Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Bilateral Breast or Chest Wall and Comprehensive Nodal Irradiation for Synchronous Bilateral Breast Cancer: Initial Clinical Experience and Dosimetric Comparison

Purpose

Synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC) poses distinct challenges for radiation therapy planning. We report our proton therapy experience in treating patients with SBBC. We also provide a dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus photon therapy.

Methods and Materials

Patients with SBBC who received IMPT at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the breast or chest wall and comprehensive regional lymph nodes, including axilla, supraclavicular fossa, and the internal mammary chain. Intensity modulated proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated with the goal that 90% of the CTV would recieve at least 90% of the prescription dose (D90>=90%). Comparisons between modalities were made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Physician-reported acute toxic effects and photography were collected at baseline, end of treatment, and each follow-up visit.

Results

Between 2015 and 2018, 11 patients with SBBC were treated with IMPT. The prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The median CTV D90 was 99.9% for IMPT and 97.6% for VMAT (P = .001). The mean heart dose was 0.7 Gy versus 7.2 Gy (P = .001), the total lung mean dose was 7.8 Gy versus 17.3 Gy (P = .001), and the total lung volume recieving 20 Gy was 13.0% versus 27.4% (P = .001). The most common acute toxic effects were dermatitis (mostly grade 1-2 with 1 case of grade 3) and grade 1 to 2 fatigue. The most common toxic effects at the last-follow up (median, 32 months) were grade 1 skin hyperpigmentation, superficial fibrosis, and extremity lymphedema. No nondermatologic or nonfatigue adverse events of grade >1 were recorded.

Conclusions

Bilateral breast and/or chest wall and comprehensive nodal IMPT is technically feasible and associated with low rates of severe acute toxic effects. Treatment with IMPT offered improved target coverage and normal-tissue sparing compared with photon therapy. Long-term follow-up is ongoing to assess efficacy and toxic effects.

Female participation in U.S. oncology clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2020

85

Background: Females are thought to be underrepresented in clinical trials, which may lead to care disparities. We characterized female enrollment trends in U.S. oncology trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and identified features associated with accurate representation. Methods: We employed a cross-sectional study design with descriptive, logistic regression, and cox regression analyses. We downloaded 270,172 studies registered on the Aggregate Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov database from October 1, 2008 to March 9, 2020, excluding non-interventional and reproductive organ specific trials. We then applied cancer/oncology specific Medical Subject Heading terms and manually reviewed the remaining 27,521 trials for true oncology content. Prevalence-corrected estimates for female participation were calculated as the percentage of females among trial participants divided by the percentage of females in the disease population per U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data (participation to prevalence ratio [PPR]), with a range between 0.8 and 1.2 reflecting accurate female representation in the trial. Results: Of 26,894 trials meeting eligibility criteria, 9,059 trials were completed in the U.S., 2,499 trials reported completed study status, and only 1,256 trials reported sex. Among 1,256 oncology trials and 229,056 participants, overall female representation was 46.9% (95% CI, 45.4-48.4%). 43% of trials were industry funded, 29% academic, and 28% U.S. government. Females were underrepresented compared to their disease burden in anal canal (PPR 0.21), thyroid (PPR 0.57), stomach (PPR 0.68), kidney (PPR 0.77), and bone (PPR 0.79) cancer trials. They were accurately represented in head and neck (PPR 0.80), lung (PPR 0.84), bladder (PPR 0.85), skin (PPR 0.88), pancreas (PPR 0.88), colon (PPR 0.90), hematologic (PPR 0.91), liver (PPR 1.01), CNS (PPR 1.03), soft tissue (PPR 1.05), and esophagus (PPR 1.05) cancer trials. Accurate representation was significantly associated with industry funding and pancreas cancer trial focus, but not associated with trial type (medical, surgical, radiation, other invasive, other) (Table). Conclusions: Females are underrepresented compared to their disease burden in many solid tumor clinical trials. Stakeholders can look to industry funded and pancreas cancer trials as models of improvement, but must increase female representation in clinical trials to improve cancer care. [Table: see text]

Comparative Usability Study of a Newly Created Patient-Centered Tool and Medicare.gov Plan Finder to Help Medicare Beneficiaries Choose Prescription Drug Plans

Introduction:

In response to reported difficulties in selecting a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, we designed a patient-centered online Part D plan selection tool (CHOICE1.0) to simplify the selection process and to provide personalized, expert recommendations.

Methods:

This ethnographic comparative usability study observed 44 patients using the first version of the tool during Medicare 2016 Open Enrollment. Participants were observed as they chose their drug plan using Medicare.gov and 1 of 3 versions of CHOICE1.0 that varied in amount of expert guidance. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze exit survey data. The observations were video-recorded, and field notes were analyzed thematically.

Results:

Participants were significantly more satisfied with CHOICE1.0 for choosing a plan, understanding information, and ease of use compared to Medicare.gov. Those using expert versions of CHOICE1.0 were more likely to indicate their intention to switch plans than those using Medicare.gov, though they wanted to know the source and content.

Conclusion:

The more patient-centered prescription drug choice tool improved user experience and enabled users to choose plans more consistent with expert recommendations.