Implications of comparative effectiveness research for radiation oncology

Global Radiotherapy: Current Status and Future Directions-White Paper

Recognizing the increase in cancer incidence globally and the need for effective cancer control interventions, several organizations, professional bodies, and international institutions have proposed strategies to improve treatment options and reduce mortality along with minimizing overall incidence. Despite these efforts, an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018 was attributed to this noncommunicable disease, making it the second leading cause of death worldwide. Left unchecked, this will further increase in scale, with an estimated 29.5 million new cases and 16.3 million deaths occurring worldwide in 2040. Although it is known and generally accepted that cancer services must include radiotherapy, such access is still very limited in many parts of the world, especially in low- and middle-income countries. After thorough review of the current status of radiotherapy including programs worldwide, as well as achievements and challenges at the global level, the International Atomic Energy Agency convened an international group of experts representing various radiation oncology societies to take a closer look into the current status of radiotherapy and provide a road map for future directions in this field. It was concluded that the plethora of global and regional initiatives would benefit further from the existence of a central framework, including an easily accessible repository through which better coordination can be done. Supporting this framework, a practical inventory of competencies needs to be made available on a global level emphasizing the knowledge, skills, and behavior required for a safe, sustainable, and professional practice for various settings. This white paper presents the current status of global radiotherapy and future directions for the community. It forms the basis for an action plan to be developed with professional societies worldwide.

Future of Radiotherapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a malignancy with unique clinical biological profiles such as associated Epstein-Barr virus infection and high radiosensitivity. Radiotherapy has long been recognized as the mainstay for the treatment of NPC. However, the further efficacy brought by radical radiotherapy has reached the bottleneck in advanced patients, who are prone to develop recurrence and distant metastasis after treatment. The application of photon therapy makes it possible for radiation dose escalation in refractory cases and may provide second chance for recurrent patients with less unrecoverable tissue damage. The concept of adaptive radiotherapy is put forward in consideration of target volume shrinkage during treatment. The replanning procedure offers better protection for the organ at risk. However, the best timing and candidates for adaptive radiotherapy is still under debate. The current tendency of artificial intelligence in NPC mainly focuses on image recognition, auto-segmentation and dose prediction. Although artificial intelligence is still in developmental stage, the future of it is promising.To further improve the efficacy of NPC, multimodality treatment is encouraged. In-depth studies on genetic and epigenetic variations help to explain the great heterogeneity among patients, and could further be applied to precise screening and prediction, personalized radiotherapy and the evolution of targeted drugs. Given the clinical benefit of immunotherapy in other cancers, the application of immunotherapy, especially immune checkpoint inhibitor, in NPC is also of great potential. Results from ongoing clinical trials combining immunotherapy with radiotherapy in NPC are expected.

Technology for Innovation in Radiation Oncology

Radiation therapy is an effective, personalized cancer treatment that has benefited from technological advances associated with the growing ability to identify and target tumors with accuracy and precision. Given that these advances have played a central role in the success of radiation therapy as a major component of comprehensive cancer care, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a workshop entitled "Technology for Innovation in Radiation Oncology," which took place at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, on June 13 and 14, 2013. The purpose of this workshop was to discuss emerging technology for the field and to recognize areas for greater research investment. Expert clinicians and scientists discussed innovative technology in radiation oncology, in particular as to how these technologies are being developed and translated to clinical practice in the face of current and future challenges and opportunities. Technologies encompassed topics in functional imaging, treatment devices, nanotechnology, and information technology. The technical, quality, and safety performance of these technologies were also considered. A major theme of the workshop was the growing importance of innovation in the domain of process automation and oncology informatics. The technologically advanced nature of radiation therapy treatments predisposes radiation oncology research teams to take on informatics research initiatives. In addition, the discussion on technology development was balanced with a parallel conversation regarding the need for evidence of efficacy and effectiveness. The linkage between the need for evidence and the efforts in informatics research was clearly identified as synergistic.

Considerations for observational research using large data sets in radiation oncology

The radiation oncology community has witnessed growing interest in observational research conducted using large-scale data sources such as registries and claims-based data sets. With the growing emphasis on observational analyses in health care, the radiation oncology community must possess a sophisticated understanding of the methodological considerations of such studies in order to evaluate evidence appropriately to guide practice and policy. Because observational research has unique features that distinguish it from clinical trials and other forms of traditional radiation oncology research, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics assembled a panel of experts in health services research to provide a concise and well-referenced review, intended to be informative for the lay reader, as well as for scholars who wish to embark on such research without prior experience. This review begins by discussing the types of research questions relevant to radiation oncology that large-scale databases may help illuminate. It then describes major potential data sources for such endeavors, including information regarding access and insights regarding the strengths and limitations of each. Finally, it provides guidance regarding the analytical challenges that observational studies must confront, along with discussion of the techniques that have been developed to help minimize the impact of certain common analytical issues in observational analysis. Features characterizing a well-designed observational study include clearly defined research questions, careful selection of an appropriate data source, consultation with investigators with relevant methodological expertise, inclusion of sensitivity analyses, caution not to overinterpret small but significant differences, and recognition of limitations when trying to evaluate causality. This review concludes that carefully designed and executed studies using observational data that possess these qualities hold substantial promise for advancing our understanding of many unanswered questions of importance to the field of radiation oncology.

Quality indicators in radiation oncology

Oncologic specialty societies and multidisciplinary collaborative groups have dedicated considerable effort to developing evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) to facilitate quality improvement, accreditation, benchmarking, reimbursement, maintenance of certification, and regulatory reporting. In particular, the field of radiation oncology has a long history of organized quality assessment efforts and continues to work toward developing consensus quality standards in the face of continually evolving technologies and standards of care. This report provides a comprehensive review of the current state of quality assessment in radiation oncology. Specifically, this report highlights implications of the healthcare quality movement for radiation oncology and reviews existing efforts to define and measure quality in the field, with focus on dimensions of quality specific to radiation oncology within the "big picture" of oncologic quality assessment efforts.

Comparative effectiveness research for prostate cancer radiation therapy: current status and future directions

Comparative effectiveness research aims to help clinicians, patients and policymakers make informed treatment decisions under real-world conditions. Prostate cancer patients have multiple treatment options, including active surveillance, androgen deprivation therapy, surgery and multiple modalities of radiation therapy. Technological innovations in radiation therapy for prostate cancer have been rapidly adopted into clinical practice despite relatively limited evidence for effectiveness showing the benefit for one modality over another. Comparative effectiveness research has become an essential component of prostate cancer research to help define the benefits, risks and effectiveness of the different radiation therapy modalities currently in use for prostate cancer treatment.

A research agenda for radiation oncology: results of the radiation oncology institute's comprehensive research needs assessment

PURPOSE

To promote the rational use of scarce research funding, scholars have developed methods for the systematic identification and prioritization of health research needs. The Radiation Oncology Institute commissioned an independent, comprehensive assessment of research needs for the advancement of radiation oncology care.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The research needs assessment used a mixed-method, qualitative and quantitative social scientific approach, including structured interviews with diverse stakeholders, focus groups, surveys of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) members, and a prioritization exercise using a modified Delphi technique.

RESULTS

Six co-equal priorities were identified: (1) Identify and develop communication strategies to help patients and others better understand radiation therapy; (2) Establish a set of quality indicators for major radiation oncology procedures and evaluate their use in radiation oncology delivery; (3) Identify best practices for the management of radiation toxicity and issues in cancer survivorship; (4) Conduct comparative effectiveness studies related to radiation therapy that consider clinical benefit, toxicity (including quality of life), and other outcomes; (5) Assess the value of radiation therapy; and (6) Develop a radiation oncology registry.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this prioritization exercise is the only comprehensive and methodologically rigorous assessment of research needs in the field of radiation oncology. Broad dissemination of these findings is critical to maximally leverage the impact of this work, particularly because grant funding decisions are often made by committees on which highly specialized disciplines such as radiation oncology are not well represented.

Simultaneous neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for locally advanced rectal cancer. Treatment outcome outside clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Phase II trials of neoadjuvant treatment in UICC-TNM stage II and III rectal cancer with capecitabine and oxaliplatin demonstrated favourable rates on tumour regression with acceptable toxicity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of 34 patients treated from 2005-2008 outside clinical trials (CTR) with neoadjuvant irradiation (45-50.4 Gy) and simultaneous capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) b.i.d. on days 1-14 and 22-35 and oxaliplatin 50 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 22 and 29 (CAPOX). Twenty-six (77%) patients received one or two courses of capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) b.i.d. on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 (XELOX) prior to simultaneous chemoradiotherapy.

RESULTS

UICC-TNM stage regression was observed in 60% (n = 20). Dworak's regression grades 3 and 4 were achieved in 18.2% (n = 6) and 15.1% (n = 5) of the patients. Sphincter-preserving surgery was performed in 53% (n = 8) of patients with a tumour of the lower rectum. Within the mean observation of 24 months, none of the patients relapsed locally, 1 patient had progressive disease and 5 patients (15%) relapsed distantly. Toxicity of grade 3 and 4 was mainly diarrhoea 18% (n = 6) and perianal pain 9% (n = 3). Nevertheless, severe cardiac events (n = 2), severe electrolyte disturbances (n = 2), and syncopes (n = 2) were observed as well.

CONCLUSION

Treatment efficacy and common toxicity are similar to the reports of phase I/II trials. However, several severe adverse events were observed in our cohort study. The predisposing factors for these events have yet to be studied and may have implications for the selection of patients outside CTR.

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.