques. A correlation emerged between support of novel imaging and adoption of treatment approaches that are clinically superior or less expensive. Pre - existing biases among GU experts on national treatment - decision panels and leaders of cooperative group studies may affect the design of future studies and influence the adoption of these technologies in clinical practice

Use of the g-index for assessment of citation-based scholarly activity of United States radiation oncology residents and subsequent choice of academic versus private practice career

Introduction: The Hirsch index (h-index) evaluates citation-based scholarly activity, but has limited ability to acknowledge those publishing a smaller number of manuscripts with exceedingly high citations. The g-index addresses this limitation by assessing the largest number of manuscripts (g) by an author cited at least (g × g) times, but has yet to be applied to radiation oncology resident productivity. Methods: A list of recent radiation oncology resident graduates (comprising 86% of the 2016 graduating class) and their post-residency career choice was compiled. The Scopus bibliometric citation database was searched to collect and calculate g-index data for each resident. Results: The mean g-index score for all resident graduates was 7.16. Residents with a PhD had significantly higher g-index scores (11.97 versus 5.80; p < 0.01), while there was no statistically significant difference in g-index scores between male and female residents. Residents choosing academic careers had higher g-index scores than those choosing private practice (9.47 versus 4.99; p < 0.01). Programs graduating at least three residents produced significantly higher g-index scores/resident than those graduating two residents, and while comprising only 25% of programs and 45% of residents, produced 60% of academic careers (p < 0.02). Conclusion: Radiation oncology resident graduates published on average a minimum of seven manuscripts cited at least 49 times. PhD-degree graduates had significantly higher g-index scores, as did residents choosing academic over private practice careers. There was no significant gender-related difference in g-index score regardless of career choice. The majority of academic careers are produced from programs graduating at least three residents

The role of whole brain radiation therapy in the management of melanoma brain metastases

Background: Brain metastases are common in patients with melanoma, and optimal management is not well defined. As melanoma has traditionally been thought of as “radioresistant,” the role of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in particular is unclear. We conducted this retrospective study to identify prognostic factors for patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for melanoma brain metastases and to investigate the role of additional up-front treatment with whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). Methods: We reviewed records of 147 patients who received SRS as part of initial management of their melanoma brain metastases from January 2000 through June 2010. Overall survival (OS) and time to distant intracranial progression were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: WBRT was employed with SRS in 27% of patients and as salvage in an additional 22%. Age at SRS > 60 years (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, p = 0.05), multiple brain metastases (HR 1.90, p = 0.008), and omission of up-front WBRT (HR 2.24, p = 0.005) were associated with distant intracranial progression on multivariate analysis. Extensive extracranial metastases (HR 1.86, p = 0.0006), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) ≤ 80% (HR 1.58, p = 0.01), and multiple brain metastases (HR 1.40, p = 0.06) were associated with worse OS on univariate analysis. Extensive extracranial metastases (HR 1.78, p = 0.001) and KPS (HR 1.52, p = 0.02) remained significantly associated with OS on multivariate analysis. In patients with absent or stable extracranial disease, multiple brain metastases were associated with worse OS (multivariate HR 5.89, p = 0.004), and there was a trend toward an association with worse OS when up-front WBRT was omitted (multivariate HR 2.56, p = 0.08). Conclusions: Multiple brain metastases and omission of up-front WBRT (particularly in combination) are associated with distant intracranial progression. Improvement in intracranial disease control may be especially important in the subset of patients with absent or stable extracranial disease, where the competing risk of death from extracranial disease is low. These results are hypothesis generating and require confirmation from ongoing randomized trials