Smith, Koren

Importance The impact of patient-specific, disease-related, and social factors on outcomes in limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) is not well defined. A post hoc secondary analysis of such factors from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 30610–Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0538 trial may impact future trial design. Objective To assess the comprehensive demographic, disease-related, treatment-related, and social factors for potential associations with survival outcomes and understand whether specific subpopulations may benefit from radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation in LS-SCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants This post hoc secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial included 638 adults with LS-SCLC treated at 186 unique treatment sites with at least 1 accrual for all patients from March 15, 2008, to December 1, 2019; 313 patients were randomized to receive RT twice daily to a dosage of 45 Gy for 3 weeks and 325 to receive RT once daily to a dosage of 70 Gy for 7 weeks. Data were locked February 28, 2022, and analyzed from November 28, 2022, to June 4, 2024. Interventions Twice-daily RT or once-daily RT. Main Outcomes and Measures Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association of treatment groups and other risk factors with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patient-specific factors included age, sex, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Disease-related factors included tumor, nodal, and overall cancer stages. Treatment-related factors included type of chemotherapy, timing of concurrent RT, RT technique, and prophylactic cranial irradiation. Social factors included marital status and treatment center accrual volume. Results Among 507 patients (260 [51.3%] female and 247 [48.7%] male; mean [SD] age, 62.6 [7.9] years) included in the multivariate survival analysis, with a median follow-up of 4.7 (IQR, 3.7-7.1) years, female sex was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58-0.91]; P = .006), while being 70 years or older was associated with decreased OS (HR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.14-1.98]; P = .004). Neither age nor sex was associated with PFS. When compared with those with N1 disease, OS and PFS were worse in patients with N2 (HRs, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.19-2.26]; P = .002 and 1.36 [95% CI, 1.02-1.81]; P = .04, respectively) and N3 (HRs, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.40-2.93]; P < .001 and 1.63 [95% CI, 1.17-2.26]; P = .004) disease. Compared with stage II cancer, OS was worse for stage IIIA (HR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.17-2.31]; P = .004) and stage IIIB (HR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.34-2.83]; P < .001). Compared with high-volume accrual centers, treatment at low- or middle-volume accrual centers was associated with worse PFS (HRs, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.33-2.82; P < .001] and 1.44 [95% CI, 1.15-1.82; P = .002], respectively) and worse OS (HRs, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.03-2.32; P = .03] and 1.33 [95% CI, 1.04-1.70; P = .02], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance This secondary analysis of the CALGB 30610–RTOG 0538 randomized clinical trial of patients with LS-SCLC found associations between female sex or being younger than 70 years and improved overall survival and between advanced nodal stage or treatment at low- or middle-volume accrual centers and worse outcomes. These findings suggest that stratification by nodal stage, clinical stage, and age should be considered in future randomized trials. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00632853

Abstract The clinical use of surface imaging has increased dramatically, with demonstrated utility for initial patient positioning, real‐time motion monitoring, and beam gating in a variety of anatomical sites. The Therapy Physics Subcommittee and the Imaging for Treatment Verification Working Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine commissioned Task Group 302 to review the current clinical uses of surface imaging and emerging clinical applications. The specific charge of this task group was to provide technical guidelines for clinical indications of use for general positioning, breast deep‐inspiration breath hold treatment, and frameless stereotactic radiosurgery. Additionally, the task group was charged with providing commissioning and on‐going quality assurance (QA) requirements for surface‐guided radiation therapy (SGRT) as part of a comprehensive QA program including risk assessment. Workflow considerations for other anatomic sites and for computed tomography simulation, including motion management, are also discussed. Finally, developing clinical applications, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or proton radiotherapy, are presented. The recommendations made in this report, which are summarized at the end of the report, are applicable to all video‐based SGRT systems available at the time of writing.

Background: Lower-dose cone-beam computed tomography protocols for image-guided radiotherapy may permit target localization while minimizing radiation exposure. We prospectively evaluated a lower-dose cone-beam protocol for central nervous system image-guided radiotherapy across a multinational pediatrics consortium. Methods: Seven institutions prospectively employed a lower-dose cone-beam computed tomography central nervous system protocol (weighted average dose 0.7 mGy) for patients ≤21 years. Treatment table shifts between setup with surface lasers versus cone-beam computed tomography were used to approximate setup accuracy, and vector magnitudes for these shifts were calculated. Setup group mean, interpatient, interinstitution, and random error were estimated, and clinical factors were compared by mixed linear modeling. Results: Among 96 patients, with 2179 pretreatment cone-beam computed tomography acquisitions, median age was 9 years (1-20). Setup parameters were 3.13, 3.02, 1.64, and 1.48 mm for vector magnitude group mean, interpatient, interinstitution, and random error, respectively. On multivariable analysis, there were no significant differences in mean vector magnitude by age, gender, performance status, target location, extent of resection, chemotherapy, or steroid or anesthesia use. Providers rated >99% of images as adequate or better for target localization. Conclusions: A lower-dose cone-beam computed tomography protocol demonstrated table shift vector magnitude that approximate clinical target volume/planning target volume expansions used in central nervous system radiotherapy. There were no significant clinical predictors of setup accuracy identified, supporting use of this lower-dose cone-beam computed tomography protocol across a diverse pediatric population with brain tumors.

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.

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this guideline is to provide a list of critical performance tests in order to assist the Qualified Medical Physicist (QMP) in establishing and maintaining a safe and effective quality assurance (QA) program. The performance tests on a linear accelerator (linac) should be selected to fit the clinical patterns of use of the accelerator and care should be given to perform tests which are relevant to detecting errors related to the specific use of the accelerator.MethodsA risk assessment was performed on tests from current task group reports on linac QA to highlight those tests that are most effective at maintaining safety and quality for the patient. Recommendations are made on the acquisition of reference or baseline data, the establishment of machine isocenter on a routine basis, basing performance tests on clinical use of the linac, working with vendors to establish QA tests and performing tests after maintenance.ResultsThe recommended tests proposed in this guideline were chosen based on the results from the risk analysis and the consensus of the guideline's committee. The tests are grouped together by class of test (e.g., dosimetry, mechanical, etc.) and clinical parameter tested. Implementation notes are included for each test so that the QMP can understand the overall goal of each test.ConclusionThis guideline will assist the QMP in developing a comprehensive QA program for linacs in the external beam radiation therapy setting. The committee sought to prioritize tests by their implication on quality and patient safety. The QMP is ultimately responsible for implementing appropriate tests. In the spirit of the report from American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100, individual institutions are encouraged to analyze the risks involved in their own clinical practice and determine which performance tests are relevant in their own radiotherapy clinics.