Yorke, Ellen

TPS9079 Background: Pleurectomy/Decortication (P/D) with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy has become a common lung-sparing surgical approach for MPM. Adjuvant hemithoracic IMPRINT was developed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and safe in a multi-institutional phase II study, with promising survival outcomes. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored this phase III randomized cooperative group trial to test the efficacy of this lung-sparing trimodality approach for resectable MPM. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed MPM amenable to P/D are enrolled and undergo P/D followed by adjuvant platinum/pemetrexed (preferred) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by P/D. Patients are stratified by histologic subtype, resection status (R0/1 vs. R2), and center patient volume (≤10 vs. > 10 P/Ds per year). Within 8 weeks after completion of the second modality patients are randomized 1:1 to undergo hemithoracic IMPRINT vs. no further therapy. All IMPRINT contours and treatment plans will be centrally reviewed. A contouring atlas and treatment planning constraints for target structures and organs at risk including acceptable and unacceptable variations and deviations were developed. Photon and proton therapy are permitted. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include local failure-free, distant-metastases-free and progression-free survival, treatment-related toxicities (CTCAE v5.0) and change in quality-of-life (EORTC QLQ-C30 mean score changes at 9 months post randomization). The target accrual is 150 patients. This study was activated on January 29, 2020. Over 20 institutions have already committed to opening the study which is open to all National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) sites. Treatment planning guidelines and helpful hints for photon and proton therapy will be presented. Conclusions: NRG LU-006 (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04158141 ) is open to accrual. This is the first NRG Oncology randomized phase III trial on MPM and evaluates the use of IMPRINT following lung-sparing P/D and chemotherapy. This project was supported by grants U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology Operations), U10CA180822 (NRG Oncology SDMC), U24CA180803 (IROC) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Clinical trial information: NCT04158141.

Background While the review of radiotherapy treatment plans and charts by a medical physicist is a key component of safe, high‐quality care, very few specific recommendations currently exist for this task. Aims The goal of TG‐275 is to provide practical, evidence‐based recommendations on physics plan and chart review for radiation therapy. While this report is aimed mainly at medical physicists, others may benefit including dosimetrists, radiation therapists, physicians and other professionals interested in quality management. Methods The scope of the report includes photon/electron external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), proton radiotherapy, as well as high‐dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for gynecological applications (currently the highest volume brachytherapy service in most practices). The following review time points are considered: initial review prior to treatment, weekly review, and end‐of‐treatment review. The Task Group takes a risk‐informed approach to developing recommendations. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed to determine the highest‐risk aspects of each process. In the case of photon/electron EBRT, a survey of all American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members was also conducted to determine current practices. A draft of this report was provided to the full AAPM membership for comment through a 3‐week open‐comment period, and the report was revised in response to these comments. Results The highest‐risk failure modes included 112 failure modes in photon/electron EBRT initial review, 55 in weekly and end‐of‐treatment review, 24 for initial review specific to proton therapy, and 48 in HDR brachytherapy. A 103‐question survey on current practices was released to all AAPM members who self‐reported as working in the radiation oncology field. The response rate was 33%. The survey data and risk data were used to inform recommendations. Discussion Tables of recommended checks are presented and recommendations for best practice are discussed. Suggestions to software vendors are also provided. Conclusions TG‐275 provides specific recommendations for physics plan and chart review which should enhance the safety and quality of care for patients receiving radiation treatments.