Sanford, Nina N.

AbstractBackgroundExternal‐beam radiation (EBRT) is a noninvasive therapeutic alternative to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials to assess the clinical efficacy of EBRT versus TACE for HCC as either a definitive monotherapy or as a bridge to transplantation/surgery.MethodsA systematic review and meta‐analysis were performed to include prospective randomized trials comparing EBRT versus TACE. Data was analyzed with random and fixed‐effects models. The inconsistency index (I2) was chosen to assess heterogeneity. Three publications were included with a total of 142 patients. Outcomes included local control (LC), overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and occurrences of grade ≥3 toxicity. Comparisons are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThere were three randomized trials that met inclusion criteria. The EBRT was delivered in three to 15 fractions with a total dose between 30 and 75 gray(Gy). EBRT was associated with significantly improved LC (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08–0.34; I2 = 0%) and PFS (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23–0.60; I2, 0%) compared with TACE. There was no significant difference between EBRT and TACE in OS (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51–1.22; I2 = 0%) or grade ≥3 toxicity (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.31–2.37; I2 = 57%). None of the analyses had statistically significant heterogeneity.ConclusionsCompared with TACE, EBRT yields superior LC and PFS without providing a survival benefit in early and intermediate stage HCC. Additional larger prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to further investigate differences in clinical outcomes amongst patients with more advanced disease.

Abstract Background The National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) is the largest government-sponsored organization in the United States; it is tasked with funding randomized controlled trials in oncology. It is unknown whether there are differences in study design by treatment modality. We evaluated differences in methodology between trials testing radiation therapy (RT) vs systemic therapy. Methods The Clinical Trials Support Unit website was used to identify active randomized controlled trials of systemic therapy or RT across NCTN cooperative groups through December 31, 2023. Studies in disease sites with more than 5 RT trials were included. Each trial’s protocol was reviewed to obtain key design information that was descriptively compared: primary endpoint, hypothesis testing type (superiority vs noninferiority), noninferiority margin, hypothesized effect size, power, and statistical significance level. Results A total of 186 randomized controlled trials (142 systemic therapy, 44 RT) were examined. Comparing primary endpoints, 59.1% vs 26.8% of RT vs systemic therapy trials, respectively, had a primary endpoint of overall survival. Nearly one-third (31.2%) of RT trials were noninferiority vs 6.3% of systemic therapy trials. Among breast cancer trials, 75% of RT studies were noninferiority vs 11.1% systemic therapy. Target effect size, power, and statistical significance level were similar by treatment modality within tumor types and disease settings. Conclusion Among NCTN cooperative group randomized controlled trials, there were marked differences in study design between RT vs systemic therapy trials. A higher benchmark for defining success for RT interventions was observed, with greater emphasis on overall survival as the primary endpoint. This finding may reflect differences in therapeutic mechanism by modality and types of study questions posed.

255 Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter has been instrumental in accelerating knowledge dissemination and forging collaborations within the medical community and amongst patient advocates. Tweetchats within Twitter are scheduled conversations on a specific topic. In oncology, Tweetchats have been used by cancer advocates to spread awareness and for patient and caregiver education. A colorectal cancer (CRC) specific tweetchat did not previously exist. This abstract describes the creation, and experiences with a CRC specific tweetchat. Methods: The #CRCTrialsChat tweetchat was created by a patient advocate for colorectal cancer patients, caregivers and clinicians to meet and exchange clinical trial-related information. Two gastrointestinal (GI) medical oncologists and two radiation oncologists were enlisted as moderators. The topic for each session is chosen by the patient advocate, who creates an outline and divides the content, which is designed to last a one hour session. The idea is to create engaging, technical, but easy to understand content. Each moderator then works on the answers to their assigned section, which is edited to fit tweet character limit. Sessions may also have guest moderators with expertise on a specific topic. Through tweeting, moderators answer specific questions that come up during the session and later. Results: To date, we have had four sessions covering the following topics: Clinical trial basics, CRC Updates from ASCO22, ClinicalTrialFinders and BRAF-mutated tumors. The content created has been simple and engaging, the format has functioned smoothly, and the reach of #CRCTrialsChat has been steadily increasing. After the most recent session on BRAF in September 2022, the @CRCTrialsChat has 281 followers, 17K impressions and 14.6K profile visits, a reflection of its excellent content. From a clinician perspective, this is a great format to interact with colleagues, discuss enrolling trials and also become familiar with using Twitter. Conclusions: A CRC clinical trial focused tweetchat is an engaging way to deliver trial-related content to an audience of clinicians, patients and caregivers. The current format appears to be an effective way to create and disseminate information. Future sessions will focus on ctDNA, molecular markers such as KRAS and HER2, and rectal cancer trials. Our hope is that #CRCTrialsChat will stimulate continued patient and clinician engagement, increase awareness of clinical trials, enhance trial participation and initiate patient-centric research and collaborations.

PURPOSE: Routine use of extended-fraction (> 10 fractions) radiation therapy (RT) for palliation of bone metastases is recognized as a low-value intervention by the American Society for Radiation Oncology. We examined contemporary practice patterns of, and physician characteristics associated with extended-fraction RT use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Medicare fee-for-service data. We included patients who underwent 2- or 3-dimensional external-beam RT for bone metastases between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Physicians treating > 10 patients over the study period were analyzed for their individual practice. Hierarchic logistic regression modeling was used to identify patient- and physician-level factors associated with extended-fraction RT use. RESULTS: A total of 12,221 patients (median age, 75.6 years; 40.9% women, 87.6% white) were included. The rate of extended-fraction RT was 23.4%. A total of 1,432 physicians treated any patient. Among the 382 physicians treating > 10 patients, 127 (33.2%) used extended-fraction RT > 30% (consensus threshold). Physician factors associated with decreased odds of extended-fraction RT were years since medical school graduation (≤ 10 years and 11-20 years v ≥ 31 years: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.20 to 0.51] and 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.93]) and practicing in the Northeast or Midwest versus the South (aOR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.58] and 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.74]). Physicians treating > 20 patients ( v 11-14 patients) over the study period had increased odds of delivering extended-fraction RT (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.10 to 2.12]). CONCLUSION: In this study, almost one fourth of patients received extended-fraction RT, and one third of physicians had an extended-fraction RT use rate of > 30%. Personalized feedback of performance data, clinical pathways and peer review, and updated reimbursement models are potential mechanisms to address this low-value care.