Sharma, Navesh

Objectives: The practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS), the American College of Nuclear Medicine (ACNM), the American Radium Society (ARS), the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI). This document summarizes current evidence-based guidelines for the administration of Yttrium radioembolic therapy to the liver, including training requirements, evidence-based guidelines for administration, and safe practice for administration. Methods: This practice parameter was revised according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/ClinicalResources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters—Interventional and Cardiovascular Radiology of the ACR Commission on Interventional and Cardiovascular, Committee on Practice Parameters and Technical Standards—Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging of the ACR Commission on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging and the Committee on Practice Parameters—Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ABS, the ACNM, the ARS, the SIR, and the SNMMI. Results: This review seeks not to be a comprehensive discussion of radiotherapy to the liver, but rather, seeks to provide a parameter for safe and effective therapy. We discuss the qualifications of physicians involved in this therapy, basic indications, contraindications, procedural work-up, safe-handling, and regulatory requirement for the administration of selective internal radiation therapy to patients that are likely to benefit. The goal of this document is not to define which patients are best treated by these therapies, as this is best determined for individual patients after multidisciplinary review. A consistent and evidence-based approach to therapy, however, would benefit all patients who are offered this therapy. This document seeks to provide a framework for current best practices for the administration of the 2 currently available radioembolization devices. Conclusions: As Yttrium-90 radiotherapy to the liver occupies a growing role in the treatment of primary and metastatic liver cancer, this review seeks to assist clinicians of all involved specialties to optimize the efficacy and safety of these procedures.

ABSTRACT Background Multimodality therapy incorporating a combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), intraperitoneal (IP) and systemic therapy continues to evolve for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) However, treatment and outcomes vary depending on tumor of origin. Aims To develop Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) guidelines to facilitate treatment decision‐making for patients with PC based on available evidence. Materials and Methods The American Radium Society (ARS) multidisciplinary expert panel performed a comprehensive systematic review. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used. These studies were used to inform the expert panel, which then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in seven representative clinical scenarios through a well‐established modified Delphi consensus methodology. Results Treatment of PC is often treated with a combination of CRS and IP ± systemic chemotherapy but specific recommendations exist for different tumor types and outcomes vary. Discussion Treatment of PC is complex and varies depending on origin of primary tumor and extent of disease. These AUC assist in patient and treatment selection for different clinical scenarios. Conclusion A summary of recommendations is outlined to guide practitioners on the management of PC from different tumor origins.

Objectives: Esophageal cancer (EC) often presents with dysphagia due to tumor obstruction. Esophageal stenting has the potential of palliating dysphagia, improving nutrition, preventing aspiration, and improving quality of life (QoL) but may be associated with risks. The present systematic review and guidelines are intended to assist treatment decision-making when considering stent placement in patients with EC based on the available evidence. Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design framework, the evidence was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective phase II-III trials and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2010 and December 3, 2024 in the Ovid Medline database. These references were assessed by American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) methodology. RAND-UCLA consensus methodology was used to rate the appropriateness of the use of stents. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include (1) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with early-stage EC in whom upfront surgery is planned; (2) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with locally-advanced EC in whom neoadjuvant/perioperative therapy and esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiation is planned; (3) esophageal stenting may be appropriate in the setting of metastatic EC, especially in patients with short life expectancy with limited treatment options; (4) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for benign stricture following curative-intent therapy; (5) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for locally recurrent tumor in the setting of prior radiation; and (6) esophageal stenting is usually appropriate for management of tracheoesophageal fistula before curative-intent treatment. Conclusions: This ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the use of esophageal stents in patients with EC provides based on available evidence.

Objectives: Cervical esophageal cancer (CEC) is an uncommon malignancy accounting for <5% of all esophageal carcinomas. Treatment of CEC varies and is adapted from established regimens used for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or the lower esophageal and head and neck. The present systematic review and guidelines are intended to assist treatment decision making for patients with CEC based on the available evidence. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, and Study Design (PICOTS) framework, the evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective Phase II to III trials and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2013 and February 23, 2024 in the Ovid Medline database. These references were assessed through the American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) methodology. A systematic review PRISMA 2020 checklist confirmed the completion of essential elements. RAND-UCLA consensus methodology was used by the expert panel to rate the appropriateness of the treatment options. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include (1) larynx preservation using endoscopic resection (EMR or ESD) alone for the typical case with pT1a cN0 cM0 CEC, (2) definitive CRT for the typical case with cT1bN0M0 in patients who cannot undergo endoscopic resection, (3) larynx-preserving using definitive CRT (with or without induction chemotherapy) for the typical case with nonmetastatic locally advanced CEC (advanced T-stage tumors or involved lymph nodes), with surgery reserved for those patients with incomplete response or locoregional recurrence. Conclusions: This ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the management of SCC of the cervical esophagus provides based on available evidence. Topics that warrant further investigation include optimization of (1) patient selection; (2) multimodality therapies including chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted agents; (3) radiation dose, schedule, and treatment volume; and (4) supportive care for patients with CEC. Ongoing trials continue to improve outcomes for patients with CEC.

For patients with locoregionally confined pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), margin-negative surgical resection is the only known curative treatment; however, the majority of patients are not operable candidates at initial diagnosis. Among patients with resectable disease who undergo surgery alone, the 5-year survival remains poor. Adjuvant therapies, including systemic therapy or chemoradiation, are utilized as they improve locoregional control and overall survival. There has been increasing interest in the use of neoadjuvant therapy to obtain early control of occult metastatic disease, allow local tumor response to facilitate margin-negative resection, and provide a test of time and biology to assist with the selection of candidates most likely to benefit from radical surgical resection. However, limited guidance exists regarding the relative effectiveness of treatment options. In this systematic review, the American Radium Society multidisciplinary gastrointestinal expert panel convened to develop Appropriate Use Criteria evaluating the evidence regarding neoadjuvant treatment for patients with PDAC, including surgery, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy, in terms of oncologic outcomes and quality of life. The evidence was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study (PICOS) design framework and “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included phases 2 to 3 trials, meta-analyses, and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2012 and December 30, 2022 in the Ovid Medline database. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined to guide practitioners in the management of patients with PDAC.

AbstractThe liver is a common site of cancer metastases. Systemic therapy is widely accepted as the standard treatment for liver metastases (LM), although select patients with liver oligometastases may be candidates for potentially curative liver resection. Recent data support the role of nonsurgical local therapies such as ablation, external beam radiotherapy, embolization, and hepatic artery infusion therapy for management of LM. Additionally, for patients with advanced, symptomatic LM, local therapies may provide palliative benefit. The American Radium Society gastrointestinal expert panel, including members representing radiation oncology, interventional radiology, surgical oncology, and medical oncology, performed a systemic review and developed Appropriate Use Criteria for the use of nonsurgical local therapies for LM. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses methodology was used. These studies were used to inform the expert panel, which then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in seven representative clinical scenarios through a well‐established consensus methodology (modified Delphi). A summary of recommendations is outlined to guide practitioners on the use of nonsurgical local therapies for patients with LM.

Although uncommon, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC) is a deadly malignancy, and the treatment approaches remain controversial. While surgery remains the only cure, few patients are candidates for resection up front, and there are high rates of both local and distant failure following resection. Herein, we systematically review the available evidence regarding treatment approaches for patients with EHCC, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study design (PICOS) framework. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined for specific clinical scenarios encountered by providers in the clinic to guide the management of these patients.

Abstract Background We hypothesized that the addition of receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (RTKis, e.g., lapatinib, erlotinib, cetuximab, bevacizumab, panitumumab) to radiotherapy-based treatment for solid tumors does not increase overall survival but may increase toxicity. Methods Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study Design; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology methods were used to identify prospective randomized studies including patients with solid tumor cancers treated with radiotherapy with or without RTKis. Extracted variables included use of radiotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy, RTKi type (antibody vs small molecule), outcomes, and toxicities. The primary endpoint was overall survival; the secondary endpoint was grade 3+ toxicity. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for each outcome measure. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results A total of 405 studies met the initial search criteria, of which 13 prospective randomized trials of radiotherapy with or without RTKi met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 5678 patients. The trials included cancers of the head and neck (6 trials, 3295 patients), esophagus (3 trials, 762 patients), lung (2 trials, 550 patients), and brain (2 trials, 1542 patients). Three studies evaluated a small molecule and radiotherapy in 949 patients, and 10 studies evaluated antibodies and radiotherapy in 4729 patients. The addition of RTKis to radiotherapy-based treatment did not improve overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval = 0.90 to 1.15, P = .76) but increased grade 3+ toxicity (relative risk = 1.18, 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 1.33, P = .009). Conclusions The addition of RTKis to radiotherapy does not improve survival and worsens toxicity.

Background The goal of this study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (CFRT) for the definitive treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was efficacy, defined by 2‐year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were incidence of any grade 3/4 toxicity and 1‐year OS. Methods A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were: 1) patients diagnosed with locally advanced N0‐1 M0 pancreatic cancer; 2) CFRT 1.8 to 2.0 Gy/fraction with chemotherapy per protocol or SBRT ≥5 Gy/fraction in ≤5 fractions; 3) either no control group or another definitive chemotherapy or radiation therapy arm; 4) at least 1 of the outcome measures reported; and 5) single or multi‐arm phase 2/3 prospective study for CFRT and/or phase 1/2 or retrospective study for SBRT. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was prescribed per protocol specifications. Weighted random effects meta‐analyses were conducted using the DerSimonian and Laird method to characterize summary effect sizes for each outcome. Results A total of 470 studies were initially screened; of these, 9 studies assessed SBRT and 11 studies assessed CFRT. For SBRT, the median dose was 30 Gy, and the most common regimen was 30 Gy/5 fractions. For CFRT, doses ranged from 45 to 54 Gy in 1.8‐ to 2.0‐Gy fractions, with the majority of studies delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent gemcitabine. The random effects estimate for 2‐year OS was 26.9% (95% CI, 20.6%‐33.6%) for SBRT versus 13.7% (95% CI, 8.9%‐19.3%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for 1‐year OS was 53.7% (95% CI, 39.3%‐67.9%) for SBRT versus 49.3% (95% CI, 39.3%‐59.4%) for CFRT, and was not statistically significant. The random effects estimate for acute grade 3/4 toxicity was 5.6% (95% CI, 0.0%‐20.0%) for SBRT versus 37.7% (95% CI, 24.0%‐52.5%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for late grade 3/4 toxicity was 9.0% for SBRT (95% CI, 3.3%‐17.1%) versus 10.1% (95% CI, 1.8%‐23.8%) for CFRT, which was not statistically significant. Conclusion These results suggest that SBRT for LAPC may result in a modest improvement in 2‐year OS with decreased rates of acute grade 3/4 toxicity and no change in 1‐year‐OS or late toxicity. Further study into the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for these patients is needed.