Citations

523 Background: This study was done to assess the toxicity and efficacy of IMRT for anal cancer in a multi-institutional setting. Methods: Records of 152 total patients (pts) were reviewed retrospectively. Data on disease control and toxicity were collected as well as pt and treatment characteristics. Acute (<6 months) and late (>=6 months) severe toxicity (grade >=3) were recorded at each institution. Four were excluded for either presence of metastatic disease (2) or stage TX (2). There was data for late toxicity on 120 pts. Results: T stage was T1 in 28, T2 in 79, T3 in 29 and T4 in 12 pts. N stage was N0 in 77, N1 in 40, N2 in 19 and N3 in 12 pts. The median age was 56 yrs and median follow-up was 26.8 months. Cumulative IMRT dose was 51.25 Gy (median) (range: 4.32-61.2 Gy) in a median of 28 fractions (2-34). Chemotherapy was given in all but 2 pts and the most common regimen was 5- fluorouracil plus mitomycin-C. The median total elapsed treatment time was 40 days. Local control at 3 yrs was 87% and was significantly worse for patients with T3-4 disease (79% vs 90% at 3 years; p=0.04). There was no correlation between dose and local control. Regional control, distant control and overall survival were 97%, 91%, and 87% at 3 yrs, respectively. Nodal status was associated with regional and distal control as well as overall survival (p<0.01 for each). The most common acute severe toxicity was hematologic (41%). Severe acute GI, skin or other toxicity was 11%, 20% and 1% respectively. There were two grade 5 toxicities (hematologic and GI). Severe late toxicity was limited to skin (1%) and GI (3%). Conclusions: IMRT resulted in excellent local control in this multi-institutional cohort of pts. Although T stage did predict for worse local control, most pts with T3-4 disease were controlled with IMRT. Nodal status predicts for regional and distal control as well as overall survival. Severe toxicity was acceptable with this technique.

119 Background: Radiotherapy (RT) interruptions have a negative impact on outcomes in many epithelial malignancies treated with definitive RT. The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of RT duration on outcomes in patients (pts) with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Methods: Pts treated with definitive CRT on RTOG trials 8501 and 9405 were included. Separate analyses were performed in pts receiving standard dose (SD-CRT; 50 Gy + 5FU + cisplatin) and high dose (HD-CRT; 64.8 Gy + 5FU + cisplatin) CRT. Local (LF) and regional (RF) failure were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA) Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to examine for correlation between RT duration (< vs. ≥ median) with LF, RF, DFS and OS. Results: In the SD-CRT cohort (n=235), 96 pts (41%) had ≥ 1 RT interruption for a median of 3 (IQR 1-6) days. The median RT duration was 39 (IQR 37-43) days. In UVA and MVA, RT duration was not associated with LF, RF, DFS, or OS. Estimated outcome rates are in the table. In the HD-CRT cohort (n=107), 64 pts (60%) had ≥ 1 RT interruption for a median of 3.5 (IQR 2-7.5) days. The median RT duration was 52 (IQR 50-57) days. In UVA, RT duration ≥ 52 days was associated with a 33% reduction in risk of DFS failure (HR=0.66, 95% CI [0.44-0.98], p=0.039) and a 29% reduction in risk of death (HR=0.71, 95% CI [0.48-1.06], p=0.09). When excluding the 25 pts with RT dose < 64.8 Gy, RT duration was not associated with DFS or OS. Conclusions: In pts with esophageal cancer receiving definitive SD-CRT, an association between RT duration and outcomes was not observed. In pts receiving HD-CRT, longer RT duration was associated with improved DFS, which may have been due to a significant number of deaths at RT dose < 64.8 Gy. Supported by NCI U10 grants CA21661, CA180868, CA180822, CA37422. Clinical trial information: NCT00002631. [Table: see text]

524 Background: Psychosocial distress during radiotherapy (RT) for gastrointestinal tumors is poorly characterized. Since 2012, patients receiving RT in our clinic have been prospectively screened for causes of distress. The results of our screening were reviewed in order to elucidate concerns of GI cancer patients and to delineate patterns within patient reported distress (PRD). Methods: Patients treated with RT at our institution receive a 30 question PRD survey that also includes a linear analog measure of overall distress at the start and during RT. The PRD survey asks patients to rate forms of distress on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most distressed). The survey also asks patients to rate overall distress according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer on a scale 0 to 10. The reported results were retrospectively reviewed in patients receiving definitive RT for GI cancers from 04/02/2012 to 08/05/2015. Results: PRD surveys were completed by 113 patients, 55 (48.7%) male and 58 (51.3%) female. Median age was 65 years (range 28 to 93). The most common tumor histology was adenocarcinoma, 67 (59.3%). 105 patients (93.0%) received chemotherapy and 66 (58.4%) underwent surgery. Overall, NCCN distress thermometer results ranged from 0 to 10, with a median of 4.3. The mean distress scores for the top five complaints ranged from 1.27 to 2.63. Top distresses were “How will I feel during treatment” (2.63), “Fatigue” (2.45), “Pain that affects daily functioning” (2.35), “Out of pocket medical costs” (2.31), and “Sleep difficulties” (2.31). The least concerning complaints were “Housing during treatment” (1.27), “A loved one relying on me for their physical care” (1.30), “Spirituality” (1.33),“Family communication about my illness”(1.37), and “Transportation” (1.38). Conclusions: Patients’ major concerns were aligned with daily quality of life, such as fatigue, pain and insomnia. Highest reported distress was linked with the process of RT and side effects associated with treatment. Medical expenses were also perceived as a burden. Medical providers should identify psychosocial stressors during RT in order to effectively communicate and provide resources to improve quality of life.

75 Background: The focus of palliative radiotherapy (RT) is on improving quality of life (QOL) for patients with serious illnesses by eliminating or decreasing physical symptoms. The importance of assessing distress levels in palliative care patients is recognized due to the relevance of QOL, as treatment is given to provide symptom-relief rather than curative results. We sought to identify the most common causes of patient reported distress during palliative RT. Methods: Retrospective review was performed for patients who received palliative RT from 11/1/2012 to 6/4/2015 for various types of metastatic cancer at our institution. All patients completed a Patient Reported Distress (PRD) questionnaire with 30 specific questions and an overall distress thermometer prior to beginning treatment. The PRD survey quantified 30 areas of current concern ranging in patient-reported values from 1 to 5 in addition to a linear analog measure from 0 to 10 of overall reported distress in the last month. Results: Completed PRD surveys were available for a total of 297 patients, 149 (50.2%) female and 148 (49.8%) male. All patients were undergoing external beam radiation therapy for treatment of metastatic disease. 49 (16%) received chemotherapy and 46 (9%) underwent surgery. Overall distress ranged from 0 to 10, with a median of 5.0. The mean distress scores for the top five concerns ranged from 1.4 to 2.7. Top distresses were “Fatigue” (2.7), “Pain that affects daily functioning” (2.6), “How will I feel during treatment” (2.5), “Sleep difficulties” (2.4), and “Out of pocket medical costs” (2.3). Least troubling symptoms were “Transportation” (1.4), “A loved one relying on me for their physical care” (1.5), “My job” (1.5), “Housing during treatment” (1.5), “Spirituality” (1.5), and “Anger” (1.5). Conclusions: Patients demonstrated concern for distress related to interruption of activities of normal life, such as tiredness and insomnia, pain, and overall burdens from treatment. Medical costs were also a major concern. Importantly, housing and transportation were not issues in the current study but could be of concern in other regions. Providers should be aware that patients’ primary concerns may not be directly related to the symptom being palliated.

211 Background: Distress is known to be elevated in patients receiving cancer therapy, such as palliative radiotherapy (PRT). Many patients will experience distress during treatment and it is not always addressed in part due to a lack of guidance regarding the significance of distress. Methods: All RT patients in our clinic are asked to complete a patient reported distress (PRD) survey during treatment course. PRD forms consist of 30 categorical questions that assess distress subscales. Patients have the option to rate each question from 1 (low distress) to 5 (high distress). The survey also includes the National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer, which allows patients to rate overall distress level from 0 (no distress) to 10 (extreme distress). Patients’ records were retrospectively reviewed to abstract the needed information to assess survivorship. Results: 270 patients were included from 01/18/2012-08/07/2015. Overall PRD was analyzed as a continuous and a categorical variable (low: 0-3, moderate: 4-6, high: 7-10). Continuous and categorical variable PRD did not show a correlation of distress to survival (P = 0.26) and (P = 0.10) respectively. A correlation was noted in moderate distress category (RR: 1.51, P = 0.034), however, this was not noted in high distress category (RR: 1.25, P = 0.33). There was no statistical significant correlation with the adjusted variables. Patients with primary site of gastrointestinal cancer had worst prognosis (RR: 1.34, P: 0.14), while hematological origin had best prognosis (RR: 0.35, P: 0.038).Age had the strongest correlation with survival, as older patients receiving RT had poorer survival (RR: 1.13, P: 0.079). Conclusions: This study suggests that PRD is not predictive of survival in PRT. The primary goal of PRT is to improve quality of life (QoL) by assessing, anticipating and alleviating suffering; not necessarily improve survival. It also demonstrated that the most common stressors were related to reversible short-term side effects of RT such as fatigue and pain rather than long-term stressors related to daily activities and social measures which might affect QoL. It is imperative to explore assessment tools to mitigate suffering and improve strategies to enhance QoL in all medical disciplines.

79 Background: A significant percentage of cancer patients experience psychosocial distress with the highest prevalence observed in breast cancer patients. The importance of psychosocial distress screening and assessment in women with breast cancer has clearly been established. Patients in our clinic are screened for distress. The results were reviewed in an attempt to better understand the psychosocial distress of breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Methods: Patients treated curatively for breast cancer prospectively completed the 30 question patient reported distress (PRD) survey that also included a linear analog measure of overall distress. The recorded clinical results of the PRD survey were retrospectively assessed in patients receiving breast radiotherapy from June 1, 2013 to February 2, 2015. Results: Completed PRD questionnaires were available on 179 female patients. 21 (12%) were treated for ductal carcinoma in situ and 91 (51%), 35 (20%), and 32 (18%) were treated for invasive carcinoma Stages I, II, and III. 85 (47%) received chemotherapy. Overall distress ranged from 0 to 10, with a median value of 5. Mean distress scores per category ranged from a low of 1.25 to a high of 2.52. Top concerns in descending order of importance were: “How will I feel during treatment” (2.52), “Fatigue” (2.46), “Sleep difficulties” (2.32), “How will I feel about appearance related to treatment” (2.23), & “Pain that affects daily functioning” (2.19). Least distressing symptoms “Spirituality” (1.25), “Housing during treatment” (1.26), “Control of anger” (1.28), “End of life concerns” (1.32), & “Transportation” (1.34). Conclusions: Distress over tumor related issues ranked low among women’s concerns in comparison to distress related to the side effects of therapy concerning treatment related discomfort, fatigue, and changes in appearance, and anxiety. Pain was a significant concern, although in this group of patients receiving definitive, adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy, this was likely related to treatment associated discomfort rather than from disease progression. These findings highlight the importance of careful patient education and communication of the expected symptoms and effects of therapy.

ObjectiveTo determine the sensitivity and specificity of ocular and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs) in the diagnosis of superior semicircular canal dehiscence (SCD) and to describe the VEMP response characteristics that are most sensitive to SCD and compare the findings to previous reports.Study DesignCase series with chart review.SettingTwo tertiary neurotologic referral centers.Subjects and MethodsCervical and ocular VEMP peak‐to‐peak amplitudes and thresholds from 39 adult patients older than 18 years with surgically confirmed SCD were compared with 84 age‐matched controls.ResultsUsing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, cervical VEMP (cVEMP) amplitudes, cVEMP thresholds, and ocular VEMP (oVEMP) amplitudes had areas under the curve of 0.731, 0.912, and 0.856, respectively, all of which were statistically significant (P <. 0001). For cVEMP thresholds, at the clinical equivalent ≤85‐dB normalized hearing level (nHL) threshold, the sensitivity and specificity were 97.3% and 31.3%, respectively. At the ≤70‐dB nHL threshold, the sensitivity and specificity were 73.0% and 94.0%, respectively. For oVEMP amplitudes >12.0 µV, the sensitivity and specificity were 78.6% and 81.7%, respectively.ConclusionData from this multicenter study suggest that both cVEMP thresholds and oVEMP amplitudes remain good diagnostic tests for identifying SCD, with each test dependent on a number of factors. The sensitivity and specificity of these individual tests may vary slightly between centers depending on testing parameters used.