1
|
Schrank BR, Fuller JA, Gallagher CM, Morris VK, Holliday EB, Merriman K, Nguyen L, Weaver L, Nelson K, Chiao E, Koong AC, Hawk E, Chang S. Institution-Wide Retreats Foster Organizational Learning and Action at a Comprehensive Cancer Center. J Cancer Educ 2024:10.1007/s13187-024-02418-9. [PMID: 38468110 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-024-02418-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 03/13/2024]
Abstract
Providing safe and informed healthcare for sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals with cancer is stymied by the lack of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data reliably available in health records and by insufficient training for staff. Approaches that support institutional learning, especially around sensitive topics, are essential for hospitals seeking to improve practices impacting patient safety and research. We engineered annual institutional retreats to identify and unify stakeholders, promote awareness of gaps and needs, identify initiatives, minimize redundant projects, and coordinate efforts that promote improvements in SGM cancer care, education, and research. The 2022 and 2023 retreats employed a 4-h hybrid format allowing virtual and in-person engagement. Retreat organizers facilitated small-group discussions for brainstorming among participants. We performed descriptive statistics from retreat evaluations. The retreats engaged 104 attendees from distinct departments and roles. Participants expressed robust satisfaction, commending the retreat organization and content quality. Notably, the first retreat yielded leadership endorsement and funding for a Quality Improvement pilot to standardize SOGI data collection and clinical staff training. The second retreat provided a platform for updates on focused efforts across the institution and for receiving direction regarding national best practices for SGM care and research. We report the processes and outcomes of institution-wide retreats, which served as a platform for identifying gaps in organizational healthcare practices and research for SGM individuals with cancer. The strategies described herein may be readily scaled at other cancer hospitals seeking to learn and enact system-wide practice changes that support the needs of SGM patients and families.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin R Schrank
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Radiation Oncology), 1400 Pressler St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| | - John A Fuller
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Colleen M Gallagher
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Critical Care Medicine), Houston, TX, USA
| | - Van K Morris
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Cancer Medicine), Houston, TX, USA
| | - Emma B Holliday
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Radiation Oncology), 1400 Pressler St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Kelly Merriman
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Cancer Registry), Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lynne Nguyen
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Health Disparities Research), Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lou Weaver
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Epidemiology), Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kelly Nelson
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Dermatology), Houston, TX, USA
| | - Elizabeth Chiao
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Epidemiology), Houston, TX, USA
| | - Albert C Koong
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Radiation Oncology), 1400 Pressler St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Ernest Hawk
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Clinical Cancer Prevention, Cancer Prevention & Population Science), Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shine Chang
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Epidemiology), Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Arzola A, Chang E, Rooney MK, Corrigan K, Das P, Ludmir EB, Koay EJ, Minsky BD, Smith GL, Messick C, Morris VK, Nebgen D, Crane CH, Holliday EB. Daily Vaginal Dilator Use During Radiation for Women With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Anus: Vaginal Wall Dosimetry and Patient-Reported Sexual Function. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:e105-e116. [PMID: 37898354 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2023] [Revised: 09/19/2023] [Accepted: 10/12/2023] [Indexed: 10/30/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE At our institution, we treat patients with a daily vaginal dilator (VD) during chemoradiation (CRT) for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA). We evaluated compliance with daily VD use, radiation dose to the vaginal wall (VW), and anterior vaginal wall (AVW), and patient-reported long-term sexual function. METHODS AND MATERIALS We included women with SCCA who received definitive, intensity-modulated radiation therapy-based CRT. Women who were alive without evidence of disease received a patient-reported outcome survey, which included the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). We identified factors associated with FSFI, such as radiation dose to the VW and AVW using linear regression models and used Youden index analysis to estimate a dose cutoff to predict sexual dysfunction. RESULTS Three hundred thirty-nine consecutively treated women were included in the analysis; 285 (84.1%) were treated with a daily VD. Of 184 women alive without disease, 90 patients (49%) completed the FSFI, and 51 (56.7%) were sexually active with valid FSFI scores. All received therapy with a daily VD. Forty-one women (80%) had sexual dysfunction. Univariate analysis showed higher dose to 50% (D50%) of the AVW correlated with worse FSFI (β -.262; P = .043), worse desire FSFI subscore (β -.056; P = .003), and worse pain FSFI subscore (β -.084; P = .009). Younger age correlated with worse pain FSFI subscale (β .067; P = .026). Age (β .070; P = .013) and AVW D50% (β -.087; P = .009) were significant on multivariable analysis. AVW D50% >48 Gy predicted increased risk of sexual dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS Daily VD use is safe and well tolerated during CRT for SCCA. Using a VD during treatment to displace the AVW may reduce the risk for sexual dysfunction. Limiting the AVW D50% <48 Gy may further reduce the risk but additional data are needed to validate this constraint.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Enoch Chang
- Departments of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology
| | | | | | - Prajnan Das
- Departments of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Denise Nebgen
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Christopher H Crane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Damron EP, McDonald J, Rooney MK, Das P, Ludmir EB, Minsky BD, Messick C, Chang GJ, Morris VK, Holliday EB. Salvage Treatment of Recurrent or Persistent Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: The Role of Multi-modality Therapy. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2024; 23:85-94. [PMID: 38216367 DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2023.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2023] [Revised: 12/07/2023] [Accepted: 12/10/2023] [Indexed: 01/14/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The standard treatment for recurrent or persistent anal squamous cell carcinoma is surgical salvage, but disease control and survival are suboptimal. PATIENTS/METHODS Patients treated for recurrent or persistent anal squamous cell carcinoma at our institution from 2002 to 2022 were included. Patients were classified by type of salvage treatment received: surgery alone vs. reirradiation followed by surgery and by whether they received intraoperative radiation at the time of surgery. Clinical and pathologic variables were collected and assessed for association with risk of second local recurrence and death from any cause. RESULTS Sixty four patients were included; 55(85.9%) were treated with surgery alone and 9 (14.1%) were treated with reirradiation followed by surgery. Median (IQR) follow up from the time of salvage treatment was 40.0 (20.3-68.0) months. The 3-year cumulative incidence of second local recurrence (95% CI) after salvage surgery was 36% (24%-48%); 39% (26%-52%) for patients treated with surgery alone and 15% (0.46%-51%) for patients treated with reirradiation followed by surgery. Factors associated with increased second local recurrence after salvage surgery included a locoregional recurrence, lymphovascular space invasion and positive surgical margins. The 3-year overall survival (95% CI) after salvage surgery was 70% (59%-83%); 68% (7%-56%) after surgery alone and 89% (10.5%-70.6%) after reirradiation followed by surgery. Factors associated with worse overall survival included male sex, a larger recurrent tumor and positive surgical margins. CONCLUSIONS Approximately 60% of patients achieved pelvic control after salvage therapy for recurrent or persistent anal squamous cell carcinoma. Although receipt of reirradiation and intraoperative radiation were not associated with improved second local recurrence or overall survival in our cohort, patients with positive surgical margins and lymphovascular space invasion on surgical pathology had higher rates of pelvic recurrence after salvage surgery and may benefit from escalated salvage therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ethan P Damron
- University of Texas McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX
| | - Jordan McDonald
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Craig Messick
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - George J Chang
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Van K Morris
- Deparment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Salazar RM, Duryea JD, Leone AO, Nair SS, Mumme RP, De B, Corrigan KL, Rooney MK, Das P, Holliday EB, Court LE, Niedzielski JS. Random Forest Modeling of Acute Toxicity in Anal Cancer: Effects of Peritoneal Cavity Contouring Approaches on Model Performance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:554-564. [PMID: 37619789 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.08.042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2022] [Revised: 08/04/2023] [Accepted: 08/13/2023] [Indexed: 08/26/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Our purpose was to analyze the effect on gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity models when their dose-volume metrics predictors are derived from segmentations of the peritoneal cavity after different contouring approaches. METHODS AND MATERIALS A random forest machine learning approach was used to predict acute grade ≥3 GI toxicity from dose-volume metrics and clinicopathologic factors for 246 patients (toxicity incidence = 9.5%) treated with definitive chemoradiation for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. Three types of random forest models were constructed based on different bowel bag segmentation approaches: (1) physician-delineated after Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines, (2) autosegmented by a deep learning model (nnU-Net) following RTOG guidelines, and (3) autosegmented but spanning the entire bowel space. Each model type was evaluated using repeated cross-validation (100 iterations; 50%/50% training/test split). The performance of the models was assessed using area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) and the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC), as well as optimal F1 score. RESULTS When following RTOG guidelines, the models based on the nnU-Net auto segmentations (mean values: AUROCC, 0.71 ± 0.07; AUPRC, 0.42 ± 0.09; F1 score, 0.46 ± 0.08) significantly outperformed (P < .001) those based on the physician-delineated contours (mean values: AUROCC, 0.67 ± 0.07; AUPRC, 0.34 ± 0.08; F1 score, 0.36 ± 0.07). When spanning the entire bowel space, the performance of the autosegmentation models improved considerably (mean values: AUROCC, 0.87 ± 0.05; AUPRC, 0.70 ± 0.09; F1 score, 0.68 ± 0.09). CONCLUSIONS Random forest models were superior at predicting acute grade ≥3 GI toxicity when based on RTOG-defined bowel bag autosegmentations rather than physician-delineated contours. Models based on autosegmentations spanning the entire bowel space show further considerable improvement in model performance. The results of this study should be further validated using an external data set.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ramon M Salazar
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jack D Duryea
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Alexandra O Leone
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Saurabh S Nair
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Raymond P Mumme
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Brian De
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Kelsey L Corrigan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael K Rooney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Laurence E Court
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Joshua S Niedzielski
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rooney MK, Pasli M, Chang GJ, Das P, Koay EJ, Koong AC, Ludmir EB, Minsky BD, Noticewala SS, Peacock O, Smith GL, Holliday EB. Patient-Reported Sexual Function, Bladder Function and Quality of Life for Patients with Low Rectal Cancers with or without a Permanent Ostomy. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 16:153. [PMID: 38201580 PMCID: PMC10778006 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16010153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2023] [Revised: 12/19/2023] [Accepted: 12/20/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the increasing utilization of sphincter and/or organ-preservation treatment strategies, many patients with low-lying rectal cancers require abdominoperineal resection (APR), leading to permanent ostomy. Here, we aimed to characterize overall, sexual-, and bladder-related patient-reported quality of life (QOL) for individuals with low rectal cancers. We additionally aimed to explore potential differences in patient-reported outcomes between patients with and without a permanent ostomy. METHODS We distributed a comprehensive survey consisting of various patient-reported outcome measures, including the FACT-G7 survey, ICIQ MLUTS/FLUTS, IIEF-5/FSFI, and a specific questionnaire for ostomy patients. Descriptive statistics and univariate comparisons were used to compared demographics, treatments, and QOL scores between patients with and without a permanent ostomy. RESULTS Of the 204 patients contacted, 124 (60.8%) returned completed surveys; 22 (18%) of these had a permanent ostomy at the time of survey completion. There were 25 patients with low rectal tumors (≤5 cm from the anal verge) who did not have an ostomy at the time of survey completion, of whom 13 (52%) were managed with a non-operative approach. FACTG7 scores were numerically lower (median 20.5 vs. 22, p = 0.12) for individuals with an ostomy. Sexual function measures IIEF and FSFI were also lower (worse) for individuals with ostomies, but the results were not significantly different. MLUTS and FLUTS scores were both higher in individuals with ostomies (median 11 vs. 5, p = 0.06 and median 17 vs. 5.5, p = 0.01, respectively), suggesting worse urinary function. Patient-reported ostomy-specific challenges included gastrointestinal concerns (e.g., gas, odor, diarrhea) that may affect social activities and personal relationships. CONCLUSIONS Despite a limited sample size, this study provides patient-centered, patient-derived data regarding long-term QOL in validated measures following treatment of low rectal cancers. Ostomies may have multidimensional negative impacts on QOL, and these findings warrant continued investigation in a prospective setting. These results may be used to inform shared decision making for individuals with low rectal cancers in both the settings of organ preservation and permanent ostomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael K. Rooney
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.K.R.); (M.P.); (S.S.N.)
| | - Melisa Pasli
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.K.R.); (M.P.); (S.S.N.)
| | - George J. Chang
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77230, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.K.R.); (M.P.); (S.S.N.)
| | - Eugene J. Koay
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.K.R.); (M.P.); (S.S.N.)
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.K.R.); (M.P.); (S.S.N.)
| | - Ethan B. Ludmir
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.K.R.); (M.P.); (S.S.N.)
| | - Bruce D. Minsky
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.K.R.); (M.P.); (S.S.N.)
| | - Sonal S. Noticewala
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.K.R.); (M.P.); (S.S.N.)
| | - Oliver Peacock
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77230, USA
| | - Grace L. Smith
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.K.R.); (M.P.); (S.S.N.)
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.K.R.); (M.P.); (S.S.N.)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cazacu IM, Singh BS, Martin-Paulpeter RM, Beddar S, Chun S, Holliday EB, Koong AC, Das P, Koay EJ, Taniguchi C, Herman JM, Bhutani MS. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fiducial Placement for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5355. [PMID: 38001615 PMCID: PMC10670468 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15225355] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2023] [Revised: 10/18/2023] [Accepted: 10/26/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Accurate delivery of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to pancreatic tumors relies on successful EUS-guided placement of fiducial markers. The aim of this study is to report the technical feasibility and safety of EUS-guided fiducial placement and to evaluate the characteristics and technical benefit of SBRT in a cohort of patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). A retrospective chart review was performed for all (n = 82) PC patients referred for EUS-guided fiducial placement by a single endosonographer at a tertiary cancer center. Data regarding EUS-related technical details, SBRT characteristics, adverse events, and continuous visibility of fiducials were recorded and analyzed. Most patients included in the study had either locally advanced disease (32 patients, 39%) or borderline resectable disease (29 patients, 35%). Eighty-two PC patients underwent the placement of 230 fiducial markers under EUS guidance. The technical success rate of the fiducial placement was 98%. No immediate EUS-related adverse events were reported. The average time to the simulation CT after fiducial placement was 3.1 days. Of the 216 fiducial markers used for the SBRT delivery, 202 fiducial markers were visible on both the simulation CT and the cone beam CT scan. A median dose of 40cGY was given to all the patients in five fractions. Of these, 41% of the patients reported no SBRT-related toxicities during the follow-up. Fatigue and nausea were the most reported SBRT-related toxicities, which were seen in 35% of the patients post-SBRT. Our results demonstrate that EUS-guided fiducial placement is safe and effective in target volume delineation, facilitating SBRT delivery in PC patients. Further clinical trials are needed to determine the SBRT-related survival benefits in patients with pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irina M. Cazacu
- Department of Oncology, Fundeni Clinical Institute, 022328 Bucharest, Romania;
- Faculty of Medicine, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Ben S. Singh
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Rachael M. Martin-Paulpeter
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.M.M.-P.); (S.B.)
| | - Sam Beddar
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (R.M.M.-P.); (S.B.)
| | - Stephen Chun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (E.B.H.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.); (E.J.K.); (C.T.)
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (E.B.H.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.); (E.J.K.); (C.T.)
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (E.B.H.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.); (E.J.K.); (C.T.)
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (E.B.H.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.); (E.J.K.); (C.T.)
| | - Eugene J. Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (E.B.H.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.); (E.J.K.); (C.T.)
| | - Cullen Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.C.); (E.B.H.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.); (E.J.K.); (C.T.)
| | - Joseph M. Herman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwell Health Cancer Institute, New Hyde Park, NY 11042, USA;
| | - Manoop S. Bhutani
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lin YM, Fellman BM, Taiji R, Paolucci I, Silva JAM, Koay EJ, Avritscher R, Mahvash A, Holliday EB, Lee SS, Kaseb AO, Das P, Vauthey JN, Odisio BC. Salvage Locoregional Therapy Following Progression After Radiotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Is Associated with Improved Outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg 2023; 27:1867-1875. [PMID: 37268830 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05712-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2023] [Accepted: 05/13/2023] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the impact of salvage locoregional therapy (salvage-LT) on survival of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients presenting with intrahepatic tumor progression following radiotherapy. METHODS This single-institution retrospective analysis included consecutive HCC patients having intrahepatic tumor progression following radiotherapy during 2015-2019. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of intrahepatic tumor progression after initial radiotherapy by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank tests and Cox regression models were used for univariable and multivariable analyses. An inverse probability weighting was used to estimate treatment effect of salvage-LT considering confounding factors. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (mean age ± SD, 70 years ± 10; 97 men) were evaluated. Among those, 35 patients underwent 59 sessions of salvage-LT, including transarterial embolization/chemoembolization (n = 33), ablation (n = 11), selective internal radiotherapy (n = 7), and external beam radiotherapy (n = 8). At a median follow-up of 15.1 months (range, 3.4-54.5 months), the median OS was 23.3 months in patients who received salvage-LT and 6.6 months who did not. At multivariate analysis, ECOG performance status, Child-Pugh class, albumin-bilirubin grade, extrahepatic disease, and lack of salvage-LT were independent predictors of worse OS. After inverse probability weighting, salvage-LT was associated with a survival benefit of 8.9 months (95% CI: 1.1, 16.7 months; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Salvage locoregional therapy is associated with increased survival in HCC patients suffering from intrahepatic tumor progression following initial radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuan-Mao Lin
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Bryan M Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Ryosuke Taiji
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Iwan Paolucci
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Jessica Albuquerque Marques Silva
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Eugene J Koay
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Rony Avritscher
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Armeen Mahvash
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Sunyoung S Lee
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Ahmed O Kaseb
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Bruno C Odisio
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
De B, Upadhyay R, Liao K, Kumala T, Shi C, Dodoo G, Abi Jaoude J, Corrigan KL, Manzar GS, Marqueen KE, Bernard V, Lee SS, Raghav KPS, Vauthey JN, Tzeng CWD, Tran Cao HS, Lee G, Wo JY, Hong TS, Crane CH, Minsky BD, Smith GL, Holliday EB, Taniguchi CM, Koong AC, Das P, Javle M, Ludmir EB, Koay EJ. Definitive Liver Radiotherapy for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma with Extrahepatic Metastases. Liver Cancer 2023; 12:198-208. [PMID: 37593365 PMCID: PMC10427952 DOI: 10.1159/000530134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2022] [Accepted: 03/06/2023] [Indexed: 08/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Tumor-related liver failure (TRLF) is the most common cause of death in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). Though we previously showed that liver radiotherapy (L-RT) for locally advanced ICC is associated with less frequent TRLF and longer overall survival (OS), the role of L-RT for patients with extrahepatic metastatic disease (M1) remains undefined. We sought to compare outcomes for M1 ICC patients treated with and without L-RT. Methods We reviewed ICC patients that found to have M1 disease at initial diagnosis at a single institution between 2010 and 2021 who received L-RT, matching them with an institutional cohort by propensity score and a National Cancer Database (NCDB) cohort by frequency technique. The median biologically effective dose was 97.5 Gy (interquartile range 80.5-97.9 Gy) for L-RT. Patients treated with other local therapies or supportive care alone were excluded. We analyzed survival with Cox proportional hazard modeling. Results We identified 61 patients who received L-RT and 220 who received chemotherapy alone. At median follow-up of 11 months after diagnosis, median OS was 9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8-11) and 21 months (CI: 17-26) for patients receiving chemotherapy alone and L-RT, respectively. TRLF was the cause of death more often in the patients who received chemotherapy alone compared to those who received L-RT (82% vs. 47%; p = 0.001). On multivariable propensity score-matched analysis, associations with lower risk of death included duration of upfront chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; p = 0.005) and receipt of L-RT (HR: 0.40; p = 0.002). The median OS from diagnosis for NCDB chemotherapy alone cohort was shorter than that of the institutional L-RT cohort (9 vs. 22 months; p < 0.001). Conclusion For M1 ICC, L-RT associated with a lower rate of death due to TRLF and longer OS versus those treated with chemotherapy alone. Prospective studies of L-RT in this setting are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian De
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Rituraj Upadhyay
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kaiping Liao
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Tiffany Kumala
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Christopher Shi
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Grace Dodoo
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Joseph Abi Jaoude
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kelsey L Corrigan
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gohar S Manzar
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kathryn E Marqueen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Vincent Bernard
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sunyoung S Lee
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kanwal P S Raghav
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ching-Wei D Tzeng
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hop S Tran Cao
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Grace Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jennifer Y Wo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Theodore S Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Christopher H Crane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cullen M Taniguchi
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Milind Javle
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eugene J Koay
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Holliday EB, Peddireddy A, Morris VK. Prognostic and Predictive Markers for Patients With Anal Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023; 21:678-684. [PMID: 37308122 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.7031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2022] [Accepted: 04/20/2023] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus and anal canal is a rare malignancy with an increasing incidence in the United States. In the past 2 decades, the proportion of Americans diagnosed with incurable, metastatic anal cancer at the time of initial presentation has increased. Most cases are linked to prior infection with HPV. Although concurrent chemoradiotherapy has been the accepted standard treatment for patients with localized anal cancer over the past half century, therapeutic advances have increased options for patients with unresectable or incurable anal cancer over the past 5 years. Specifically, combination chemotherapy and immunotherapy with anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies has demonstrated efficacy in this setting. Greater understanding of molecular drivers of this viral-associated malignancy has provided critical insight into evolving biomarkers for the clinical management of anal cancer. The pervasiveness of HPV across cases of anal cancer has been leveraged for the development of HPV-specific circulating tumor DNA assays as a sensitive biomarker for prognosticating recurrence in patients with localized anal cancer who complete chemoradiation. For patients with metastatic disease, somatic mutations, well-characterized for anal cancer, have not shown utility in identifying patients who benefit from systemic treatments. Although the overall response rate to immune checkpoint blockade therapies is low for metastatic anal cancer, high immune activation within the tumor and PD-L1 expression may identify patients more likely to experience response. These biomarkers should be incorporated into the design of future clinical trials to personalize further treatment approaches in the evolving management of anal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma B Holliday
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Van K Morris
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Elnaggar JH, Huynh VO, Lin D, Hillman RT, Abana CO, El Alam MB, Tomasic KC, Karpinets TV, Kouzy R, Phan JL, Wargo J, Holliday EB, Das P, Mezzari MP, Ajami NJ, Lynn EJ, Minsky BD, Morris VK, Milbourne A, Messick CA, Klopp AH, Futreal PA, Taniguchi CM, Schmeler KM, Colbert LE. HPV-related anal cancer is associated with changes in the anorectal microbiome during cancer development. Front Immunol 2023; 14:1051431. [PMID: 37063829 PMCID: PMC10090447 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1051431] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2022] [Accepted: 03/13/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
BackgroundSquamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is a rare gastrointestinal cancer. Factors associated with progression of HPV infection to anal dysplasia and cancer are unclear and screening guidelines and approaches for anal dysplasia are less clear than for cervical dysplasia. One potential contributing factor is the anorectal microbiome. In this study, we aimed to identify differences in anal microbiome composition in the settings of HPV infection, anal dysplasia, and anal cancer in this rare disease.MethodsPatients were enrolled in two prospective studies. Patients with anal dysplasia were part of a cross-sectional cohort that enrolled women with high-grade lower genital tract dysplasia. Anorectal tumor swabs were prospectively collected from patients with biopsy-confirmed locally advanced SCCA prior to receiving standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients with high-grade lower genital tract dysplasia without anal dysplasia were considered high-risk (HR Normal). 16S V4 rRNA Microbiome sequencing was performed for anal swabs. Alpha and Beta Diversity and composition were compared for HR Normal, anal dysplasia, and anal cancer.Results60 patients with high-grade lower genital tract dysplasia were initially enrolled. Seven patients had concurrent anal dysplasia and 44 patients were considered HR Normal. Anorectal swabs from 21 patients with localized SCCA were included, sequenced, and analyzed in the study. Analysis of weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances demonstrated significant differences in microbial community composition between anal cancer and HR normal (p=0.018). LEfSe identified that all three groups exhibited differential enrichment of specific taxa. Peptoniphilus (p=0.028), Fusobacteria (p=0.0295), Porphyromonas (p=0.034), and Prevotella (p=0.029) were enriched in anal cancer specimens when compared to HR normal.ConclusionAlthough alpha diversity was similar between HR Normal, dysplasia and cancer patients, composition differed significantly between the three groups. Increased anorectal Peptoniphilus, Fusobacteria, Porphyromonas, and Prevotella abundance were associated with anal cancer. These organisms have been reported in various gastrointestinal cancers with roles in facilitating the proinflammatory microenvironment and neoplasia progression. Future work should investigate a potential role of microbiome analysis in screening for anal dysplasia and investigation into potential mechanisms of how these microbial imbalances influence the immune system and anal carcinogenesis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob H. Elnaggar
- School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, United States
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Victoria O. Huynh
- School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, United States
| | - Daniel Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - R. Tyler Hillman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
- Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas Scholar in Cancer Research, Austin, TX, United States
| | - Chike O. Abana
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Molly B. El Alam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Katarina C. Tomasic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Tatiana V. Karpinets
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Ramez Kouzy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Jae L. Phan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Jennifer Wargo
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Prajnan Das
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Melissa P. Mezzari
- The Alkek Center for Metagenomics and Microbiome Research, Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Nadim J. Ajami
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Erica J. Lynn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Bruce D. Minsky
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Van K. Morris
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Andrea Milbourne
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Craig A. Messick
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Ann H. Klopp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - P. Andrew Futreal
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Cullen M. Taniguchi
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Kathleen M. Schmeler
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Lauren E. Colbert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
- *Correspondence: Lauren E. Colbert,
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Hernandez S, Das P, Holliday EB, Shen L, Lu W, Johnson B, Messick CA, Taniguchi CM, Skibber J, Ludmir EB, You YN, Smith GL, Bednarski B, Kostousov L, Koay EJ, Minsky BD, Tillman M, Portier S, Eng C, Koong AC, Chang GJ, Foo WC, Wang J, Soto LS, Morris VK. Differential Spatial Gene and Protein Expression Associated with Recurrence Following Chemoradiation for Localized Anal Squamous Cell Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:1701. [PMID: 36980587 PMCID: PMC10046657 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15061701] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Revised: 03/02/2023] [Accepted: 03/04/2023] [Indexed: 03/12/2023] Open
Abstract
The identification of transcriptomic and protein biomarkers prognosticating recurrence risk after chemoradiation of localized squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) has been limited by a lack of available fresh tissue at initial presentation. We analyzed archival FFPE SCCA specimens from pretreatment biopsies prior to chemoradiation for protein and RNA biomarkers from patients with localized SCCA who recurred (N = 23) and who did not recur (N = 25). Tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME) were analyzed separately to identify biomarkers with significantly different expression between the recurrent and non-recurrent groups. Recurrent patients had higher mean protein expression of FoxP3, MAPK-activation markers (BRAF, p38-MAPK) and PI3K/Akt activation (phospho-Akt) within the tumor regions. The TME was characterized by the higher protein expression of immune checkpoint biomarkers such as PD-1, OX40L and LAG3. For patients with recurrent SCCA, the higher mean protein expression of fibronectin was observed in the tumor and TME compartments. No significant differences in RNA expression were observed. The higher baseline expression of immune checkpoint biomarkers, together with markers of MAPK and PI3K/Akt signaling, are associated with recurrence following chemoradiation for patients with localized SCCA. These data provide a rationale towards the application of immune-based therapeutic strategies to improve curative-intent outcomes beyond conventional therapies for patients with SCCA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharia Hernandez
- Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.H.)
| | - Prajnan Das
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Li Shen
- Bioinformatics, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Wei Lu
- Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.H.)
| | - Benny Johnson
- Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Craig A. Messick
- Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Cullen M. Taniguchi
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - John Skibber
- Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Ethan B. Ludmir
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Y. Nancy You
- Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Grace Li Smith
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Brian Bednarski
- Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Larisa Kostousov
- Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.H.)
| | - Eugene J. Koay
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Bruce D. Minsky
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Matthew Tillman
- Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Shaelynn Portier
- Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Cathy Eng
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - George J. Chang
- Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Wai Chin Foo
- Pathology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jing Wang
- Bioinformatics, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Luisa Solis Soto
- Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (S.H.)
| | - Van K. Morris
- Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Rooney MK, De B, Corrigan K, Smith GL, Taniguchi C, Minsky BD, Ludmir EB, Koay EJ, Das P, Koong AC, Peacock O, Chang G, You YN, Morris VK, Nogueras-González G, Holliday EB. Patient-reported Bowel Function and Bowel-related Quality of Life After Pelvic Radiation for Rectal Adenocarcinoma: The Impact of Radiation Fractionation and Surgical Resection. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2023; 22:211-221. [PMID: 36878805 DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2023.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2022] [Accepted: 02/10/2023] [Indexed: 02/17/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Multimodality treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) can include long-course radiotherapy (LCRT) or short course radiotherapy (SCRT). Nonoperative management is increasingly pursued for those achieving a complete clinical response. Data regarding long-term function and quality-of-life (QOL) are limited. METHODS Patients with LARC treated with radiotherapy from 2016 to 2020 completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy- General (FACT-G7), the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score (LARS) and the Fecal Incontinence QOL Scale (FIQOL). Univariate and multivariable linear regression analyses identified associations between clinical variables including radiation fractionation and the use of surgery versus non-operative management. RESULTS Of 204 patients surveyed, 124 (60.8%) responded. Median (interquartile range) time from radiation to survey completion was 30.1 (18.3-43) months. Seventy-nine (63.7%) respondents received LCRT, and 45 (36.3%) received SCRT; 101 (81.5%) respondents underwent surgery, and 23 (18.5%) pursued nonoperative management. There were no differences in LARS, FIQoL or FACT-G7 between patients receiving LCRT versus SCRT. On multivariable analysis, only nonoperative management was associated with lower LARS score signifying less bowel dysfunction. Nonoperative management and female sex were associated with a higher FIQoL score signifying less disruption and distress from fecal incontinence issues. Finally, lower BMI at the time of radiation, female sex, and higher FIQoL score were associated with higher FACT-G7 scores signifying better overall QOL. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest long-term patient-reported bowel function and QOL may be similar for individuals receiving SCRT and LCRT for the treatment of LARC, but nonoperative management may lead to improved bowel function and QOL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael K Rooney
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Brian De
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Kelsey Corrigan
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Cullen Taniguchi
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Eugene J Koay
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Oliver Peacock
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - George Chang
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Y Nancy You
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Gunther JR, De La Cruz D, Boyce-Fappiano D, Ponnie AE, Smith L, Holliday EB, Bishop AJ, Choi SL, Koong AC, Das P, Pinnix CC. Implementation and Assessment of an Informal Virtual Elective for Medical Student Radiation Oncology Exploration During the COVID19 Pandemic: a Brief Report. J Cancer Educ 2023; 38:344-348. [PMID: 35013900 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-021-02122-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/30/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Subspecialty exposure during medical school can be limited. Moreover, the COVID19 pandemic prevented most onsite elective medical student (MS) rotations during 2020. Therefore, we sought to create and assess the efficacy of an informal virtual elective (IVE) for MSs to explore radiation oncology (RO) at our institution. We created IVE activities including invitations to resident didactics, a faculty lecture series, and interactive virtual events with residents and faculty. MSs were offered RO resident and faculty mentors and the opportunity to deliver a lecture. Pre- and post-IVE evaluation surveys were sent to 27 4th year MSs. Surveys utilized importance ordering (1=most important; reported as median (interquartile range), free response, and Likert-type questions (5 = extremely, 1=not at all). Our IVE, held from July to October 2020, had a median of 11 students (range 7-18) attend each activity. Pre- and post-IVE surveys were completed by 22/27 (81%) and 20/27 (74%) MSs, respectively. In pre-IVE, MSs reported participating in the IVE for faculty/resident interaction (1.5 [1, 2]), networking (3 [2, 3]), and learning (4 [3-5]). In post-IVE, MSs reported benefit from faculty mentors (5 [4, 5]), delivering a presentation (5 [3-5]), and faculty lectures (4.5 [4, 5]). In post-IVE, MSs preferred a full onsite away elective (16, 80%) over an official virtual elective (1, 5%) or IVE (3, 15%). Overall, MSs reported that the IVE provided an adequate introduction to RO at our institution (4 [4, 5]). Alternative virtual elective experiences allow MSs to informally evaluate medical subspecialties and could be offered even if formal elective opportunities are available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jillian R Gunther
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Denise De La Cruz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David Boyce-Fappiano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Annette Eakes Ponnie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Letericia Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Andrew J Bishop
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Seungtaek L Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Chelsea C Pinnix
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 0097, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Dodoo GN, De B, Lee SS, Abi Jaoude J, Vauthey JN, Tzeng CWD, Tran Cao HS, Katlowitz KA, Mandel JJ, Beckham TH, Minsky BD, Smith GL, Holliday EB, Koong AC, Das P, Taniguchi CM, Javle M, Koay EJ, Ludmir EB. Brain Metastases from Biliary Tract Cancer: Case Series and Clinicogenomic Analysis. Oncologist 2023; 28:327-332. [PMID: 36715178 PMCID: PMC10078902 DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2022] [Accepted: 11/17/2022] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Limited data from small series have suggested that brain metastases from biliary tract cancers (BrM-BTC) affect ≤2% of patients with BTC. We sought to review our experience with patients with BrM-BTC and to identify associations of tumor-related molecular alterations with outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective review of patients with BTC seen at a tertiary referral center from 2005 to 2021 was performed; patients with BrM-BTC were identified, and clinical and molecular data were collected. RESULTS Twenty-one of 823 patients with BTC (2.6%) developed BrM. For patients with BrM-BTC, median follow-up time was 27.9 months after primary BTC diagnosis and 3.1 months after BrM diagnosis. Median time from primary diagnosis to diagnosis of BrM was 14.4 [range, 1.1-66.0] months. Median overall survival (OS) from primary diagnosis was 31.5 [2.9-99.8] months and median OS from BrM diagnosis was 4.2 [0.2-33.8] months. Patients who underwent BrM-directed therapy trended toward longer OS following BrM diagnosis than patients receiving supportive care only (median 6.5 vs 0.8 months, P = .060). The BrM-BTC cohort was enriched for BRAF (30%), PIK3CA (25%), and GNAS (20%) mutations. patients with BrM-BTC with BRAF mutations trended toward longer OS following BrM diagnosis (median 13.1 vs 4.2 months, P = .131). CONCLUSION This is the largest series of patients with BrM-BTC to date and provides molecular characterization of this rare subgroup of patients with BTC. Patients with BrM-BTC may be more likely to have BRAF mutations. With advances in targeted therapy for patients with BTC with actionable mutations, continued examination of shifting patterns of failure, with emphasis on BrM, is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grace N Dodoo
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Brian De
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sunyoung S Lee
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Joseph Abi Jaoude
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ching-Wei D Tzeng
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hop S Tran Cao
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kalman A Katlowitz
- Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jacob J Mandel
- Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Thomas H Beckham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cullen M Taniguchi
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Milind Javle
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eugene J Koay
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Koay EJ, Zaid M, Aliru M, Bagereka P, Van Wieren A, Rodriguez MJ, Jacobson G, Wolff RA, Overman M, Varadhachary G, Pant S, Wang H, Tzeng CW, Ikoma N, Kim M, Lee JE, Katz MH, Tamm E, Bhosale P, Taniguchi CM, Holliday EB, Smith GL, Ludmir EB, Minsky BD, Crane CH, Koong AC, Das P, Wang X, Javle M, Krishnan S. Nab-Paclitaxel, Capecitabine, and Radiation Therapy After Induction Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Locally Advanced and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Phase 1 Trial and Imaging-based Biomarker Validation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:444-453. [PMID: 35863672 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.06.089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2022] [Revised: 06/13/2022] [Accepted: 06/24/2022] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Effective consolidative chemoradiation (CRT) regimens are lacking. In this phase 1 trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel, capecitabine, and radiation therapy after induction chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced and borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer (LAPC and BRPC). Also, we evaluated a computed tomography (CT)-based biomarker of response. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eligible patients had pathologically confirmed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, underwent computed tomography-imaging, received a diagnosis of LAPC or BRPC, and received induction chemotherapy. Standard 3 + 3 study design was used, with 3 escalating nab-paclitaxel dose levels (50, 75, and 100 mg/m2) with concurrent capecitabine and RT in cohort sizes of 3 starting at the lowest dose. Dose limiting toxicity was defined as grade 3 or higher toxicity. Patients were restaged 4 to 6 weeks post-CRT completion, and surgical resection was offered to those with stable/responsive disease. We scored the tumor interface response (IR) postchemotherapy and post-CRT into type I (remained/became more defined) and type II (became less defined). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from time of CRT were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. P ≤ .05 was considered significant. RESULTS Twenty-three patients started and finished on protocol (LAPC = 14, BRPC = 9). No grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported in level 1 (n = 3) or level 2 (n = 3) initial groups. Two patients in the initial level 3 group developed dose limiting toxicity, establishing level 2 dose as the maximal tolerated dose. Level 2 group was expanded for additional 15 patients (for a total of 23 on trial), 5 of whom developed grade 3 toxicities. Seven patients underwent surgical resection. Median OS and PFS were 21.2 and 8.1 months, respectively. Type I IR was associated with better OS (P = .004) and PFS (P = .03) compared with type II IR. CONCLUSIONS We established the maximum tolerated dose for nab-paclitaxel in a consolidative CRT regimen for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Preliminary efficacy results warrant phase 2 trial evaluation. IR may be used for personalized treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eugene J Koay
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Mohamed Zaid
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Maureen Aliru
- Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Polycarpe Bagereka
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Arie Van Wieren
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Maria Jovie Rodriguez
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Galia Jacobson
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Robert A Wolff
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael Overman
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Gauri Varadhachary
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Shubham Pant
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Huamin Wang
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ching-Wei Tzeng
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Naruhiko Ikoma
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael Kim
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jeffrey E Lee
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Matthew Hg Katz
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Eric Tamm
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Priya Bhosale
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Cullen M Taniguchi
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Christopher H Crane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Xuemei Wang
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Milind Javle
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sunil Krishnan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Female oncologists often spend their childbearing years in training and establishing careers, with many later experiencing fertility issues when starting a family. Physician fertility and family planning are rarely discussed during training. Attitudes among female oncologists regarding family planning are unknown. OBJECTIVES To understand barriers to family planning as well as the association of fertility treatment with career decisions and to assess experiences of pregnancy-based discrimination among female oncologists. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this survey study, a novel 39-item questionnaire was distributed to US female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels. Questions regarding factors associated with family planning, maternity leave, and discrimination were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The distribution of survey responses was compared by oncology subspecialty. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine independent variables for discrimination experienced during maternity leave. RESULTS Responses were collected from 1004 female oncologists. Most respondents (847 [84.4%]) were married, and 713 (71.0%) were currently working full-time. A total of 351 oncologists (35.0%) worked in radiation oncology, 344 (34.3%) in medical oncology, 186 (18.4%) in surgical oncology, and 91 (9.1%) in pediatric oncology. A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training, and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1 to 5 as an attending physician. Almost all respondents (951 [94.7%]) stated that their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family. Having a supportive partner was the most commonly cited positive association with family planning (802 [79.9%]), while long work hours and heavy workload (669 [66.6%]) were the most common negative factors. One-third (318 [31.7%]) had miscarried, and 315 (31.4%) reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment; 660 (65.7%) thought fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency. One-third (312 [31.1%]) reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and 332 (33.1%) stated they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave. On multivariable logistic regression, having more than 1 child was associated with increased likelihood of experiencing discrimination during maternity leave (2 children: odds ratio, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.10-2.39]; P = .02; ≥3 children: odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.14-2.95; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this survey study of female oncologists, 1 in 3 reported experiencing infertility and 1 in 3 stated they experienced discrimination during pregnancy and/or for taking maternity leave. Systemic changes are necessary to ensure women are supported and able to advance equitably in the field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | | | - Shraddha M. Dalwadi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Health Science Center, MD Anderson Mays Cancer Center, San Antonio
| | - Erin F. Gillespie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Michelle S. Ludwig
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Fumiko Chino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Peacock O, Manisundaram N, Dibrito SR, Kim Y, Hu CY, Bednarski BK, Konishi T, Stanietzky N, Vikram R, Kaur H, Taggart MW, Dasari A, Holliday EB, You YN, Chang GJ. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Directed Surgical Decision Making for Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Rectal Cancer After Total Neoadjuvant Therapy (TNT). Ann Surg 2022; 276:654-664. [PMID: 35837891 PMCID: PMC9463102 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000005589] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) metastases are an important cause of preventable local failure in rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and oncological outcomes following magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed surgical selection for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) after total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). METHODS A retrospective consecutive cohort analysis was performed of rectal cancer patients with enlarged LPLN on pretreatment MRI. Patients were categorized as LPLND or non-LPLND. The main outcomes were lateral local recurrence rate, perioperative and oncological outcomes and factors associated with decision making for LPLND. RESULTS A total of 158 patients with enlarged pretreatment LPLN and treated with TNT were identified. Median follow-up was 20 months (interquartile range 10-32). After multidisciplinary review, 88 patients (56.0%) underwent LPLND. Mean age was 53 (SD±12) years, and 54 (34.2%) were female. Total operative time (509 vs 429 minutes; P =0.003) was greater in the LPLND group, but median blood loss ( P =0.70) or rates of major morbidity (19.3% vs 17.0%) did not differ. LPLNs were pathologically positive in 34.1%. The 3-year lateral local recurrence rates (3.4% vs 4.6%; P =0.85) did not differ between groups. Patients with LPLNs demonstrating pretreatment heterogeneity and irregular margin (odds ratio, 3.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.65-8.82) or with short-axis ≥5 mm post-TNT (odds ratio 2.69; 95% confidence interval: 1.19-6.08) were more likely to undergo LPLND. CONCLUSIONS For rectal cancer patients with evidence of LPLN metastasis, the appropriate selection of patients for LPLND can be facilitated by a multidisciplinary MRI-directed approach with no significant difference in perioperative or oncologic outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oliver Peacock
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Naveen Manisundaram
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Sandra R Dibrito
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Youngwan Kim
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Chung-Yuan Hu
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Brian K Bednarski
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Tsuyoshi Konishi
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Nir Stanietzky
- Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Raghunandan Vikram
- Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Harmeet Kaur
- Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Melissa W Taggart
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Arvind Dasari
- Department of Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Y Nancy You
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - George J Chang
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Wang CX, Elganainy D, Zaid MM, Butner JD, Agrawal A, Nizzero S, Minsky BD, Holliday EB, Taniguchi CM, Smith GL, Koong AC, Herman JM, Das P, Maitra A, Wang H, Wolff RA, Katz MHG, Crane CH, Cristini V, Koay EJ. Mass Transport Model of Radiation Response: Calibration and Application to Chemoradiation for Pancreatic Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:163-172. [PMID: 35643254 PMCID: PMC10042520 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2021] [Revised: 03/22/2022] [Accepted: 04/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The benefit of radiation therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unclear. We hypothesized that a new mechanistic mathematical model of chemotherapy and radiation response could predict clinical outcomes a priori, using a previously described baseline measurement of perfusion from computed tomography scans, normalized area under the enhancement curve (nAUC). METHODS AND MATERIALS We simplified an existing mass transport model that predicted cancer cell death by replacing previously unknown variables with averaged direct measurements from randomly selected pathologic sections of untreated PDAC. This allowed using nAUC as the sole model input to approximate tumor perfusion. We then compared the predicted cancer cell death to the actual cell death measured from corresponding resected tumors treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation in a calibration cohort (n = 80) and prospective cohort (n = 25). After calibration, we applied the model to 2 separate cohorts for pathologic and clinical associations: targeted therapy cohort (n = 101), cetuximab/bevacizumab + radiosensitizing chemotherapy, and standard chemoradiation cohort (n = 81), radiosensitizing chemotherapy to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. RESULTS We established the relationship between pretreatment computed v nAUC to pathologically verified blood volume fraction of the tumor (r = 0.65; P = .009) and fractional tumor cell death (r = 0.97-0.99; P < .0001) in the calibration and prospective cohorts. On multivariate analyses, accounting for traditional covariates, nAUC independently associated with overall survival in all cohorts (mean hazard ratios, 0.14-0.31). Receiver operator characteristic analyses revealed discrimination of good and bad prognostic groups in the cohorts with area under the curve values of 0.64 to 0.71. CONCLUSIONS This work presents a new mathematical modeling approach to predict clinical response from chemotherapy and radiation for PDAC. Our findings indicate that oxygen/drug diffusion strongly influences clinical responses and that nAUC is a potential tool to select patients with PDAC for radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles X Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California
| | - Dalia Elganainy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mohamed M Zaid
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Joseph D Butner
- Mathematics in Medicine Program, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas
| | - Anshuman Agrawal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sara Nizzero
- Mathematics in Medicine Program, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Cullen M Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Joseph M Herman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | | | | | - Matthew H G Katz
- Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Christopher H Crane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Vittorio Cristini
- Mathematics in Medicine Program, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas; Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Physiology, Biophysics, and Systems Biology Program, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Eugene J Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Chapman BV, Rooney MK, Ludmir EB, De La Cruz D, Salcedo A, Pinnix CC, Das P, Jagsi R, Thomas CR, Holliday EB. Linguistic Biases in Letters of Recommendation for Radiation Oncology Residency Applicants from 2015 to 2019. J Cancer Educ 2022; 37:965-972. [PMID: 33111188 PMCID: PMC7591242 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01907-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/19/2020] [Indexed: 05/09/2023]
Abstract
We aimed to investigate whether implicit linguistic biases exist in letters of recommendation (LORs) for applicants to radiation oncology (RO) residency. LORs (n = 487) written for applicants (n = 125) invited to interview at a single RO residency program from the 2015 to 2019 application cycles were included for analysis. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software was used to evaluate LORs for length and a dictionary of predetermined themes. Language was evaluated for gender bias using a publicly available gender bias calculator. Non-parametric tests were used to compare linguistic domain scores. The median number of the LORs per applicant was 4 (range 3-5). No significant differences by applicant gender were detected in LIWC score domains or gender bias calculator (P > 0.05). However, LORs for applicants from racial/ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine were less likely to include standout descriptors (P = 0.008). Male writers were less likely to describe applicant characteristics related to patient care (P < 0.0001) and agentic personality (P = 0.006). LORs written by RO were shorter (P < 0.0001) and included fewer standout descriptors (P = 0.014) but were also more likely to include statements regarding applicant desirability (P = 0.045) and research (P = 0.008). While language was globally male-biased, assistant professors were less likely than associate professors (P = 0.0064) and full professors (P = 0.023) to use male-biased language. Significant linguistic differences were observed in RO residency LORs, suggesting that implicit biases related to both applicants and letter writers may exist. Recognition, and ideally eradication, of such biases are crucial for fair and equitable evaluation of a diverse applicant pool of RO residency candidates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bhavana V Chapman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1140, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Michael K Rooney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1140, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1140, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Denise De La Cruz
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Abigail Salcedo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1140, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Chelsea C Pinnix
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1140, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1140, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Charles R Thomas
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1140, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Moningi S, Lei X, Fang P, Taniguchi CM, Holliday EB, Koay EJ, Koong AC, Ludmir EB, Minsky BD, Das P, Giordano SH, Smith GL. Contemporary use and outcomes of radiation and chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2022; 35:9-16. [PMID: 35510142 PMCID: PMC9058953 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.04.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Revised: 04/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
This study examines 5,624 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Across “real-world” US practice, overall use of radiation treatment (RT) has declined. Among those receiving RT, stereotactic body radiation treatment (SBRT) increased. Contemporary risks of gastrointestinal complications after SBRT have decreased.
Background We assessed radiation treatment (RT) use and complications for unresectable pancreatic cancer in the US, comparing conventionally fractionated (CFRT) and stereotactic body radiation treatment (SBRT) to inform real-world expected outcomes and practice. Material and Methods We analyzed 5,624 patients with non-metastatic, unresectable pancreatic cancer (2,522 older patients age > 65, diagnosed 2006–2013 in Medicare linked data; and 3,102 younger patients age < 65, diagnosed 2006–2016 in MarketScan data), comparing CFRT vs. SBRT vs. chemotherapy alone. Cochran-Armitage tested temporal trends. Fisher’s Exact Test and proportional hazards models compared gastrointestinal (GI) complications. Healthcare payments (Consumer Price Index adjusted to 2015) through 12 months were compared using generalized linear regression models with log link and gamma distribution. Results RT use declined from 55% to 45% of older patients (2006–2013) and 52% to 47% of younger patients (2006–2016) (Ptrend < 0.001 both). Among RT patients, SBRT use increased to 10% of older patients and 12% of younger patients in the most recent years (Ptrend = 0.04 and < 0.001 respectively). Addition of RT was associated with more frequent GI bleeds, strictures, and fistulas (Δ= +3% to 9% excess events, all P ≤ 0.05). Temporal patterns suggested decreasing complications over time (Ptrend = 0.05 and 0.05 for older and younger patients). Among younger patients, there was no difference in GI complications for SBRT vs. CFRT (P > 0.05, all comparisons). Among older patients, increased complications were seen for SBRT in 1–4 fractions vs. CFRT (P < 0.05), but not SBRT in 5 fractions (P = 0.72). Healthcare payments were greatest for SBRT when compared with CFRT or chemotherapy under US Medicare (P < 0.001) and employer-based insurance (P < 0.001). Conclusion Real-world treatment has shifted toward more selectivity for RT in unresectable pancreatic cancer. However, SBRT uptake and improving trends in complications profiles represent opportunities to optimize current use and benefit. Findings are applicable to inform future comparative and cost effectiveness models of RT for this disease.
Collapse
|
21
|
De B, Tran Cao HS, Vauthey JN, Manzar GS, Corrigan KL, Raghav KP, Lee SS, Tzeng CWD, Minsky BD, Smith GL, Holliday EB, Taniguchi CM, Koong AC, Das P, Javle M, Ludmir EB, Koay EJ. Ablative liver radiotherapy for unresected intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Patterns of care and survival in the United States. Cancer 2022; 128:2529-2539. [PMID: 35417569 PMCID: PMC9177808 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34223] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2022] [Revised: 03/01/2022] [Accepted: 03/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Single-institution studies have shown the oncologic benefit of ablative liver radiotherapy (A-RT) for patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, adoption of A-RT across the United States and its associated outcomes are unknown. METHODS We queried the National Cancer Data Base for nonsurgically managed patients with ICC diagnosed between 2004 and 2018. Patients were labeled A-RT for receipt of biologically effective doses (BED10 ) ≥ 80.5 Gy and conventional RT (Conv-RT) for lower doses. Associations with A-RT use and overall survival were identified using logistic and Cox regressions, respectively. RESULTS Of 27,571 patients, the most common treatments were chemotherapy without liver RT (45%), no chemotherapy or liver RT (42%), and liver RT ± chemotherapy (13%). Use of liver RT remained constant over time. Of 1112 patients receiving liver RT with known doses, RT was 73% Conv-RT (median BED10 , 53 Gy; median, 20 fractions) and 27% A-RT (median BED10 , 100 Gy; median, 5 fractions). Use of A-RT increased from 5% in 2004 to 48% in 2018 (Ptrend < .001). With a median follow-up of 52.3 months, median survival estimates for Conv-RT and A-RT were 12.8 and 23.7 months (P < .001), respectively. On multivariable analysis, stage III and IV disease correlated with a higher risk of death, whereas chemotherapy and A-RT correlated with a lower risk. CONCLUSIONS Although A-RT has been increasingly used, use of liver RT as a whole in the United States remained constant despite growing evidence supporting its use, suggesting continued unmet need. A-RT is associated with longer survival versus Conv-RT. LAY SUMMARY Bile duct cancer is a rare, deadly disease that often presents at advanced stages. Single-institution retrospective studies have demonstrated that use of high-dose radiotherapy may be associated with longer survival, but larger studies have not been conducted. We used a large, national cancer registry of patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2018 to show that liver radiotherapy use remains low in the United States, despite growing evidence that patients who receive it live longer. Furthermore, we showed that patients who received high-dose radiotherapy lived longer than those who received lower doses. Greater awareness of the benefits of liver radiotherapy is needed to improve patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian De
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hop S. Tran Cao
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gohar S. Manzar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kelsey L. Corrigan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kanwal P.S. Raghav
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sunyoung S. Lee
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ching-Wei D. Tzeng
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bruce D. Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Grace L. Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cullen M. Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Milind Javle
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ethan B. Ludmir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eugene J. Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Lin D, Alam MBE, Jaoude JA, Kouzy R, Phan JL, Elnaggar JH, Resendiz B, Medrano AYD, Lynn EJ, Nguyen ND, Noticewala SS, Mathew GG, Holliday EB, Minsky BD, Das P, Morris VK, Eng C, Mezzari MP, Petrosino JF, Ajami NJ, Klopp AH, Taniguchi CM, Colbert LE. Microbiome Dynamics During Chemoradiotherapy for Anal Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 113:974-984. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2021] [Revised: 04/22/2022] [Accepted: 04/27/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
23
|
Corrigan KL, Rooney MK, De B, Ludmir ED, Das P, Smith GL, Taniguchi C, Minsky BD, Koay EJ, Koong A, Morris VK, Messick CA, Nogueras-Gonzalez G, Holliday EB. Patient-reported sexual function in long-term survivors of anal cancer treated with definitive intensity-modulated radiotherapy and concurrent chemotherapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2022; 12:e397-e405. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2022.05.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2021] [Revised: 03/15/2022] [Accepted: 05/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
24
|
Corrigan KL, De B, Rooney MK, Ludmir EB, Das P, Smith GL, Taniguchi CM, Minsky BD, Koay EJ, Koong AC, Holliday EB. Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Chemoradiation in Patients with Anal Cancer: A Qualitative Analysis. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 7:100986. [PMID: 35662810 PMCID: PMC9157211 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.100986] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
25
|
Colbert LE, El MB, Lynn EJ, Bronk J, Karpinets TV, Wu X, Chapman BV, Sims TT, Lin D, Kouzy R, Sammouri J, Biegert G, Delgado Medrano AY, Olvera A, Sastry KJ, Eifel PJ, Jhingran A, Lin L, Ramondetta LM, Futreal AP, Jazaeri AA, Schmeler KM, Yue J, Mitra A, Yoshida-Court K, Wargo JA, Solley TN, Hegde V, Nookala SS, Yanamandra AV, Dorta-Estremera S, Mathew G, Kavukuntla R, Papso C, Ahmed-Kaddar M, Kim M, Zhang J, Reuben A, Holliday EB, Minsky BD, Koong AC, Koay EJ, Das P, Taniguchi CM, Klopp A. Expansion of Candidate HPV-Specific T Cells in the Tumor Microenvironment during Chemoradiotherapy Is Prognostic in HPV16 + Cancers. Cancer Immunol Res 2022; 10:259-271. [PMID: 35045973 DOI: 10.1158/2326-6066.cir-21-0119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2021] [Revised: 08/26/2021] [Accepted: 12/21/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection causes 600,000 new cancers worldwide each year. HPV-related cancers express the oncogenic proteins E6 and E7, which could serve as tumor-specific antigens. It is not known whether immunity to E6 and E7 evolves during chemoradiotherapy or affects survival. Using T cells from 2 HPV16+ patients, we conducted functional T-cell assays to identify candidate HPV-specific T cells and common T-cell receptor motifs, which we then analyzed across 86 patients with HPV-related cancers. The HPV-specific clones and E7-related T-cell receptor motifs expanded in the tumor microenvironment over the course of treatment, whereas non-HPV-specific T cells did not. In HPV16+ patients, improved recurrence-free survival was associated with HPV-responsive T-cell expansion during chemoradiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren E Colbert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Molly B El
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Erica J Lynn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Julianna Bronk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Tatiana V Karpinets
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Xiaogang Wu
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Bhavana V Chapman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Travis T Sims
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Daniel Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ramez Kouzy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Julie Sammouri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Greyson Biegert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Andrea Y Delgado Medrano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Adilene Olvera
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - K Jagannadha Sastry
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Patricia J Eifel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Anuja Jhingran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Lilie Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Lois M Ramondetta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Andrew P Futreal
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Amir A Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Kathleen M Schmeler
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jingyan Yue
- McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas
| | - Aparna Mitra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Kyoko Yoshida-Court
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jennifer A Wargo
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Travis N Solley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Venkatesh Hegde
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sita S Nookala
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ananta V Yanamandra
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Stephanie Dorta-Estremera
- McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas.,Department of Microbiology and Medical Zoology, University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan, Puerto Rico
| | - Geena Mathew
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Rohit Kavukuntla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Cassidy Papso
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mustapha Ahmed-Kaddar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Minsoo Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jianhua Zhang
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Alexandre Reuben
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Eugene J Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Cullen M Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ann Klopp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Holliday EB, Morris VK, Johnson B, Eng C, Ludmir EB, Das P, Minsky BD, Taniguchi C, Smith GL, Koay EJ, Koong AC, Delclos ME, Skibber JM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, You YN, Bednarski BK, Tillman MM, Chang GJ, Jennings K, Messick CA. Definitive Intensity-Modulated Chemoradiation for Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Outcomes and Toxicity of 428 Patients Treated at a Single Institution. Oncologist 2022; 27:40-47. [PMID: 35305097 PMCID: PMC8842324 DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyab006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Although intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is considered the standard of care for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA), few large series have reported oncologic outcomes and toxicities. In this retrospective report, we aim to describe outcomes and toxicities after IMRT-based chemoradiation (CRT) for the treatment of SCCA, evaluate the impact of dose escalation (>54 Gy), and compare concurrent fluoropyrimidine in combination with either mitomycin or with cisplatin as chemosensitizers.
Methods
Patients treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2018 with IMRT-based CRT were included. Median time to locoregional recurrence, time to colostomy, and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.
Results
A total of 428 patients were included; median follow-up was 4.4 years. Three hundred and thirty-four patients (78.0%) were treated with concurrent cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine, and 160 (37.4%) with >54 Gy. Two- and 5-year freedom from locoregional failure, freedom from colostomy failure, and overall survival were 86.5% and 81.2%, respectively, 90.0% and 88.3%, respectively, and 93.6% and 85.8%, respectively. Neither dose escalation nor mitomycin-based concurrent chemotherapy resulted in improved outcomes. Mitomycin-based concurrent chemotherapy was associated with in approximately 2.5 times increased grade 3 or greater acute toxicity. Radiation dose >54 Gy was associated with approximately 2.6 times increased Grade 3 or greater chronic toxicity.
Conclusions
Our results suggest IMRT-based CRT with concurrent fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin is a safe and feasible option for patient with SCCA and may cause less acute toxicity. The role for radiation dose escalation is unclear and requires further study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma B Holliday
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Van K Morris
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Benny Johnson
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cathy Eng
- Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cullen Taniguchi
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Grace L Smith
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eugene J Koay
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Albert C Koong
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Marc E Delclos
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - John M Skibber
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Y Nancy You
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Mathew M Tillman
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - George J Chang
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Craig A Messick
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Rooney MK, Nesbit EG, Holliday EB, Jagsi R, Fuller CD, Ludmir EB, Sachdev S. Trends in Publication Speed of Radiation Oncology Research from 2010 to 2019. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 7:100863. [PMID: 35036635 PMCID: PMC8749203 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100863] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2021] [Accepted: 11/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose In this investigation, we aimed to describe trends in time to acceptance (TTA) and time to online publication (TTOP) of research published in leading radiation oncology journals from 2010 to 2019. We further sought to identify journal characteristics that might influence TTA and TTOP. Methods and Materials We searched the publication history of 5 leading international radiation oncology journals. For all research articles accepted from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, we tabulated the date of article receipt, the date of acceptance, and the date of online publication when available. The TTA was calculated as the number of elapsed days from article receipt to acceptance, and the TTOP was calculated as the number of elapsed days from article acceptance to online publication. Using the Mann-Kendall test, we assessed for monotonic trends over time and used the post hoc Theil-Sen method to estimate rates of change. We created a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics associated with TTA and TTOP. Results In total, 10,132 articles were included. Both the TTA and the TTOP decreased significantly from 2010 to 2019 (P = .005 and P < .001, respectively), with an estimated decrease of 1.5 days per year for the TTA and 7.0 days per year for the TTOP. Multiple regression modeling revealed that a higher journal impact factor was independently associated with an increased TTA (P < .001) and a decreased TTOP (P < .001). A higher number of accepted journal articles per year was associated with a decreased TTA (P < .001) and an increased TTOP (P < .001). Conclusions Radiation oncology research has been accepted and published online at increasingly faster rates during the past decade. The TTA may be longer in higher-impact, more selective journals, possibly suggesting a need for comprehensive peer review and complex editorial decisions. However, these articles are also published online faster after article acceptance. Future work examining patterns of acceptance and publication speed is needed to encourage rapid dissemination of practice-guiding data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael K Rooney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Eric G Nesbit
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Clifton D Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sean Sachdev
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
McClelland S, Huang CC, Griffith KA, Shan M, Holliday EB, Jagsi R, Zellars RC. Composition of the Current Academic Radiation Oncology Workforce in Comprehensive Cancer Centers. JCO Oncol Pract 2021; 18:e740-e747. [PMID: 34919411 DOI: 10.1200/op.21.00609] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The landscape of the profession of academic radiation oncology is constantly changing. We sought to determine the demographic makeup of the current academic radiation oncology workforce. MATERIALS AND METHODS Internet web site searches of the 51 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) were conducted in September 2019. The Scopus database was subsequently searched in December 2019 to ascertain the h-index for each radiation oncologist. Geographic location was economically stratified (New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington DC) as previously reported. Race and binary sex were attributed by authors using publicly available information. Univariate analysis involved the chi-square test; a multivariable model considered several factors including rank and sex. RESULTS Of 993 radiation oncologists at CCCs, 53.6% are junior faculty, 24.8% associate professors, and 21.7% full professors. The average radiation oncologist at a CCC has been a physician for 19.7 (standard deviation = 11.3) years; 4.7% (47/993) are under-represented minorities. 24.6% of men and 15.5% of women were full professors, a statistically significant difference (P = .001). Of the 51 department chairs, 11.8% are women and 5.6% are under-represented minorities. There are fewer female than male program directors in the most economically stratified locations (P = .02). The mean h-index for all faculty is 17.6 (standard deviation = 16.9), and significantly differs between junior faculty (8.21), associate professors (18.46), and full professors (40.05; P < .0001). It also differs between men (19.35) and women (14.11). On multivariable analysis, sex, academic rank, and a secondary advanced degree were independently significant correlates of h-index. CONCLUSION Among academic radiation oncologists at CCCs, under 5% are under-represented minorities, men are significantly over-represented among senior faculty, and women have significantly lower h-indices than men.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shearwood McClelland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Christina C Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Mu Shan
- Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Richard C Zellars
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
De B, Abu-Gheida I, Patel A, Ng SSW, Zaid M, Thunshelle CP, Elganainy D, Corrigan KL, Rooney MK, Javle M, Raghav K, Lee SS, Vauthey JN, Tzeng CWD, Tran Cao HS, Ludmir EB, Minsky BD, Smith GL, Holliday EB, Taniguchi CM, Koong AC, Das P, Koay EJ. Benchmarking Outcomes after Ablative Radiotherapy for Molecularly Characterized Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. J Pers Med 2021; 11:1270. [PMID: 34945742 PMCID: PMC8703854 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11121270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2021] [Revised: 11/25/2021] [Accepted: 11/26/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
We have previously shown that ablative radiotherapy (A-RT) with a biologically effective dose (BED10) ≥ 80.5 Gy for patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is associated with longer survival. Despite recent large-scale sequencing efforts in ICC, outcomes following RT based on genetic alterations have not been described. We reviewed records of 156 consecutive patients treated with A-RT for unresectable ICC from 2008 to 2020. For 114 patients (73%), next-generation sequencing provided molecular profiles. The overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariable Cox analyses were used to determine the associations with the outcomes. The median tumor size was 7.3 (range: 2.2-18.2) cm. The portal vein thrombus (PVT) was present in 10%. The RT median BED10 was 98 Gy (range: 81-144 Gy). The median (95% confidence interval) follow-up was 58 (42-104) months from diagnosis and 39 (33-74) months from RT. The median OS was 32 (29-35) months after diagnosis and 20 (16-24) months after RT. The one-year OS, LC, and intrahepatic DMFS were 73% (65-80%), 81% (73-87%), and 34% (26-42%). The most common mutations were in IDH1 (25%), TP53 (22%), ARID1A (19%), and FGFR2 (13%). Upon multivariable analysis, the factors associated with death included worse performance status, larger tumor, metastatic disease, higher CA 19-9, PVT, satellitosis, and IDH1 and PIK3CA mutations. TP53 mutation was associated with local failure. Further investigation into the prognostic value of individual mutations and combinations thereof is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian De
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Ibrahim Abu-Gheida
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Aashini Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Sylvia S. W. Ng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Mohamed Zaid
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Connor P. Thunshelle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Dalia Elganainy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Kelsey L. Corrigan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Michael K. Rooney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Milind Javle
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.J.); (K.R.); (S.S.L.)
| | - Kanwal Raghav
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.J.); (K.R.); (S.S.L.)
| | - Sunyoung S. Lee
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (M.J.); (K.R.); (S.S.L.)
| | - Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (J.-N.V.); (C.-W.D.T.); (H.S.T.C.)
| | - Ching-Wei D. Tzeng
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (J.-N.V.); (C.-W.D.T.); (H.S.T.C.)
| | - Hop S. Tran Cao
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (J.-N.V.); (C.-W.D.T.); (H.S.T.C.)
| | - Ethan B. Ludmir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Bruce D. Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Grace L. Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Cullen M. Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| | - Eugene J. Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (I.A.-G.); (A.P.); (S.S.W.N.); (M.Z.); (C.P.T.); (D.E.); (K.L.C.); (M.K.R.); (E.B.L.); (B.D.M.); (G.L.S.); (E.B.H.); (C.M.T.); (A.C.K.); (P.D.)
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Niedzielski JS, Liu Y, Ng SSW, Martin RM, Perles LA, Beddar S, Rebueno N, Koay EJ, Taniguchi C, Holliday EB, Das P, Smith GL, Minsky BD, Ludmir EB, Herman JM, Koong A, Sawakuchi GO. Dosimetric Uncertainties Resulting From Interfractional Anatomic Variations for Patients Receiving Pancreas Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Image Guidance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 111:1298-1309. [PMID: 34400267 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2020] [Revised: 07/31/2021] [Accepted: 08/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To estimate the effects of interfractional anatomic changes on dose to organs at risk (OARs) and tumors, as measured with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image guidance for pancreatic stereotactic body radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS We evaluated 11 patients with pancreatic cancer whom were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (33-40 Gy in 5 fractions) using daily CT-on-rails (CTOR) image guidance immediately before treatment with breath-hold motion management. CBCT alignment was simulated in the treatment planning software by aligning the original planning CT to each fractional CTOR image set via fiducial markers. CTOR data sets were used to calculate fractional doses after alignment by applying the rigid shift of the planning CT and CTOR image sets to the planning treatment isocenter and recalculating the fractional dose. Accumulated dose to the gross tumor volume (GTV), tumor vessel interface, duodenum, small bowel, and stomach were calculated by summing the 5 fractional absolute dose-volume histograms into a single dose-volume histogram for comparison with the original planned dose. RESULTS Four patients had a GTV D100% of at least 1.5 Gy less than the fractional planned value in several fractions; 4 patients had fractional underestimation of duodenum dose by 1.0 Gy per fraction. The D1.0 cm3 <35 Gy constraint was violated for at least 1 OAR in 3 patients, with either the duodenum (n = 2) or small bowel (n = 1) D1.0 cm3 being higher on the accumulated dose distribution (P = .01). D100% was significantly lower according to accumulated dose GTV (P = .01) and tumor vessel interface (P = .02), with 4 and 2 patients having accumulated D100% ≥4 Gy lower than the planned value for the GTV and tumor vessel interface, respectively. CONCLUSIONS For some patients, CBCT image guidance based on fiducial alignment may cause large dosimetric uncertainties for OARs and target structures, according to accumulated dose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Yufei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Sylvia S W Ng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | - Luis A Perles
- Department of Radiation Physics, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Sam Beddar
- Department of Radiation Physics, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Neal Rebueno
- Department of Radiation Physics, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Eugene J Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Joseph M Herman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Albert Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Gabriel O Sawakuchi
- Department of Radiation Physics, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center; Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, UT-MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
De B, Ludmir EB, Messick CA, Cagley MC, Morris VK, Das P, Minsky BD, Taniguchi CM, Smith GL, Koay EJ, Koong AC, Mohan R, Holliday EB. Prognostic impact of lymphopenia and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio for patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma. J Gastrointest Oncol 2021; 12:2412-2422. [PMID: 34790402 DOI: 10.21037/jgo-21-323] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2021] [Accepted: 08/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Outcomes after definitive chemoradiation for squamous cell carcinoma are generally favorable. However, biomarkers to further yield prognostic information are desired. Treatment-related lymphopenia as well as an elevated baseline neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio have been associated with worse survival in several cancer types. We evaluated absolute lymphocyte count and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio at baseline and at treatment-related nadir in patients with anal cancer for associations with oncologic endpoints. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 428 consecutive patients with non-metastatic anal cancer treated with definitive, intensity-modulated radiation therapy-based chemoradiation. We analyzed absolute neutrophil and lymphocyte counts at several timepoints: pretreatment, weekly during treatment, and in the six weeks following treatment completion. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio was calculated at baseline and treatment-related nadir. We estimated oncologic endpoints using life tables and compared them using the log-rank test. We conducted univariate and multivariable time-to-event analyses using Cox proportional hazards. Results Median absolute lymphocyte count at baseline and nadir were 1.80 [interquartile range (IQR), 1.45-2.32] k/µL and 0.26 (IQR, 0.18-0.36) k/µL, respectively, and 31% developed treatment-related grade 4 lymphopenia. Median neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio at baseline and nadir were 2.34 (IQR, 1.68-3.30) and 8.80 (IQR, 5.86-12.68), respectively. Estimates of overall survival, local failure-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and freedom from colostomy at 5 years were 87%, 86%, 82%, and 88%, respectively. Baseline and nadir absolute lymphocyte count were not associated with selected outcomes on univariate analysis. On multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with death included T3-T4 disease, HIV-positive status, treatment break, and baseline neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio >3. Baseline neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio showed a trend toward association with distant progression or death (P=0.07). The 5-year overall survival estimates for patients with baseline neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios ≤3 and >3 were 92.3% and 80.6%, respectively. Conclusions Lymphopenia during and after chemoradiation for anal cancer is common but does not appear to be associated with worse survival, recurrence, or metastases. However, elevated baseline neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio was independently associated with overall survival, local recurrence-free survival, and DMFS. Further studies are needed to determine the clinical utility of baseline neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio to guide treatment and follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian De
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Craig A Messick
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Matthew C Cagley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Van K Morris
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cullen M Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eugene J Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Taparra K, Ebner DK, Cruz DDL, Holliday EB. The Impact of COVID-19 on Radiation Oncology Residency Applicant Away Rotations, Interviews, and Rank Lists: A Comparison Between the 2020 Match and 2021 Match. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 7:100842. [PMID: 34729444 PMCID: PMC8555343 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100842] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2021] [Revised: 09/12/2021] [Accepted: 10/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic modified the Residency Match process for fourth-year medical students. In-person away rotations were discouraged, interviews were virtual, and traditional factors used to rank programs were absent. Here, we compare survey results administered to both the 2020 and 2021 Match applicants to assess the influence of the pandemic on the radiation oncology (RO) Match process. Methods An institutional review board-approved prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. The 2020 and 2021 RO Match applicants at a large RO program were invited to participate. Descriptive summary statistics were assessed. Results The 2020 and 2021 Matches each had 76 applicants complete the survey with response rates of 54% and 57%, respectively. The 2 groups were predominantly white, cisgender male, single, and without children. Whereas 11% of 2020 applicants did not complete away rotations, 45% of 2021 applicants did not. For 2021 Match applicants, 65% of away rotations were performed virtually, whereas 51% were not for medical school credit. Of the applicants, 84% were satisfied with virtual interviews and 72% felt cost savings were worth not having in-person interviews. Whereas 49% of Match 2020 applicants spent >$5000 in interview costs, 0% of the Match 2021 applicants did so, with 45% spending <$100. Postinterview communications from programs increased during the pandemic from 36% to 42% in 2020 Match and 2021 Match, respectively. Although program culture was the most common factor influencing 2021 Match applicants program rankings, half of applicants did not gain a sense of program culture during virtual interviews. Conclusions We found 2021 Match applicants completed fewer away rotations, were satisfied with virtual interviews/reduced costs, and did not gain a sense of program culture through virtual rotations/interviews despite it being the most important ranking factor reported. This study supports further exploration of virtual away rotations and virtual interviews moving forward beyond the pandemic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kekoa Taparra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.,Transitional Year Residency Program, Gundersen Health System, La Crosse, Wisconsin
| | - Daniel K Ebner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Denise De La Cruz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Abi Jaoude J, Thunshelle CP, Kouzy R, Nguyen ND, Lin D, Prakash L, Bumanlag IM, Noticewala SS, Niedzielski JS, Beddar S, Ludmir EB, Holliday EB, Das P, Minsky BD, Herman JM, Katz M, Koong AC, Koay EJ, Taniguchi CM. Stereotactic Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer in the Modern Era. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6:100763. [PMID: 34934858 PMCID: PMC8655391 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100763] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2021] [Accepted: 07/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients with pancreatic cancer often receive radiation therapy before undergoing surgical resection. We compared the clinical outcomes differences between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and 3-dimensional (3D)/intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS We retrospectively collected data from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Patients with borderline resectable/potentially resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer receiving neoadjuvant SBRT (median, 36.0 Gy/5fx), 3D conformal radiation (median, 50.4 Gy/28 fx) or IMRT (median, 50.4 Gy/28 fx) were included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were analyzed using Cox regression. RESULTS In total, 104 patients were included in our study. Fifty-seven patients (54.8%) were treated with SBRT, and 47 patients (45.2%) were treated with 3D/IMRT. Patients in the SBRT group were slightly older (median age: 70.3 vs 62.7 in the 3D/IMRT group). Both groups had similar proportions of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SBRT: 30, 52.6%; 3D/IMRT: 24, 51.1%). All patients were treated with chemotherapy. Patients in the SBRT group underwent more surgical resection compared with the 3D/IMRT group (38.6% vs 23.4%, respectively). At a median follow-up of 22 months, a total of 60 patients (57.7%) died: 25 (25/57, 43.9%) in the SBRT group, and 35 (35/47, 74.5%) in the 3D/IMRT group. Median OS was slightly higher in the SBRT group (29.6 months vs 24.1 months in the 3D/IMRT group). On multivariable Cox regression, the choice of radiation therapy technique was not associated with differences in OS (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] = 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-1.3%, P = .18). Moreover, patients that underwent surgical resection had better OS (aHR = 0.3, 95% CI, 0.1%-0.8%, P = .01). Furthermore, progression-free survival was also similar between patients treated with SBRT and those treated with 3D/IMRT (aHR = 0.9, 95% CI, 0.5%-1.8%, P = .81). CONCLUSIONS SBRT was associated with similar clinical outcomes compared with conventional radiation techniques, despite being delivered over a shorter period of time which would spare patients prolonged treatment burden. Future prospective data are still needed to better assess the role of SBRT in patients with pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph Abi Jaoude
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Connor P. Thunshelle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ramez Kouzy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Nicholas D. Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Daniel Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Laura Prakash
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Isabela M. Bumanlag
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sonal S. Noticewala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Joshua S. Niedzielski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sam Beddar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ethan B. Ludmir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Bruce D. Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Joseph M. Herman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Lake Success, Hempstead, New York
| | - Matthew Katz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Eugene J. Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Cullen M. Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Thaker NG, Boyce-Fappiano D, Ning MS, Pasalic D, Guzman A, Smith G, Holliday EB, Incalcaterra J, Garden AS, Shaitelman SF, Gunn GB, Fuller CD, Blanchard P, Feeley TW, Kaplan RS, Frank SJ. Activity-Based Costing of Intensity-Modulated Proton versus Photon Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:374-382. [PMID: 34285963 PMCID: PMC8270081 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00042.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2020] [Accepted: 01/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE In value-based health care delivery, radiation oncologists need to compare empiric costs of care delivery with advanced technologies, such as intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to compare the costs of delivering IMPT and IMRT in a case-matched pilot study of patients with newly diagnosed oropharyngeal (OPC) cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS We used clinicopathologic factors to match 25 patients with OPC who received IMPT in 2011-12 with 25 patients with OPC treated with IMRT in 2000-09. Process maps were created for each multidisciplinary clinical activity (including chemotherapy and ancillary services) from initial consultation through 1 month of follow-up. Resource costs and times were determined for each activity. Each patient-specific activity was linked with a process map and TDABC over the full cycle of care. All calculated costs were normalized to the lowest-cost IMRT patient. RESULTS TDABC costs for IMRT were 1.00 to 3.33 times that of the lowest-cost IMRT patient (mean ± SD: 1.65 ± 0.56), while costs for IMPT were 1.88 to 4.32 times that of the lowest-cost IMRT patient (2.58 ± 0.39) (P < .05). Although single-fraction costs were 2.79 times higher for IMPT than for IMRT (owing to higher equipment costs), average full cycle cost of IMPT was 1.53 times higher than IMRT, suggesting that the initial cost increase is partly mitigated by reductions in costs for other, non-RT supportive health care services. CONCLUSIONS In this matched sample, although IMPT was on average more costly than IMRT primarily owing to higher equipment costs, a subset of IMRT patients had similar costs to IMPT patients, owing to greater use of supportive care resources. Multidimensional patient outcomes and TDABC provide vital methodology for defining the value of radiation therapy modalities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikhil G. Thaker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Arizona Oncology, The US Oncology Network, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - David Boyce-Fappiano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Matthew S. Ning
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Dario Pasalic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Alexis Guzman
- The Institute for Cancer Care Innovation, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Grace Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - James Incalcaterra
- The Institute for Cancer Care Innovation, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Adam S. Garden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Simona F. Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - G. Brandon Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - C. David Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Pierre Blanchard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | | | - Steven J. Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Marsiglio JA, Rosenberg DM, Rooney MK, Goodman CR, Gillespie EF, Hirsch AE, Holliday EB, Kimple RJ, Thomas CR, Golden DW. Mentorship Initiatives in Radiation Oncology: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110:292-302. [PMID: 33412265 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.12.049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2020] [Revised: 12/21/2020] [Accepted: 12/30/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Although mentorship is described extensively in academic medical literature, there are few descriptions of mentorship specific to radiation oncology. The goal of the current study was to investigate the state of mentorship in radiation oncology through a scoping review of the literature. METHODS AND MATERIALS A search protocol was defined according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Predefined search terms and medical subject headings were used to search PubMed for English language articles published after January 1, 1990, on mentorship in radiation oncology. Additionally, in-press articles from major radiation oncology and medical education journals were searched. Three reviewers determined article eligibility. Included articles were classified based on predefined evaluation criteria. RESULTS Fourteen publications from 2008 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described form of mentorship was the dyad (64.3%), followed by team (14.3%) and peer (7.1%); 2 articles did not specify mentorship type (14.3%). The most commonly mentored participants were residents (35.7%), followed by medical students (35.7%) and attendings (21.4%); 1 study included participants of all levels (7.1%). Thirteen studies (92.9%) identified an experimental study design, most of which were cross-sectional (42.9%), followed by cohort studies (28.6%) and before/after (21.4%). Median sample size, reported in 12 of 13 experimental studies, was 132 (coefficient of variation, 1.06). Although outcomes varied widely, the majority described successful implementation of mentorship initiatives with high levels of participant satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS Although few initiatives are currently reported, the present study suggests that these initiatives are successful in promoting career development and increasing professional satisfaction. The interventions overwhelmingly described mentorship dyads; other forms of mentorship are either less common or understudied. Limitations included interventions not being evaluated in a controlled setting, and many were assessed using surveys with low response rates. This review highlights rich opportunities for future scholarship to develop, evaluate, and disseminate radiation oncology mentorship initiatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John A Marsiglio
- College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - David M Rosenberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Michael K Rooney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Chelain R Goodman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Erin F Gillespie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Ariel E Hirsch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Randall J Kimple
- Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Charles R Thomas
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Daniel W Golden
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Kouzy R, Lin D, El Alam MB, Abi Jaoude J, Smith GL, Koay EJ, Minsky BD, Das P, Holliday EB, Klopp A, Taniguchi CM, Colbert LE. Association of the anorectal microbiome and patient-reported gastrointestinal outcomes in patients with anal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e15504] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
e15504 Background: Among patients with anal cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy, the association between the microbiome and toxicity is not well documented. We sought to quantify the gastrointestinal-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and local microbiome profiles of patients with anal cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy in order to check for potential profiles that can help in predicting toxicity during treatment. Methods: We prospectively followed patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal who received definitive chemoradiotherapy. Anorectal swab samples were collected before treatment initiation and at 4 subsequent timepoints. Consequently, PROs were collected using the bowel subdomain of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). Samples were sequenced using 16S rRNA of the V4 region. Sequence reads were grouped by amplicon sequence variants (ASV’s) representative of unique bacterial species. We then used Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) with an effect size of 4 to identify taxa at baseline that were differentially enriched in patients with high vs. low toxicity by end of treatment. We compared the EPIC scores with the relative abundance of species identified in the LEfSe using a paired Wilcoxon test. Results: The study included 22 patients (18 women and 4 men), whose median age was 59 years. Most patients were Stage III (59%) with negative HIV status (94%). The majority of patients (91%) received standard of care chemoradiotherapy. Overall toxicity was the highest at week 5 of treatment. At all individual time points, alpha diversity of the microbiome did not correlate with patient-reported GI function, additionally overall baseline diversity was not predictive of eventual GI outcomes. The LEfSe identified that patients with low patient reported toxicity at week 5 had higher of abundance of Selenomonas at baseline, while patients with higher toxicity had high abundance of baseline Actinobacteria, Peptoniphilus, Clostridiales , and Clostridia. When comparing the relative abundance of bacterial species among patients with high and low toxicities, patients with higher relative abundance of Clostridia and Actinobacteria had significantly higher toxicity (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Certain microbiome profiles at baseline are associated with anal cancer patients’ gastrointestinal-related PROs during chemoradiation. Our data provide novel avenues to study the potential uses of the local microbiome as a biomarker in predicting treatment toxicities in anal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ramez Kouzy
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Daniel Lin
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Grace L. Smith
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Eugene Jon Koay
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Bruce D. Minsky
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Prajnan Das
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Ann Klopp
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Taparra K, Ebner DK, De La Cruz D, Holliday EB. Away Rotations, Interviews, and Rank Lists: Radiation Oncology Residency Applicant Perspectives on the 2020 Match Process. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6:100696. [PMID: 34113741 PMCID: PMC8170351 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100696] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2020] [Revised: 03/17/2021] [Accepted: 03/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Using 2020 match applicants, the purpose of this study was to identify baseline applicant perspectives on the match process surveying (1) away rotations, (2) interview/postinterview communications, and (3) factors influencing applicant rank order lists. Methods and Materials Applicants in the 2020 match cycle at a large radiation oncology (RO) residency program received a questionnaire covering demographics and the match process: away rotations, interview/postinterview communications, and ranking. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with completing fewer away rotations. Results Of 141 surveys sent, 76 were completed, for a response rate of 54%. Most applicants were White, male, and matched into RO. One in 3 applicants did not have a home RO program. Most applicants completed 2 RO rotations (ie, a home rotation and an additional away rotation; range, 0-4 total rotations); RO rotations influenced the applicant rank order lists and the ultimate match result for 94% and 79% of applicants, respectively. Forty-seven percent of applicants reported being asked inappropriate questions during the interview (eg, parental or marital status). Applicants did not perceive a consistent message regarding postinterview communications from program directors. Most applicants were contacted postinterview. Interviews cost most applicants more than $5000. Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported submitting a letter of interest after the interview, hoping to improve their rank. When applying to programs, general reputation and location were the most common influential factors mentioned. When ranking programs, informal conversations with residents and program culture observations were the most common influential factors mentioned. Based on multivariable analysis, applicants who completed fewer RO rotations (including away rotations) had greater odds of matching to their home program (odds ratio [OR], 12.05; 95% CI, 1.27-206.69), lower odds of program location influencing where to apply (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.003-0.37), and lower odds of the program's general reputation affecting their rank list (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.001-0.47). Conclusions The results suggest that medical students perceive away rotations as an important influencer of their match process. Although applicants and program directors both participate in postinterview communications, interactions with residents influence rank order lists. These data may serve as an up-to-date baseline to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the RO match process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kekoa Taparra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.,Transitional Year Residency Program, Gundersen Health System, La Crosse, Wisconsin
| | - Daniel K Ebner
- Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.,Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Irvine, California
| | - Denise De La Cruz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Augustyn A, Reed VI, Ahmad N, Bhutani MS, Bloom ES, Bowers JR, Chronowski GM, Das P, Holliday EB, Delclos ME, Huey RW, Koay EJ, Lee SS, Nelson CL, Taniguchi CM, Koong AC, Chun SG. Implementation of a stereotactic body radiotherapy program for unresectable pancreatic cancer in an integrated community academic radiation oncology satellite network. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2021; 27:147-151. [PMID: 33665384 PMCID: PMC7907676 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2021] [Revised: 02/05/2021] [Accepted: 02/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PDSA methodology was used to implement a pancreas SBRT in an academic satellite network. Oncologic outcomes were favorable with no serious adverse events. This technical note provides groundwork for safe establishment of SBRT pancreas programs.
With increasing interest in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for unresectable pancreatic cancer, quality improvement (QI) initiatives to develop integrated clinical workflows are crucial to ensure quality assurance (QA) when introducing this challenging technique into radiation practices. Materials/Methods: In 2017, we used the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) QI methodology to implement a new pancreas SBRT program in an integrated community radiation oncology satellite. A unified integrated information technology infrastructure was used to virtually integrate the planned workflow into the community radiation oncology satellite network (P – Plan/D – Do). This workflow included multiple prospective quality assurance (QA) measures including multidisciplinary evaluation, prospective scrutiny of radiation target delineation, prospective radiation plan evaluation, and monitoring of patient outcomes. Institutional review board approval was obtained to retrospectively study and report outcomes of patients treated in this program (S – Study). Results: There were 12 consecutive patients identified who were treated in this program from 2017 to 2020 with a median follow-up of 27 months. The median survival was 13 months, median local failure free survival was 12 months and median progression free survival was 6 months from SBRT. There were no acute or late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE) version 5 toxicities ≥ Grade 3. Conclusion: We report the successful implementation of a community pancreas SBRT program involving multiple prospective QA measures, providing the groundwork to safely expand access to pancreas SBRT in our community satellite network (A – Act).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Augustyn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Valerie I. Reed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Neelofur Ahmad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Manoop S. Bhutani
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Elizabeth S. Bloom
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - John R. Bowers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, M.D. Anderson Albuquerque, Albuquerque, NM, United States
| | - Gregory M. Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Marc E. Delclos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Ryan W. Huey
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Eugene J. Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Sunyoung S. Lee
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Christopher L. Nelson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Cullen M. Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Stephen G. Chun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
- Corresponding author.
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
De B, Ng SP, Liu AY, Avila S, Tao R, Holliday EB, Brownlee Z, Kaseb A, Lee S, Raghav K, Vauthey JN, Minsky BD, Herman JM, Das P, Smith GL, Taniguchi CM, Krishnan S, Crane CH, Grassberger C, Hong TS, Lin SH, Koong AC, Mohan R, Koay EJ. Radiation-Associated Lymphopenia and Outcomes of Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Radiotherapy. J Hepatocell Carcinoma 2021; 8:57-69. [PMID: 33688489 PMCID: PMC7937383 DOI: 10.2147/jhc.s282062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2020] [Accepted: 02/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The immune system plays a crucial role in cancer surveillance. Previous studies have shown that lymphopenia associated with radiotherapy (RT) portends a poor prognosis. We sought to differentiate the effects of proton and photon RT on changes in absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients and Methods Patients with HCC treated with definitive RT from 2006 to 2016 were studied. Serial ALCs were graded according to CTCAE v4.0. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariable and multivariable Cox-proportional hazards analyses were used to identify predictors of OS. A cohort analysis matched for treatment volume was performed to investigate differences in ALC dynamics between photon and proton therapy. Results Of 143 patients identified, the median age was 66 (range, 19-90) years. The treatment modality was photon in 103 (72%) and proton in 40 (28%). Median follow-up was 17 months (95% confidence interval, 13-25 months). The median time to ALC nadir after initiation of RT was 17 days with a median relative decrease of 67%. Those who received proton RT had a higher median ALC nadir (0.41 vs 0.32 k/µL, p=0.002) and longer median OS (33 vs 13 months, p=0.002) than those who received photon RT. Matched cohort analyses revealed a larger low-dose liver volume in the photon group, which correlated with lower ALC. On multivariable Cox analysis, Grade 3 or higher lymphopenia prior to or after RT, portal venous tumor thrombus, larger planning target volumes, Child-Pugh (CP) Class B, and increased CP score after RT were associated with a higher risk of death, whereas the use of proton therapy was associated with lower risk. Conclusion Grade 3 or higher lymphopenia may be associated with poorer outcomes in patients receiving RT for HCC. Protons may mitigate lymphopenia compared with photons, potentially due to reduced dose exposure of sites of lymphopoiesis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian De
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sweet Ping Ng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Amy Y Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Santiago Avila
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Randa Tao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Zachary Brownlee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ahmed Kaseb
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sunyoung Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Kanwal Raghav
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Joseph M Herman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cullen M Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sunil Krishnan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Christopher H Crane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Clemens Grassberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Theodore S Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Steven H Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eugene J Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Romesser PB, Holliday EB, Philip T, Garcia-Carbonero R, Capdevila J, Tuli R, Sarholz B, Kuipers M, Rodriguez A, Diaz-Padilla I, Miller ED. A multicenter phase Ib/II study of DNA-PK inhibitor peposertib (M3814) in combination with capecitabine and radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.3_suppl.tps144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
TPS144 Background: Perioperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy, followed by total mesorectal excision, is the standard of care for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, 1/3 of these patients still develop distant metastases, indicating the need for more effective therapies. In addition, strategies that increase pathological complete response rates are needed to enable non-surgical management of LARC. DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) regulates a key DNA damage repair pathway for double-strand break repair. Peposertib (M3814), a potent, selective, orally administered DNA-PK inhibitor, has been shown to potentiate the effect of ionizing radiation in a human colon cancer xenograft model and several colon cancer cell lines. Peposertib is being investigated in several different trials across multiple indications. This Phase Ib/II study (NCT03770689) aims to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of the neoadjuvant treatment combination of peposertib, capecitabine, and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with LARC. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed and resectable Stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma are eligible. Induction chemotherapy is permitted, but residual disease must first be documented by MRI, digital rectal examination and endoscopy. Patients who received other anticancer therapies or those with prior pelvic RT are excluded. At open-label Phase Ib (open), 18–30 patients (n = 3 per cohort) will receive peposertib + capecitabine (orally, 825 mg/m2 twice daily [BID]) + RT (45–50.4 Gy), 5 days/week. Peposertib 50 mg once daily (QD) was the starting dose. Additional dose levels will range between 100─800 mg QD. Dose escalation is determined by the safety monitoring committee and guided by a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model. At Phase II (planned), 150 patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive oral capecitabine (825 mg/m2 BID) + RT (45–50 Gy), with either oral peposertib (recommended phase II dose [RP2D] or placebo, QD for 5 days/week. Primary objectives are to define a maximum tolerated dose and RP2D (Phase Ib), and to evaluate the efficacy of peposertib + capecitabine + RT in terms of pathological/clinical complete response (Phase II). Secondary objectives include assessment of antitumor activity (Phase Ib), quality of life outcomes (Phase II), and PK of peposertib, and the safety and tolerability of the combination therapy (both phases). To date, one patient has received peposertib 50 mg QD, six patients peposertib 100 mg QD, three patients peposertib 150 mg QD, and three patients peposertib 250 mg QD. Clinical trial information: NCT03770689.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Tony Philip
- Northwell Health Cancer Institute, Lake Success, NY
| | | | - Jaume Capdevila
- Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Richard Tuli
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | - Almudena Rodriguez
- Merck S.L.U. (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Madrid, Spain
| | - Ivan Diaz-Padilla
- Ares Trading S.A. (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Eysins, Switzerland
| | - Eric David Miller
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, OH
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Linscheid LJ, Holliday EB, Ahmed A, Somerson JS, Hanson S, Jagsi R, Deville C. Women in academic surgery over the last four decades. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0243308. [PMID: 33326486 PMCID: PMC7743929 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2020] [Accepted: 11/18/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective As the number of female medical students and surgical residents increases, the increasing number of female academic surgeons has been disproportionate. The purpose of this brief report is to evaluate the AAMC data from 1969 to 2018 to compare the level of female academic faculty representation for surgical specialties over the past four decades. Design The number of women as a percentage of the total surgeons per year were recorded for each year from 1969–2018, the most recent year available. Descriptive statistics were performed. Poisson regression examined the percentage of women in each field as the outcome of interest with the year and specialty (using general surgery as a reference) as two predictor variables. Setting Data from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). Participants All full-time academic faculty physicians in the specialties of obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), general surgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology (ENT), plastic surgery, plastic surgery, urology, neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery and cardiothoracic surgery as per AAMC records. Results The percentage of women in surgery for all specialties evaluated increased from 1969 to 2018 (OR 1.04, p<0.001). Compared with general surgery, the rate of yearly percentage change increased more slowly in neurosurgery (OR 0.84; P = .004), orthopaedic surgery (OR 0.82; P = .002), urology (OR 0.59; P < .001), and cardiothoracic surgery (OR 0.38; P < .001). There was no significant difference in the rate of yearly percentage change for plastic surgery (OR 1.01; P = .840). The rate of yearly percentage change increased more rapidly in OB/GYN (OR 2.86; P < .001), ophthalmology (OR 1.79; P < .001) and ENT (OR 1.70; P < .001). Conclusions Representation of women in academic surgery is increasing overall but is increasing more slowly in orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic surgery and urology compared with that in general surgery. These data may be used to inform and further the discussion of how mentorship and sponsorship of female students and trainees interested in surgical careers may improve gender equity in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura J. Linscheid
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Awad Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MercyOne, Waterloo, Iowa, United States of America
| | - Jeremy S. Somerson
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Summer Hanson
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| | - Curtiland Deville
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Peters GW, Kuczmarska-Haas A, Holliday EB, Puckett L. Lactation challenges of resident physicians- results of a national survey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020; 20:762. [PMID: 33297993 PMCID: PMC7724857 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-03436-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2020] [Accepted: 11/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Background There are unique challenges to parenting in residency and there is limited data to guide policy regarding lactation facilities and support for female physicians-in-training. We aimed to assess issues surrounding breast-feeding during graduate medical training for current residents or recent graduates from United States (US) residency programs. Methods A national cross-sectional survey was sent to current and recently graduated (2017 and later) female residents in June 2020. This questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics Survey tool and was open to each participating woman’s organization for 4 weeks. Summary statistics were used to describe characteristics of all respondents and free-text responses were reviewed to identify common themes regarding avenues for improvement. Results Three hundred twelve women responded to the survey, representing a 15.6% response rate. The median duration of providing breastmilk was 9 months (IQR 6–12). 21% of residents reported access to usable lactation rooms within their training hospital, in which 12% reported a computer was present. 60% of lactating residents reported not having a place to store breast milk. 73% reported residency limited their ability to lactate, and 37% stopped prior to their desired goal. 40% reported their faculty and/or co-residents made them feel guilty for their decision to breastfeed, and 56% reported their difficulties with breastfeeding during residency impacted their mental health. Conclusion Residents who become mothers during training face significant obstacles to meeting their breastfeeding/pumping needs and goals. With these barriers defined, informed policy change can be instituted to improve the lactation experience for physicians-in-training.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabrielle W Peters
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, USA
| | | | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd Unit 1240, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| | - Lindsay Puckett
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Wauwatosa, USA
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Peacock O, Limvorapitak T, Bednarski BK, Kaur H, Taggart MW, Dasari A, Holliday EB, Minsky BD, You YN, Chang GJ. Robotic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: a Western perspective. Colorectal Dis 2020; 22:2049-2056. [PMID: 32892473 DOI: 10.1111/codi.15350] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2020] [Revised: 08/06/2020] [Accepted: 08/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
AIM There are limited outcome data for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), particularly in the West. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic LPLND at a single cancer centre. METHOD A retrospective analysis of a prospective database of consecutive patients undergoing robotic LPLND for rectal cancer between November 2012 and February 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were short-term perioperative and oncological outcomes. Major morbidity was defined as Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or above. RESULTS Forty patients underwent robotic LPLND during the study period. The mean age was 54 years (SD ± 15 years) and 13 (31.0%) were female. The median body mass index was 28.6 kg/m2 (IQR 25.5-32.6 kg/m2 ). Neoadjuvant CRT was performed in all patients. Resection of the primary rectal cancer and concurrent LPLND occurred in 36 (90.0%) patients, whilst the remaining 4 (10.0%) patients had subsequent LPLND after prior rectal resection. The median operating time was 420 min (IQR 313-540 min), estimated blood loss was 150 ml (IQR 55-200 ml) and length of hospital stay was 4 days (IQR 3-6 days). The major morbidity rate was 10.0% (n = 4). The median lymph node harvest from the LPLND was 6 (IQR 3-9) and 13 (32.5%) patients had one or more positive LPLNs. The median follow-up was 16 months (IQR 5-33 months), with 1 (2.5%) local central recurrence and 7 (17.5%) patients developing distant disease, resulting in 3 (7.5%) deaths. CONCLUSION Robotic LPLND for rectal cancer can be performed in Western patients to completely resect extra-mesorectal LPLNs and is associated with acceptable perioperative morbidity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O Peacock
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - T Limvorapitak
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - B K Bednarski
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - H Kaur
- Department of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - M W Taggart
- Department of Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - A Dasari
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - E B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - B D Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Y N You
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - G J Chang
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Moningi S, Abi Jaoude J, Kouzy R, Lin D, Nguyen ND, Garcia Garcia CJ, Phan JL, Avila S, Smani D, Cazacu IM, Singh BS, Smith GL, Holliday EB, Koay EJ, Das P, Bhutani MS, Herman JM, Minsky BD, Koong AC, Taniguchi CM. Impact of Fiducial Marker Placement Before Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 2020; 6:100621. [PMID: 33912734 PMCID: PMC8071717 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2020] [Revised: 11/03/2020] [Accepted: 11/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Localized pancreatic cancer is commonly treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), which often requires the placement of fiducial markers. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with and without fiducial markers. Methods and Materials We retrospectively collected data on patients with pancreatic cancer treated with neoadjuvant SBRT at a single institution. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the placement of a fiducial marker. Local recurrence was the primary outcome. Time to event endpoints were analyzed using COX regression. Results We included 96 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: 46 patients (47.9%) did not have a fiducial marker, and 50 patients (52.1%) had a fiducial placed. Patients in the fiducial group were older and had more locally advanced pancreatic cancer compared with those who did not have a fiducial placed. Most patients in both groups (92.7%) received chemotherapy before SBRT treatment. SBRT was delivered to a median of 36 Gy over 5 fractions in the no-fiducial group, and 38 Gy over 5 fractions in the fiducial group. At a median follow-up of 20 months, local recurrence was similar irrespective of fiducial placement (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.3, P = .59). Furthermore, no difference in overall survival was noted between the 2 groups (aHR 0.8, 95% CI 0.3-1.9, P = .65). In patients who eventually underwent surgery post-SBRT, no difference in surgical margins (P = .40) or lymphovascular invasion (P = .76) was noted between the 2 groups. No patient developed acute pancreatitis after fiducial placement. Conclusions Our data suggest that the use of fiducial markers does not negatively affect clinical outcomes in patients with localized pancreatic cancer. Prospective confirmation of our results is still needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shalini Moningi
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Ramez Kouzy
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Daniel Lin
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | | | - Jae L Phan
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Santiago Avila
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Daniel Smani
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Irina M Cazacu
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ben S Singh
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Grace L Smith
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Emma B Holliday
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Eugene J Koay
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Prajnan Das
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Joseph M Herman
- Radiation Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Lake Success, New York
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Albert C Koong
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Peacock O, Limvorapitak T, Hu CY, Bednarski BK, Tillman MM, Kaur H, Taggart MW, Dasari A, Holliday EB, You YN, Chang GJ. Robotic rectal cancer surgery: comparative study of the impact of obesity on early outcomes. Br J Surg 2020; 107:1552-1557. [PMID: 32996597 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.12023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2020] [Accepted: 08/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) in obese versus non-obese patients. A total of 533 patients, of whom 161 were obese (30·2 per cent) underwent robotic proctectomy during the study interval. Patient obesity was not associated with adverse short-term clinical outcomes after robotic rectal cancer surgery. Indicated in the obese perhaps?
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O Peacock
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - T Limvorapitak
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - C-Y Hu
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - B K Bednarski
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - M M Tillman
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - H Kaur
- Department of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - M W Taggart
- Department of Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - A Dasari
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - E B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Y N You
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - G J Chang
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Ludmir EB, Fuller CD, Moningi S, Mainwaring W, Lin TA, Miller AB, Jethanandani A, Espinoza AF, Verma V, Smith BD, Smith GL, VanderWalde NA, Holliday EB, Guadagnolo BA, Stinchcombe TE, Jagsi R, Gomez DR, Minsky BD, Rödel C, Fokas E. Sex-Based Disparities Among Cancer Clinical Trial Participants. J Natl Cancer Inst 2020; 112:211-213. [PMID: 31350545 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2019] [Revised: 07/15/2019] [Accepted: 07/17/2019] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Landmark investigation two decades ago demonstrated sex-based disparities among participants in cancer cooperative group trials. Although federal efforts have aimed to improve representation of female patients in government-sponsored research, less is known about sex disparities in the broader landscape of modern oncologic randomized controlled trials. Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified randomized controlled trials related to colorectal or lung cancer (the two most common non-sex-specific disease sites). Among the 147 included trials, the proportion of female patients enrolled on trial was on average 6.8% (95% confidence interval = -8.8% to -4.9%) less than the proportion of female patients in the population by disease site (P < .001). Whereas no statistically significant underrepresentation of women was noted within the 26 cooperative group trials, sex disparities were markedly heightened for the 121 noncooperative-group-sponsored trials. Furthermore, underrepresentation of women did not improve with time. Future efforts should therefore focus on addressing these pervasive sex-based enrollment disparities beyond cooperative group trials alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ethan B Ludmir
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - C David Fuller
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Shalini Moningi
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Timothy A Lin
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.,Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | | | - Amit Jethanandani
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.,The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN
| | | | - Vivek Verma
- Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA
| | | | - Grace L Smith
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Emma B Holliday
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | - Daniel R Gomez
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.,Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Claus Rödel
- University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.,German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium, Frankfurt, Germany.,Frankfurt Cancer Institute, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Emmanouil Fokas
- University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.,German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium, Frankfurt, Germany.,Frankfurt Cancer Institute, Frankfurt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Wallington DG, Holliday EB. Preparing Patients for Sexual Dysfunction After Radiation for Anorectal Cancers: A Systematic Review. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 11:193-201. [PMID: 32777386 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.07.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2020] [Revised: 07/19/2020] [Accepted: 07/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Successful multimodality treatment of anorectal cancers has led to increased numbers of survivors who experience permanent, life-changing side effects of treatment. Little is known about sexual dysfunction (SD) in this population. The etiology of SD after anorectal cancer treatment is complex and multifactorial. However, pelvic radiation plays a significant negative role in anatomic, hormonal, and physiological aspects of sexual function. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Information was organized by key concepts useful for patient education, including (1) rates of SD after pelvic radiation for rectal cancer, (2) rates of SD after pelvic radiation for anal cancer, (3) mechanisms of SD and methods to reduce rates of SD, and (4) issues and opportunities related to patient education and discussion of SD after pelvic radiation. RESULTS SD after pelvic radiation for anorectal cancers is common in both men and women. Higher radiation doses may increase the risk for vaginal stenosis; however, it is unclear whether there are similar dose-volume relationships for men. Vaginal dilators and advanced radiation techniques can reduce the radiation dose to sexual organs at risk. Improvement is needed regarding counseling and education of patients about SD. CONCLUSIONS This review provides information from previously published studies that clinicians may use in their discussions with patients embarking on pelvic radiation for anorectal cancers. More modern, standardized, and complete data are needed to quantify the risk of SD after treatment. Some methods of sexual toxicity reduction have been studied, but further study into interventions aimed at treating postradiation sexual function are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David G Wallington
- School of Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Noticewala SS, Ludmir EB, Eng C, Holliday EB, Minsky BD, Morris VK, Das P. Anal cancer treatment regimen considerations for the COVID-19 era: In regard to Tchelebi et al. Radiother Oncol 2020; 151:56-57. [PMID: 32710989 PMCID: PMC7375313 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.07.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Sonal S Noticewala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
| | - Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
| | - Cathy Eng
- Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, United States
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
| | - Van K Morris
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Odei B, Das P, Pinnix C, Raval R, Holliday EB. Potential Implications of the New USMLE Step 1 Pass/Fail Format for Diversity Within Radiation Oncology. Adv Radiat Oncol 2020; 6:100524. [PMID: 33490722 PMCID: PMC7807134 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2020] [Revised: 06/25/2020] [Accepted: 07/06/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Bismarck Odei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, James Cancer Center and Solove Research Institute at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
- Corresponding author: Bismarck Odei, MD
| | - Prajnan Das
- Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Chelsea Pinnix
- Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Raju Raval
- Department of Radiation Oncology, James Cancer Center and Solove Research Institute at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Kouzy R, Abi Jaoude J, Lin D, El Alam MB, Minsky BD, Koay EJ, Das P, Holliday EB, Klopp AH, Colbert LE, Taniguchi CM. Patient-Reported GI Outcomes in Patients With Anal Cancer Receiving Modern Chemoradiation. JCO Oncol Pract 2020; 16:e1524-e1531. [PMID: 32609585 DOI: 10.1200/op.20.00122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Among patients with anal cancer, chemoradiotherapy is often associated with toxicities that diminish quality of life. We describe the GI-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients with anal cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy to improve patient-physician communication. METHODS We prospectively followed patients with nonmetastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal who received definitive chemoradiotherapy. Patients completed the bowel subdomain of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire before treatment and at 4 subsequent timepoints. We used the paired Wilcoxon test to compare EPIC scores at different times. RESULTS The study included 21 patients; median age was 57 years. Most patients (52%) had T2 and either N0 or N1 disease (81%). Most patients (91%) received chemotherapy with cisplatin-fluorouracil and either intensity-modulated radiotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy. Compared with the patients' median overall summary score at baseline (66), their median score at 1 week (82) was higher (P = .009), whereas their median score at 5 weeks (54) was lower (P = .025). The patients' median overall summary score at baseline and at 3 months did not differ (P = .919). Three months after radiotherapy, most patients reported minimal adverse effects compared with baseline. CONCLUSION The GI-related PROs of patients with anal cancer tend to fluctuate during radiotherapy but return to baseline by 3 months, at which time most patients report few or no residual adverse effects. We provide a clear timeline of GI acute toxicity using sequential PRO measurements that will improve patient-physician communication regarding expectations for cancer treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ramez Kouzy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Joseph Abi Jaoude
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Daniel Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Molly B El Alam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Eugene J Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Ann H Klopp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lauren E Colbert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Cullen M Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|