Background and Objective: The 30-day expected mortality rate is frequently used as a metric to determine which patients benefit from palliative radiation treatment (RT). We conducted a narrative review to examine whether its use as a metric might be appropriate for patient selection.Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify relevant studies that highlight the benefits of palliative RT in timely symptom management among patients with a poor performance status, the accuracy of predicting survival near the end of life and ways to speed up the process of RT administration through rapid response clinics.Key Content and Findings: Several trials have demonstrated substantial response rates for pain and/or bleeding by four weeks and sometimes within the first two weeks after RT. Models of patient survival have limited accuracy, particularly for predicting whether patients will die within the next 30 days. Dedicated Rapid Access Palliative RT (RAPRT) clinics, in which patients are assessed, simulated and treated on the same day, reduce the number of patient visits to the radiation oncology department and hence the burden on the patient as well as costs.^ ORCID: 0000-0001-7347-2461.Conclusions: Single-fraction palliative RT should be offered to eligible patients if they are able to attend treatment and could potentially benefit from symptom palliation, irrespective of predicted life expectancy.We discourage the routine use of the 30-day mortality as the only metric to decide whether to offer RT.More common implementation of RAPRT clinics could result in a significant benefit for patients of all life expectancies, but particularly those having short ones.
Background and purposeLocally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy merits an effective salvage strategy that mitigates the risk of adverse events. We report outcomes of a cohort enrolled across two institutions investigating MRI-guided tumor-targeted salvage high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT).Materials and methodsAnalysis of a prospective cohort of 88 patients treated across two institutions with MRI-guided salvage HDR-BT to visible local recurrence after radiotherapy (RT). Tumor target dose ranged from 22-26 Gy, using either an integrated boost (ibBT) or focal technique (fBT), delivered in two implants over a median of 7 days. Outcome metrics included cancer control and toxicity (CTCAE). Quality of life (QoL-EPIC) was analyzed in a subset.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 35 months (6 -134), 3 and 5-year failure-free survival (FFS) outcomes were 67% and 49%, respectively. At 5 years, fBT was associated with a 17% cumulative incidence of local failure (LF) outside the GTV (vs. 7.8% ibBT, p=0.14), while LF within the GTV occurred in 13% (vs. 16% ibBT, p=0.81). Predictors of LF outside fBT volumes included pre-salvage PSA>7 ng/mL (p=0.03) and interval since RT less than 5 years (p=0.04). No attributable grade 3 events occurred, and ibBT was associated with a higher rate of grade 2 toxicity (p<0.001), and trend towards a larger reduction in QoL sexual domain score (p=0.07), compared to fBT.ConclusionA tumor-targeted HDR-BT salvage approach achieved favorable cancer control outcomes. While a fBT was associated with less toxicity, it may be best suited to a subgroup with lower PSA at later recurrence. Tumor targeted dose escalation may be warranted.
e18873 Background: There is little data understanding the multi-disciplinary application of oligo-metastatic disease (OMD) treatment and decision-making. Through an anonymous survey, we sought to understand the knowledge gaps and challenges faced by physicians caring for cancer patients in deciphering and delivering treatments for patients with OMD. Methods: This was an IRB approved single institution quality improvement study conducted via an anonymous electronic survey. Three clinical cases of OMD that ranged from de-novo OMD to oligo-progressive disease, were presented to check participants’ comprehension of OMD. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize quantifiable information obtained from the survey. A qualitative approach was taken for the open-ended questions, in which the answers were reviewed by 2 independent readers and grouped together into common themes, and analyzed using sector and bar diagram, decision-tree method and sorted by prevalence. Results: The survey was answered by 70 clinicians (39 (56%) medical oncologists, 17 (24%) radiation oncologists, 5 (7%) surgeons, 9 (13%) from anatomical pathology/radiology/palliative care). The three clinical cases were correctly answered in 63%, 94% and 76%, respectively; of these, 76% to 84% would offer local treatment for each OMD scenario. Most (79%) perceived differences between local therapies (surgery, SBRT and RFA). Surgery was preferred to improve local control and overall survival, while SBRT was considered as being less invasive and more beneficial to patient quality of life. The definition of OMD was perceived by 94% as patients harboring 1-5 metastases. The main perceived challenges consist of lack of evidence in clinical and prospective trial data. Referrals are hindered as the goals and approach of OMD care are unclear. The most important determinant in deciding whether patients may benefit from OMD treatment is tumor histology and molecular profile. Conclusions: SBRT as a treatment of OMD emerged during an era of rapid expansion in systemic treatments and improvements in imaging techniques. Positive and negative trials in various histologies of cancer further added uncertainty on who would best benefit from OMD SBRT. As more radiation centres offer SBRT, the discordance in the outcome expectations from referring physicians, radiation oncologists and patients will need to be addressed to ensure that patients’ goals of care are met.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.