Podcasts about imrt

In this episode of the Dr. Geo Prostate Podcast, we welcome Dr. Jonathan Lischalk, Director of Genitourinary Cancers at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and former Medical Director at NYU's NYCyberKnife Center. Dr. Lischalk breaks down the evolution of radiation oncology and how cutting-edge imaging and targeted SBRT (Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy) are reshaping prostate cancer treatment.We explore how imaging advances like MRI and PSMA PET scans are enabling unprecedented precision, the future of genetic-based personalization in prostate cancer therapy, and why fewer, more focused radiation sessions might soon become the new standard. From understanding the biology of radiation dosing to upcoming trials eliminating ADT in select patients, this is a must-listen for anyone looking to stay informed on the forefront of cancer care.

Send us a textJoin us in this week as we discuss anal cancer with Dr Rebecca Muirhead.Based at Oxford University Hospital, Dr Muirhead has played a key role in the adoption of IMRT in anal cancer. She is part of the ACT and PLATO trial group and shares her insights from these trials with us.We discuss the principles of escalation and de-escalation in the PLATO trial to match the risk of the disease.Rebecca also very elegantly discusses the pros and cons of re-irradiation in anal cancer to try to regain control of anal caner symptoms in patients where cancer returns.Enjoy!

Check out this week's QuadCast as we highlight bone SBRT guidelines, best practice in the treatment of WHO grade II meningioma, frequency of partial breast IMRT treatment, and more. Check out the website and subscribe to the newsletter! www.quadshotnews.com Founders & Lead Authors: Laura Dover & Caleb Dulaney Podcast Host: Sam Marcrom

（解　説）東邦大学医療センター佐倉病院 病院長　鈴木啓悦氏 （ききて）葵会柏たなか病院糖尿病センター長　山内俊一氏　　

Check out the latest QuadCast where we interview Jason Efstathiou at the 2024 ASTRO Annual Meeting about his Plenary Session on the PARTIQoL trial, which is a first of its kind randomized trial of IMRT vs. Proton Therapy for localized prostate cancer. Don't miss it. @QuadShotNews@drjefstathiou@HarvardRadOnc@SamuelMarcromMD Check out the website and subscribe to the newsletter! www.quadshotnews.com Founders & Lead Authors: Laura Dover & Caleb Dulaney Podcast Host: Sam Marcrom

Editor in Chief Dr. Sue Yom co-hosts with Dr. Nicholas Zaorsky, an Associate Editor at the Journal and Associate Professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Case Western University Hospitals. We discuss three articles that are publishing rapid online for this meeting including Bladder Adjuvant RadioTherapy (BART): Acute and Late Toxicity from a Phase III Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial, with the Principal Investigator Dr. Vedang Murthy, Professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Tata Memorial Centre in Mumbai, and its accompanying editorial, Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Bladder Cancer: A Safe and Promising  Emerging Treatment Option, with first author Dr. Brian Baumann, Radiation Oncologist at Springfield Clinic in Illinois. Relevant to this discussion is a paper appearing in this month's issue, The Value and Safety of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy After Radical Cystectomy in Locally Advanced Urothelial Bladder Cancer: A Controlled Randomized Study and its accompanying editorial, Is It Time to Reconsider the Place of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy After Radical Cystectomy? Finally, our third rapid online paper is Setting the Stage: Feasibility and Baseline Characteristics in the Prostate Advanced Radiation Technologies Investigating Quality of Life (PARTIQoL) Trial Comparing Proton Therapy vs. IMRT for Localized Prostate Cancer, with Principal Investigator Dr. Jason Efstathiou, Professor of Radiation Oncology at Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital.

Check out this week's QuadCast as we highlight the benefits or lack thereof for prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, the benefits of bone marrow sparing IMRT in cervical cancer, the best concurrent cisplatin dosing regimen for H&N cancer, and more. Check out the website and subscribe to the newsletter! www.quadshotnews.com Founders & Lead Authors: Laura Dover & Caleb Dulaney Podcast Host: Sam Marcrom

Check out this week's QuadCast as we highlight the role of radiation for macular degeneration, IMRT in soft tissue sarcoma, SABR for GYN malignancies, the ongoing underutilization of lung cancer screening, and more. Check out the website and subscribe to the newsletter! www.quadshotnews.com Founders & Lead Authors: Laura Dover & Caleb Dulaney Podcast Host: Sam Marcrom

In this episode of the IJGC podcast, Editor-in-Chief Dr. Pedro Ramirez is joined by Dr. Domenica Lorusso to discuss the KEYNOTE A18 clinical trial. Dr. Domenica Lorusso, MD, PhD, directs the Gynaecological Oncology Unit at Humanitas Hospital, Milan, and holds a Full Professorship in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Humanitas University, Rozzano, Milan. She has led/participated in approximately 250 phase I-IV clinical trials. Currently overseeing more than 60 studies as Principal Investigator, Dr. Lorusso also chairs the Clinical Trials Committee of the MITO Group. She serves on the Board of Directors of the GCIG and is an active member of ENGOT, where she chairs the Gynecological Cancer Academy. Additionally, she sits on the Board of Directors of the ESGO. With around 300 international oncology publications and contributions to national and international treatment guidelines, her primary objectives are to ensure optimal patient care, foster clinical research, and advance international collaborations and education in the field.   Highlights: - Concurrent chemoradiation plus brachiterapy represent the standard of care treatment in locally advanced cervical cancer providing up to 70% 5 years OS - Modern radiotherapy technique (IMRT and VMAT) has reported to further increase OS and reduce toxicity  - Immunotherapy has reported to increase OS in advanced or recurrent cervical cancer when compared to standard treatment - Immunotherapy in combination with concurrent high quality chemoradiation in the treatment of locally advanced high risk cervical cancer further increase PFS and OS with respect to standard chemoradiotherapy and should be considered the new standard of care - The combination appears manageable and no substanciad additional toxicity has been reported

“Of all the eight different pulmonary toxicities you and I have talked about over these two different podcasts, they're all very different etiologies and treatments. So, we went everywhere from infection and good stewardship with antibiotics to pulmonary GVHD to diffuse alveolar hemorrhage. And I think that's what's the hardest part for us as nurses. It's not just one thing that's causing it, and there's multiple different ways to treat these things,” Beth Sandy, MSN, CRNP, thoracic medical oncology nurse practitioner at the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia told Jaime Weimer, MSN, RN, AGCNS-BS, AOCNS®, manager of oncology nursing practice at ONS, during a conversation about pulmonary toxicities in cancer treatment. Music Credit: “Fireflies and Stardust” by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  Earn 0.5 contact hours of nursing continuing professional development (NCPD) by listening to the full recording and completing an evaluation at myoutcomes.ons.org by May 24, 2026. The planners and faculty for this episode have no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies to disclose. ONS is accredited as a provider of NCPD by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. Learning outcome: Learners will report an increase in knowledge related to pulmonary complications in people with cancer. Episode Notes  Complete this evaluation for free NCPD.  Oncology Nursing Podcast episodes: Episode 295: Cancer Symptom Management Basics: Pulmonary Embolism, Pneumonitis, and Pleural Effusion Episode 212: When Cancer Care Gets Complex: Those Other Oncologic Emergencies Episode 206: Graft-Versus-Host Disease: Biomarkers and Beyond Oncologic Emergencies 101 series ONS Voice articles: Pneumonitis With Immunotherapy Treatment The Case of the Post-Transplant Pulmonary Problem How Inhaled Cannabis May Contribute to Pulmonary Toxicity in Patients With Cancer ONS courses: Essentials in Oncologic Emergencies for the Advanced Practice Provider Oncologic Emergencies Treatment and Symptom Management—Oncology RN ONS books: Understanding and Managing Oncologic Emergencies: A Resource for Nurses (third edition) Clinical Manual for the Oncology Advanced Practice Nurse (fourth edition) Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing article: Influenza Adherence Tool Kit: Implementation and Evaluation Among Allogeneic Hematopoietic Transplantation Recipients Oncology Nursing Forum articles: Community Respiratory Virus Infection in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Recipients and Household Member Characteristics Emergence of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Multifactorial Model of Dyspnea in Patients With Cancer ONS Huddle Cards: Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Proton therapy Radiation Sepsis ONS Guidelines™ and Symptom Interventions: Dyspnea American Cancer Society patient resources: Shortness of Breath Infections in People With Cancer American Lung Association To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities. To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast Club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org. Highlights From This Episode “[Intensity-modulated radiation therapy] is a type of radiation that can really take into account certain movements. And this is particularly important with the lungs, because we can't necessarily have patients hold their breath for a long period of time, so the chest rises and falls and the heart beats while you're trying to do radiation to the lungs. So with IMRT, they can simulate that, so that the beam is going to follow that specific movement in that patient. That's really helpful because then, hopefully, we're going to keep that radiation dose mostly on cancer tissue and not on healthy tissue. And thus, that should reduce the amount of radiation that's to the healthy tissue and hopefully reduce pneumonitis.” TS 3:44 “Proton beam radiation is something that we've described in the past as radiation that will typically have an entrance dose but not an exit dose, so minimizing toxicity by hopefully around 50%. … If you're doing proton beam therapy, that radiation is designed to only have an entrance dose from either the back or the front or the side, whichever way they're going, but then hopefully stop on a dime at that tumor so that they're only really getting the entrance dose of that radiation. … So in turn, especially if you're doing that to the lungs, that should minimize dose of radiation to healthy lung tissue.” TS 5:03 “If they're having a fever, low blood count, thick ugly mucus, this often, typically can be infection as well. And then get a chest x-ray because, a lot of times I've been saying for a lot of these things, we need a CT scan to see this. Actually, infection is probably best noted on a chest x-ray because this is something that will consolidate.” TS 18:58 “[Tumors] may be directly invading a vessel. They may directly be invading the bronchus where there's a lot of capillaries or there's a lot of blood vessels that can break and then cause them to cough up blood. You can have tumors or prior treatment that then cause a bronchial fistula that then can cause bleeding. Patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung are much more likely to have hemoptysis and pulmonary hemorrhage than patients with adenocarcinoma, though it definitely can happen with adenocarcinoma as well.” TS 22:00 “One of the best treatments for tumor-direct hemorrhage is radiation. This is where radiation can be very helpful for these patients. It's one of the first things that we do. We're going to go in with radiation, shrink that tumor really fast to get it away from those vessels, so patients stop bleeding.” TS 27:17

A new paper in the Journal of Clinical Oncology is reporting that the bowel and urinary side-effects of proton therapy (a high tech and very expensive type of radiotherapy), are no better than side-effects after standard high-quality radiotherapy (called IMRT). Quite a fuss on twitter when this paper came on line last week including from a fair few urologists, one of whom described proton therapy for prostate cancer as "a black eye for American healthcare"! (Thanks Scott!). We chat with lead author Dr James Yu (Hartford, USA), and favourite GU Cast radiation oncologist Prof Shankar Siva to make sense of it all. And what does this mean for proton therapy in places like Australia who currently have no proton therapy facility.Even better on our YouTube channel  Links: JCO paper 

Drs. Neeraj Agarwal and Todd Morgan discuss CONTACT-02, KEYNOTE-564, CheckMate-67T, and other notable studies featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, as well as additional key abstracts in prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers that will significantly influence clinical practice. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and professor of medicine at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, and editor-in-chief of ASCO Daily News. Today, we'll be discussing practice-changing abstracts and other key advances in GU oncology featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Todd Morgan, the chair of this year's ASCO GU. Dr. Morgan is a urologic surgeon, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, and a professor of urology at the University of Michigan. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and the disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found at asco.org/DNpod. Todd, thank you for joining us today. Dr. Todd Morgan: Thanks so much, Neeraj. It's an honor to be here and I'm just thrilled to be able to do this with you. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you. So, the GU meeting showcased significant advancements across the spectrum of GU malignancies. Can you tell us about the hot topics that captured the headlines this year? What did you find exciting this year at the ASCO GU Symposium? Dr. Todd Morgan: The theme of this year's meeting was "20 Years of Advancing Science and Transforming Patient Care," and this reflected ASCO GU's incredible milestone in GU cancer research over the last 2 decades. We were thrilled to welcome over 5,200 attendees from over 70 countries, and, believe it or not, there were more than 875 abstract submissions, compared to more than 300 in the meeting's first year. Most of the participants were present in person and that was fantastic. It enabled great networking opportunities and opportunities for experts, trainees, and mentees to exchange knowledge and ideas. Without a doubt, ASCO GU remains the annual meeting in our field, and it's amazing to hear the breadth and depth of the state-of-the-art science that's presented at this meeting, and so much of it impacts patient care the second that you return home. Additionally, the meeting's focus on diversity and interactivity, networking, multidisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-based care were absolutely phenomenal from my standpoint. We had a lunch session for women's networking that was a huge success—the first time we've done that. The keynote lecture by Dr. Cheryl Lee that talked about ensuring adequate representation in clinical trials was a huge hit, and we had tremendous positive feedback from that lecture. There were also multiple featured sessions on different diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in localized, recurrent, and advanced GU cancers. And, Neeraj, my personal favorite during the symposium is always the Trainee and Early-Career Networking Luncheon on the first day and then the additional networking luncheons on the 2 following days. I had great conversations with a ton of trainees and junior faculty, and I feel so fortunate for the opportunity to get to know the future superstars in our field. So I'd like to kick it back to you for a second because the first day started with a focus on prostate cancer and some of the key clinical trials. A great example is Abstract 17, which was the second oral presentation delivered, and really congratulations to you, Neeraj, on sharing the exciting data from the CONTACT-02 trial which we were eagerly awaiting. And I'd love to get your thoughts on the data that you presented. Could you tell us more about that trial? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Todd, I agree with you. It was such an exciting conference overall, and thank you for your leadership of this conference. So let's talk about the CONTACT-02 trial. It was a phase 3 randomized trial assessing the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab versus a second NHT in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after progression on one NHT. This patient population had to have extrapelvic soft tissue metastases, which could be liver metastases, lung metastases, or lymph nodal metastases, and about up to a quarter of patients had liver metastases. And overall, this was a high-risk patient population which was randomized to, as I said, cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus a second line NHT. And these patients had received a prior NHT, mostly in the mCRPC setting.  The co- or dual primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). And a unique thing was that PFS was assessed only by RECIST 1.1 because, as per our discussions with regulatory authorities, the trial was focused on soft tissue metastases because of questions in the past that cabozantinib can affect bone lesions in an artifactual fashion, possibly concerns. That's why the PCWG 3 criteria were not used as the primary endpoint, but, of course, indeed used as another key endpoint, so we have information on both. Anyway, coming back to the endpoint 1:1 randomization. The randomization was stratified by presence or absence of liver metastases, prior docetaxel chemotherapy, and the setting in which NHT was given (mCSPC or CRPC). The PFS or primary endpoint was significantly improved with a 35% reduction in risk of progression or death with the cabozantinib-atezolizumab combination versus second NHT. And there was a trend for overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.79 favoring the cabozantinib-atezolizumab combination. Interestingly, all subgroups benefitted, regardless of age, region, site of metastases, but we decided to choose three clinical subgroups of interest such as patients with liver metastases, patients with prior docetaxel chemotherapy in the castration-sensitive setting, and bone metastases, and all these subgroups seemed to be benefitting with the strongest signal in the liver metastasis subgroup, with a 57% reduction in risk of progression or death, which I would argue we have never seen with any combination or any regimen in the metastatic prostate cancer setting yet, barring some targeted therapies in very selected patients. But overall, across the non-biomarker-selected patients, we have never seen this kind of signal. Toxicity — no discussion is complete without discussing toxicity, so I would like to highlight that. Safety signal — there were no new safety signals. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension in 7%, anemia in 6%, which were similar in both arms, and, of course, diarrhea and fatigue in 4% each. And if we look at the secondary endpoints, such as time to chemotherapy and time to symptomatic skeletal events, they tended to favor the cabozantinib-atezolizumab. To sum it up, cabozantinib-atezolizumab showed a significant PFS benefit, with a 35% reduction in risk of progression or death, with a trend for overall survival in this patient population with an unmet need. So thank you so much, Todd, for allowing me to summarize the results of this trial. Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, wow. That's so impressive, and not surprising that you could so fluidly go right through all that data. Amazing. We heard some discussion of the NHT control arm in this trial. Could you discuss that for a bit? Because it obviously has implications on the similar control arm of other ongoing trials in this setting. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely. Pretty much all trials, every trial which has recently been reported or started in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer have a similar second NHT arm. Whether there were multiple immunotherapy trials which we have just reported, or new trials which are starting or just started enrolling patients. And the reason for that is no randomized trial has ever shown superiority of docetaxel chemotherapy over a second NHT after failure of prior NHT in the mCRPC setting. That's number one. If you look at NHT as a control, it is accepted by health authorities globally with multiple recent trials which are just starting also having NHDR and it would not have been possible without the approval of global regulatory authorities across the world.  Then, if you look at the recently reported trial in the mCRPC setting with prior treatment with an NHT, there is an indication that chemotherapy may not be superior to NHT. For example, in the KEYNOTE-641 trial in patients with mCRPC with prior NHT, randomizing patients to enzalutamide plus pembrolizumab versus enzalutamide, the median PFS with enzalutamide was 9 months. This is very similar with docetaxel in patients randomized to docetaxel plus pembrolizumab versus docetaxel; the median PFS with docetaxel is 8 months or 8.3 months. And lastly, if you really want to have a comparison of chemotherapy with NHT which has been done after progression on NHT and docetaxel chemotherapy, so later line of mCRPC setting, that is the CARD trial, as you can imagine, cabazitaxel versus NHT, especially in patients with visceral metastasis, which was the point of discussion. For example, people may not feel comfortable randomizing patients to NHT compared to taxane. The hazard ratio for PFS supporting cabazitaxel was 0.79, so almost a 0.80 PFS hazard ratio, which we have never seen turning out to be a clinically significant benefit. So, if you combine all these data together, I think it was absolutely acceptable to us as investigators to have a second NHT as the control arm. And of course, when we are consenting the patient, we have to keep alternatives in mind, and we do talk about those alternatives with the patients. And if alternatives seem more applicable, we should not be talking to patients about those clinical trials or a given clinical trial in the clinic. I'm glad you brought this up, Todd, because this control NHT arm is not an issue with this trial, but all trials which should be presented in GU ASCO in the future meetings in the coming years. So, thank you. Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, thank you. It's such an important topic and controversy at some level, but it's a difficult problem to think about and obviously highly relevant to all the trials that we're looking at. Congrats again on that trial, that's tremendous. There was another important randomized phase 3 trial and it covers radiotherapy in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Can you give us your insights on that one? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yeah, Todd, I think you are referring to LBA259, titled "Long-term Results of Dose Escalation of Radiation Therapy from 70 Gy to 80 Gy Combined with Long-term Androgen Deprivation Therapy in High-risk Prostate Cancer: The GETUG-AFU 18 Randomized Trial." As you mentioned, in this randomized phase 3 trial, Dr. Christophe Hennequin and colleagues randomized patients with high-risk prostate cancer, which means they had to have either clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, or PSA ≥20 nanograms per milliliter, or a Gleason score between 8 and 10. These patients were randomized to receive ADT for 3 years combined with either dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy. So, I'd like to highlight, this was in the context of IMRT in the dose of 80 Gy or a conventional dose of 70 Gy. Now, you can argue that more people are using more than 70 Gy nowadays, but across the world, the conventional dose is still considered 70 Gy. So, 80 Gy versus 70 Gy were tested. Patients also had to have negative lymph node status on CT scans and MRI. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival or clinical progression-free survival at 5 years following the ASTRO Phoenix definition. Secondary endpoints – and these are quite important secondary endpoints – include overall survival, acute and late toxicity, and quality of life. The best part is that this trial met its primary endpoint with a 44% reduction in risk of biochemical or clinical progression or death in the dose-escalation radiotherapy arm compared with the conventional radiotherapy arm. Interestingly, a significant 52% improvement in prostate cancer-specific survival and a 39% improvement in overall survival was observed in the dose-escalated arm. So, 80 Gy continued to be superior to 70 Gy IMRT across the primary and secondary endpoints. Now, the best part is, regarding the toxicity profile, there was no significant difference between the 2 arms, with 78% of patients in the higher dose arm and 76% of patients in the conventional arm experiencing grade 2 or more toxicities. Dr. Todd Morgan: Great summary and really important, great news for our patients. Of course, it's a slightly different setting as it's high-risk localized prostate cancer. I checked in with our radiation oncologists at the University of Michigan after that [presentation] because I couldn't remember exactly where we are in terms of dose on these patients. And they were like, “Yeah, we've been doing 80 to 90 Gy for several years,” so it's great having this data to support that. And I think, as you said, the field at many centers has already moved that way. And again, the key takeaway from this abstract would be that IMRT, in combination with long-term androgen deprivation therapy, is effective and safe and increases not only the biochemical or clinical PFS rate, but also the cancer-specific survival and overall survival, again, in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients. And it does not appear to increase long-term toxicity. So really important. It'd be great to switch gears and discuss kidney cancer, if that's okay, and talk about some key abstracts in that field. What do you think? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: There were so many exciting data in all cancers, which is amazing. So, Todd, could tell us about the LBA359, which I thought was one of the most impactful abstract presentations in the ASCO GU this year. It was titled, “Overall Survival Results from the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 Study of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo for Treatment of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC)."   Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, this was a really big moment in our field, complete with a mid-presentation round of applause that was well deserved. And so this abstract was presented by Dr. Toni Choueiri from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and it included patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at intermediate high or high risk of recurrence, meaning that they had positive nodal disease or negative nodal disease with PT 2 and grade 4, or sarcomatoid features, or stage PT 3 or 4. These patients underwent nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy less than 12 weeks before randomization and had not received prior systemic therapy for clear cell RCC. Patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 milligrams or placebo IV every three weeks for at least 17 cycles, or until disease recurrence, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Disease-free survival by investigator assessment was the primary endpoint, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. In this abstract, Dr. Choueiri and colleagues report results of the third prespecified interim analysis with a median follow-up of around 57 months in 496 patients receiving pembrolizumab and 498 patients receiving placebo. So, just as a reminder to the audience here, the first interim analysis reported at a median follow-up of 24 months and showed a significant reduction of 32% in the risk to recurrence or death in patients in the pembrolizumab arm. Then subsequently in November of 2021, the FDA approved pembrolizumab for the adjuvant treatment of patients with RCC who are at intermediate high or high risk of recurrence following nephrectomy or following nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions. At that time, though, overall survival data were still immature. So, at the third prespecified interim analysis with a median follow-up of around 57 months, pembrolizumab showed, for the first time in an adjuvant RCC setting, improved overall survival with a 38% reduction in the risk of death. The estimated OS rate at 48 months was 91.2% with pembrolizumab and 86% with placebo. Furthermore, the OS benefit was observed across key subgroups, including patients with non-metastatic disease, patients with metastatic but no evidence of disease, patients with PDL-1 combined positive score less than or greater than or equal to one, and patients with presence or absence of sarcomatoid features. In each of these subgroups, the forest plot looks really impressive. And the DFS benefit was similar to previously reported interim analyses with a hazard ratio of 0.72. Also, no new safety signals with pembrolizumab were observed so just tremendous data. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Todd, for such a great summary of these very important results. So the key message from this abstract, as you said, is that after a median follow-up of around 57 months, which is a long follow-up, adjuvant pembrolizumab demonstrates a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival versus placebo in patients with RCC at high risk of disease recurrence after surgery. And this is, by the way, the first phase 3 study to show improved overall survival with any adjuvant therapy in RCC. Basically, this means we should continue to use adjuvant pembrolizumab or at least bring it up in our discussion with our patients who are in a similar situation with high-risk RCC after surgery. So this is great news overall. Todd, there was another kidney cancer abstract, LBA360, which compared, interestingly, subcutaneous nivolumab with intravenous nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Could you please give us your insight about this abstract?   Dr. Todd Morgan: Sure. Really interesting study. Really interesting data that were presented. So as you mentioned, CheckMate 67T was a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase three study led by Dr. Saby George and colleagues that evaluated pharmacokinetics and objective response rate non-inferiority of subcutaneous nivolumab versus IV nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC. So patients with measurable disease that progressed during or after 1 to 2 prior systemic regimens and who did not receive a prior immuno-oncology treatment were randomized 1-1 to receive either subcutaneous nivolumab 1200 milligrams every 4 weeks or IV nivolumab 3 milligrams per kilogram every two weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, completion of two years of treatment, or death. The coprimary pharmacokinetics endpoints for non-inferiority testing were time-average serum concentration over the first 28 days and minimum serum concentration at steady state determined by a population pharmacokinetics analysis. A key secondary endpoint was objective response rate by independent review. So in 248 patients receiving subcutaneous nivolumab and 247 patients receiving IV nivolumab, non-inferiority for the coprimary pharmacokinetics and key-powered secondary objective response rate endpoints were met. The relative risk ratio for objective response rate was 1.33. The median PFS by independent review was 7.23 months in the subcutaneous group and 5.65 months in the IV group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 6.5% of patients in each group, and study drug toxicity led to 3 deaths in the subcutaneous group and 1 death in the IV group. These results could support using subcutaneous nivolumab as a new option to improve healthcare efficiency, especially since the average injection time with subcutaneous nivolumab was less than 5 minutes. I think we all know what issues are going on in infusion beds across the country, including, I'm sure, your center and mine. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, absolutely. I think this is great news for our patients, Todd. Thank you. This shows that we are not only improving therapeutic options and diagnostic tools, but maybe we're also on the right track towards more practical administration routes, assisting in addressing the treatment burden and improving the efficiencies of healthcare systems. We love to have this option available for our patients, especially those who are pressed for time. So, Todd, would you like to move on to bladder cancer now?  Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, Neeraj, that'll be fantastic. I'm sure listeners would love to hear more about LBA530. Could you tell us more about this one, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course. I think this abstract is titled "Enfortumab Vedotin in Combination with Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Subgroup Analysis Results from EV-302," which was a global phase three study and was presented by Dr. Michiel Van Der Heijden. As our audience may recall, the EV-302 trial was presented at the ESMO 2023 meeting by Dr Tom Powles and the results were very exciting where, for the first time, a combination outperformed traditional gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy. In this trial, patients with previously untreated with metastatic advanced urothelial carcinoma were randomized 1-1 to receive a 3-week cycle of a combination of enfortumab vedotin, which, as we know, is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting nectin-4 expressed on the cancer cells and pembrolizumab, which is a PD-1 inhibitor, versus gemcitabine and cisplatin or carboplatin, which were, until recently, the standard of care in this setting, and continue to be so in many countries in the world. The combination of enfortumab and pembrolizumab reduced the risk of progression or death by 55% and reduced the risk of death by 53% in the overall population. So consistent decrease in the hazard ratios for PFS and OS, and consistent improvement in overall survival and PFS in that previously reported presentation in the ESMO 2023. Now, based on these results, this combination was recently approved by the FDA in December 2023 for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. So now the abstract, which was presented at the ASCO GU 2024 meeting, reported the results of a prespecified subgroup analysis. Select secondary endpoints included objective responses, duration of response, and safety. In 442 patients receiving the combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab, and a similar number of patients receiving chemotherapy both PFS and OS were higher for the combination of EV and pembro among prespecified subgroups such as race, platinum eligibility, PDL-1 expression, metastatic site, involvement of the liver or kidney function. Interestingly, the combination of EV and pembro reduced the risk of death by 53% in patients with visceral metastasis and 54% in patients with node-only metastasis. The improvement in PFS seems to be consistent regardless of the site of metastasis. In patients with moderate to severe renal function, the risk of death was reduced by 50% in patients receiving combination therapy. This is one of the best findings of these results because we always face challenges in treating patients with suboptimal kidney function and we cannot use cisplatin. Overall, EV plus pembro continues to show superior efficacy compared to platinum-based regimens across subgroups across the subgroups across the site of metastasis regardless of kidney function and so on. Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, just amazing data. I love hearing you spell it out like that. So, thank you again for the opportunity for me to sit here with you and listen to you talk about these data. It's impressive that we have been able to expand our therapeutic arsenal for urothelial carcinoma with an immune-targeting regimen that can spare our patients potential side effects of chemotherapy. What would your final takeaway on this abstract be? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I agree with you, Todd. I would add that the OS benefit was consistently observed across these select prespecified subgroups, including those historically associated with poor prognosis. The results of this new analysis support the finding of primary results, which indicate that EV plus pembro is a potentially new standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed, locally advanced, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Before we wrap up the bladder cancer session and the podcast, Todd, could you please give us insights about LBA531? Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, absolutely. I loved getting to hear this abstract presented. This one is titled “Ambassador,” known as the AMBASSADOR trial aligns A031501, a phase 3 randomized adjuvant study of pembrolizumab in muscle-invasive and locally advanced urothelial carcinoma versus observation, that was presented by Dr. Andrea Apolo. It's an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial that included patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, upper tract, or urethra. Eligible patients had pathologic tumor stage T2 or greater and/or positive pathologic nodal disease or positive margins at surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or patients with pathologic tumor stage T3 or greater and/or positive pathologic nodal disease or positive margins at surgery without prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who were cisplatin ineligible or declined adjuvant cisplatin-based therapy. These patients were randomized one to one to either receive pembrolizumab 200 milligrams every 3 weeks for 1 year or observation. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival and overall survival. Secondary objectives included evaluation of DFS and OS in PDL-1 positive and negative patients and assessing safety. A total of 354 patients were enrolled to receive pembrolizumab and 348 to the observation arm, and 21% of the patients in the observation arm received a subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months for DFS, the median disease-free survival in the pembrolizumab arm was 29 months, while it was only 14 months in the observation arm with a hazard ratio of 0.69. At the interim analysis, OS data showed only a trend toward better outcomes in the pembrolizumab arm, which did not, however, reach statistical significance, with a median of 50.9 months in the pembrolizumab arm and 55.8 months in the observation arm with a hazard ratio of 0.98. These results could nevertheless have been impacted by the subsequent treatment of patients in the observation arm with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, especially after the FDA approval of nivolumab in 2021 for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma, based on results of the CheckMate 274 trial. In terms of the safety profile, grade three or more adverse events occurred in 48.4% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm and 31.8% of patients in the observation arm. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: That's great, Todd. This is such a great summary of this trial, and this is exciting news for our patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. I'm hoping that pembrolizumab will be another option for our patients when we are discussing adjuvant immunotherapy in the clinic, moving forward very soon. With that, we have covered several abstracts addressing prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, significantly influencing our medical practices, at least at the current moment or in the near future. Todd, thank you for sharing your insights today. These are undoubtedly exciting updates for all members of the GU oncology community, and we are grateful for your valuable contribution to the discussion. Many thanks. Dr. Todd Morgan: Thanks, for having me, Neeraj; this was really fun. I'm just really proud and excited to still be part of this field, to be part of the GU oncology field, and it continues to be exciting for all the folks who are coming up. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Indeed. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you very much.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers:   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal @neerajaiims   Dr. Todd Morgan @wandering_gu   Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:    Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:    Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences    Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas   Dr. Todd Morgan: Consulting or Advisory Role: Myriad Genetics, MDxHealth, TerumoBCT Research Funding (Institution): Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Defence, GenomeDX Biosciences, Myriad Genetics, MDxHealth  

SHOW NOTES 0:55 - Contextual introduction for this episode's unique features 3:20 – Sample DJ clips 4:15 – Guest introduction 5:05 – Cancer, voice change, a long stint behind the high school football stadium game night microphone 6:00 – Rick starts his three-decades of announcing Friday night home games 7:55 – Son Rowdy follows Dad Rick at the football field 8:45 – Family members want to hear the players' names 10:30 – Daughter Grace, a performance from the (very) early years 12:00 – David (Reynolds) stands in for Brad Pitt 13:25 – Wife Margaret makes a huge difference in the community 15:55 – The story behind Be Nice to Grace Day 21:05 – Jeanne Burr (and Walter Hooper) as a catalyst for Rick on the air for the first time (at age 17) 24:45 – Listening to Chicago's AM station WLS 27:00 – John Records Landecker 30:00 – A lesson learned about making others feel important 32:24 – Interviewing Garth Brooks 33:40 – The first time cancer rears its head 39:30 – Focused radiation, bolted to the table, and a special mask 43:10 – Jimmy Buffet embedded in a family tradition 44:40 – Cancer reappears – in a new location 46:00 – Friend Amy's powerful question 46:40 – God's gameplan for Rick 49:45 – Lydia, a face from the past, and a new connection for the future 52:35 – High school reunion delays 54:10 – Living in a small town, great friends, great community 58:00 – Sharing one's story to give others hope 59:40 – A lesson Rick wants us to hear 1:04:40 – One of many similar stories of good fortune – Running out of gas on I-75 North 1:07:00 – A mini-facelift's role in the past twenty years of Rick's life 1:07:50 – The most recent doctor's visit and current prognosis 1:09:40 – The unexpected result of Rick losing his voice  LINKS:Instagram: @therickontheradioJohn Records LandeckerEmory Proton CenterRowdy Zeisig, the new Dalton High School football announcerJeanne BurrDunaway Drug StoreBeaulieu's beginningJimmy Buffet's 'Twas the Night Before ChristmasMusic for Lead. Learn. Change. is Sweet Adrenaline by Delicate BeatsPodcast cover art is a view from Brunnkogel (mountaintop) over the mountains of the Salzkammergut in Austria, courtesy of photographer Simon Berger, published on www.unsplash.com.Professional Association of Georgia EducatorsDavid's LinkedIn page 

On this episode of Oncology Unscripted, patient advocates Julie Johnson and Katie Coleman and radiation oncologist Dr. Matt Spraker continue The Insider's Guide to Radiation Therapy! Here are the figures/graphics we referenced during the show:The first figure we discussed, demonstrating the Bragg Peak and the difference between proton and photon (x-ray) beams. The second figure we discussed, comparing 3D photon (x-ray) radiation, intensity modulated radiotherapy with photons (x-ray), passive scatter and intensity modulated proton therapy.Here are some other things we discussed during the show:Relative biological effectiveness in radiobiologyA video about "IMRT for proton therapy", or pencil beam scanning proton therapy, from manufacturer IBA.Brada review of proton evidence, questioning whether the US should open so many proton centers so quickly. Goitein and Cox response to Brada, arguing that the benefit of proton therapy is self-evident.Glatstein, Glick, Kaiser, and Hahn, arguing that trials are needed to prove the benefit of proton therapy.Liao et al., randomized phase II trial of proton versus photon (x-ray) radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.RTOG 1308, randomized phase III trial of proton versus photon (x-ray) radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Now filled, awaiting results!Lin et al., randomized phase IIB trial of proton versus photon (x-ray) radiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer.NRG GI-006, randomized phase III trial of proton versus photon (x-ray) radiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer, enrolling now!Oncology Unscripted is a Photon Media production. Intro and Outro music by Emmy-award winning artist Lucas Cantor Santiago.Additional content from Katie Coleman can be found at her website, https://www.katiekickscancer.com/. This show and our opinions are meant for general informational purposes and are not medical advice. We encourage you to reach out to your doctors to discuss your individual case. 

The Accelerators co-hosts Drs. Matt Spraker and Simul Parikh hang out over lunch and discuss a potpourri of #RadOnc current events! We cover ASTRO's ROCR policy proposal, Dr. Sameer Keole's ASTRO presidential campaign and engagement on Student Doctor Network, and the recent dysphagia optimized IMRT trial. Then, Simul hypothesizes about the future of radiation oncology under case rate payment models. We close with some more thoughts about proton therapy inspired by Dr. Mark Storey's latest piece.Here are a lot of links to things we discussed on the show:The Moto ROKR Accreditation Programs by the ACR, ACRO, and ASTROASTRO ROCR Policy Page Register for the ROCR Town Hall this Friday, July 21 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM ETWhat Big Medicine Can Learn from the Cheesecake Factory by Atul GawandeOut.Of.The.Basement with Beckta, MD: The Code Bundling Conundrum: A Medicare Misadventure (the saga of 77280-77290 and 77301)ASTRO Strategic PlanNutting et al., Dysphagia Optimized IMRTKamran et al., Esophagus-Sparing IMRTOncora.aiCommon Sense OncologyThe Accelerators Podcast: Mobilize the Canadians! A Workflow EpisodeProtons 101 by Mark Storey, MDPodcast art generously donated by Dr. Danielle Cunningham. Intro and Outro music by Emmy-award winning artist Lucas Cantor Santiago.The Accelerators Podcast is a Photon Media production. 

Check out the latest QuadCast where we highlight the new radiation oncology reimbursement model (ROCR) proposed by ASTRO, the role of AI in ADT predictions, dysphagia-optimized IMRT, and more.

In this episode of ASCO Educational podcasts, we'll explore how we interpret and integrate recently reported clinical research into practice. The first scenario involves a 72-year old man with high-risk, localized prostate cancer progressing to hormone-sensitive metastatic disease.  Our guests are Dr. Kriti Mittal (UMass Chan Medical School) and Dr. Jorge Garcia (Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine). Together they present the patient scenario (1:12), review research evidence regarding systemic and radiation therapy for high-risk localized disease (5:45), and reflect on the importance of genetic testing and (10:57) and considerations for treatment approaches at progression to metastatic disease (16:13).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. Kriti Mittal:  Honoraria – IntrinsiQ; Targeted Oncology; Medpage; Aptitude Health; Cardinal Health  Consulting or Advisory Role – Bayer; Aveo; Dendreon; Myovant; Fletcher; Curio Science; AVEO; Janssen; Dedham Group  Research Funding - Pfizer Dr. Jorge Garcia:  Honoraria - MJH Associates: Aptitude Health; Janssen Consulting or Advisor – Eisai; Targeted Oncology Research Funding – Merck; Pfizer; Orion Pharma GmbH; Janssen Oncology;  Genentech/Roche; Lilly  Other Relationship - FDA Resources  ASCO Article: Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019 ASCO Course: How Do I Integrate Metastasis-directed Therapy in Patients with Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer? (Free to Full and Allied ASCO Members) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Kriti Mittal: Hello and welcome to this episode of the ASCO Education Podcast. Today we'll explore how we interpret and integrate recently reported clinical research into practice, focusing on two clinical scenarios: localized prostate cancer progressing to hormone-sensitive metastatic disease; and a case of de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer progressing to castration-resistant disease.   My name is Kriti Mittal and I am the Medical Director of GU Oncology at the University of Massachusetts. I am delighted to co-host today's discussion with my colleague, Dr. Jorge Garcia. Dr. Garcia is a Professor of Medicine and Urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is also the George and Edith Richmond Distinguished Scientist chair and the current chair of the Solid Tumor Oncology Division at University Hospital's Seidman Cancer Center. Let me begin by presenting the first patient scenario.  Case 1: A 72-year-old male was referred to urology for evaluation of hematuria. A rectal exam revealed an enlarged prostate without any nodules. A CT urogram was performed that revealed an enlarged prostate with bladder trabeculations. A cystoscopy revealed no stones or tumors in the bladder, but the prostatic urethra appeared to be abnormal looking. Transurethral resection of the prostate was performed. The pathology revealed Gleason score 4+5=9 prostate cancer, involving 90% of the submitted tissue. PSA was performed one week later and was elevated at 50. Patient declined the option of radical prostatectomy and was referred to radiation and medical oncology.   So I guess the question at this point is, Dr. Garcia, in 2023, how do you stage patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer and how would you approach this case? Dr. Jorge Garcia: That's a great question and a great case, by the way, sort of what you and I in our practice will call ‘bread and butter'. Patients like this type of case that you just presented come from different places to our practice.  So either they come through urology or oftentimes they may come through radiation oncology. And certainly, it depends where you practice in the United States, at ‘X', US, they may come through medical oncology.   So I think that the first question that I have is in whatever role I'm playing in this case, where the patient has seen a urologist or a rad onc or me first, I think it's important for us in medical oncology, at least in the prostate cancer space, to talk about how do we think of their case and put those comments into context for the patient. It's very simple for you to tell a patient you can probably have surgery, radiation therapy, but at the end of the day, how do you counsel that patient as to the implications of the features of his disease is going to be really important. I use very simple examples that I relate to my patients, but really this patient is a patient that has very high-risk prostate cancer based upon the NCCN guidelines and how we actually stratify patients into what we call low-risk, intermediate-, and high-risk, and between those very low and very high risk.  So his PSA is high, very high, I would argue. His Gleason score, now, what we call group grading is high. He has high-volume disease. So the first question that I would have is, what are the choices for treatment for a patient like this? But even before you and I may talk about treatment options, we really want to understand the volume of their disease and whether or not they have localized prostate cancer with high-risk features or whether or not they have locally advanced or hopefully not metastatic disease. So back in the days prior to the FDA approval for PSMA PET imaging, we probably will have a Technetium-99 whole-body bone scan, and/or we probably will actually use CT scanning. Most people in the past, we used to do just a CT of the abdomen and pelvic region. As you know, with the movement of oral agents in the advanced setting, I think most of us will do a chest CT, abdomen and pelvic region, and certainly we also probably will have a Technetium-99 bone scan.  Now, with the utility and the use of PET imaging, I think most people like him will probably undergo PET PSMA, where you use F-18 PSMA or Gallium-68 PSMA. I think the importance depends on how you look at the approval of these two technologies. I think that PET PSMA imaging is here to stay. It's probably what most of us will use. And based upon that, we will define yet the truest stage of this patient. So right now, what we know is he has high-risk features. Hopefully, their disease is localized. We'll probably put the patient through an imaging technology. If you don't have access to a PET, then obviously CT and a bone scan will do. But if you do, the PET will actually help us define if the patient has disease outside of the prostate region, in the pelvic area, or even if they have distant metastases. Dr. Kriti Mittal: I would agree with that approach, Dr. Garcia. I think in the United States, we've been late adopters of PSMA scans. I think this patient with high-risk localized disease, if insurance allows at our institution, would get a PSMA for staging. There are still some patients where insurance companies, despite peer-to-peer evaluations, are not approving PSMAs. And in those situations, the patient would benefit from conventional CTs and a bone scan. So let's say this patient had a PSMA and was found not to have any regional or distant metastases. He decided against surgery, and he is seeing you as his medical oncologist together with radiation. What would your recommendations be?  Dr. Jorge Garcia: I think the bigger question is, do we have any data to suggest or to demonstrate that if in the absence of metastatic disease with conventional imaging or with emerging technologies such as PSMA PET, there is no evidence of distant disease, which I think you probably agree with me, that would be sort of unlikely with a patient with these features not to have some form of PSMA uptake somewhere in their body. But let's assume that indeed then the PSMA PET was negative, so we're really talking about high-risk localized prostate cancer. So I don't think we can tell a patient that radical prostatectomy would not be a standard of care. We never had a randomized trial comparing surgery against radiation therapy. This patient has already made that decision and surgery is not an option for him. If he, indeed, had elected radiotherapy, the three bigger questions that I ask myself are where are you going to aim the beam of that radiation therapy? What technology, dose, and fractionation are you going to use? And lastly, what sort of systemic therapy do you need, if any, for that matter? Where we do have some data maybe less controversial today in 2023 compared to the past? But I think the question is, do we do radiation to the prostate only or do we expand the field of that radiation to include the pelvic nodes?  Secondly, do we use IMRT? Do you use proton beam or not? Again, that's a big question that I think that opens up significant discussions. But more important, in my opinion, is the term of hypofractionation. I think the field of radiation oncology has shifted away from the old standard, five, seven weeks of radiation therapy to more hypofractionation, which in simple terms means a higher dose over a short period of time. And there was a concern in the past that when you give more radiation on a short period of time, toxicities or side effects would increase. And I think that there is plenty of data right now, very elegant data, demonstrated that hypofractionation is not worse with regards to side effects. I think most of us will be doing or supporting hypofractionation. And perhaps even to stretch that, the question now is of SBRT. Can we offer SBRT to a selected group of patients with high-risk prostate cancer? And again, those are discussions that we will naturally, I assume, in your practice, in your group, you probably also have along with radiation oncology.  Now, the bigger question, which in my mind is really not debatable today in the United States, is the need for systemic therapy. And I think we all will go back to the old data from the European EORTC data looking at the duration of androgen deprivation therapy. And I think most of us would suggest that at the very least, 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy is the standard of care for men with high-risk prostate cancer who elect to have local definitive radiation therapy as their modality of treatment. I think that whether or not it's 24 or 36, I think that the Canadian data looking at 18 months didn't hit the mark. But I think the radiation oncology community in the prostate cancer space probably has agreed that 24 months clinically is the right sort of the sweetest spot.  What I think is a bit different right now is whether or not these patients need treatment intensification. And we have now very elegant data from the British group and also from the French group, suggesting, in fact, that patients with very high-risk prostate cancer who don't have evidence of objective metastasis may, in fact, benefit from ADT plus one of the novel hormonal agents, in this case, the use of an adrenal biosynthesis inhibitor such as abiraterone acetate. So I think in my practice, what I would counsel this patient is to probably embark on radiotherapy as local definitive therapy and also to consider 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy. But I would, based upon his Gleason score of group grading, his high-volume disease in the prostate gland, and his PSA, to probably consider the use of the addition of abiraterone in that context. Dr. Kriti Mittal: That is in fact how this patient was offered treatment. The patient decided to proceed with radiation therapy with two years of androgen deprivation. And based on data from the multi-arm STAMPEDE platform, the patient met two of the following three high-risk features Gleason score >8, PSA >40, and clinical >T3 disease. He was offered two years of abiraterone therapy. Unfortunately, the patient chose to decline upfront intensification of therapy. In addition, given the diagnosis of high-risk localized prostate cancer, the patient was also referred to genetic counseling based on the current Philadelphia Consensus Conference guidelines. Germline testing should be considered in patients with high-risk localized node-positive or metastatic prostate cancer, regardless of their family history. In addition, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who have cribriform histology should also consider germline genetic testing.  Access to genetic counseling remains a challenge at several sites across the US, including ours. There is a growing need to educate urologists and medical oncologists to make them feel comfortable administering pretest counseling themselves and potentially ordering the test while waiting for the results and then referring patients who are found to have abnormalities for a formal genetics evaluation. In fact, the Philadelphia Consensus Conference Guideline offers a very elegant framework to help implement this workflow paradigm in clinical practice. And at our site, one of our fellows is actually using this as a research project so that patients don't have to wait months to be seen by genetics. This will have implications, as we will see later in this podcast, not only for this individual patient as we talk about the role of PARP inhibitors but also has implications for cascade testing and preventative cancer screening in the next of kin. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Dr. Mittal, I think that we cannot stress enough the importance of genetic testing for these patients. Oftentimes I think one of the challenges that our patients are facing is how they come into the system. If you come through urology, especially in the community side, what I have heard is that there are challenges trying to get to that genetic counsel. Not so much because you cannot do the test, but rather the interpretation of the testing and the downstream effect as you're describing the consequences of having a positive test and how you're going to counsel that patient. If you disregard the potential of you having an active agent based upon your genomic alteration, is the downstream of how your family may be impacted by a finding such as the DNA repair deficiency or something of that nature. So for us at major academic institutions because the flow how those patients come through us, and certainly the bigger utilization of multi-disciplinary clinics where we actually have more proximity with radiation oncology urology, and we actually maybe finesse those cases through the three teams more often than not, at least discuss them, then I think that's less likely to occur. But I think the bigger question is the timing of when we do testing and how we do it.  So there are two ways -- and I'd love to hear how you do it at your institution -- because there are two ways that I can think one can do that. The low-hanging fruit is you have tissue material from the biopsy specimen. So what you do, you actually use any of the commercial platforms to do genomic or next-generation sequencing or you can do in-house sequencing if your facility has an in-house lab that can do testing. And that only gets you to what we call ‘somatic testing', which is really epigenetic changes over time that are only found in abnormal cells. It may not tell you the entire story of that patient because you may be missing the potential of identifying a germline finding. So when you do that, did you do germline testing at the same time that you do somatic testing or did you start with one and then you send to genetic counseling and then they define who gets germline testing? Dr. Kriti Mittal: So at our site, we start with germline genetic testing. We use either blood testing or a cheek swab assay and we send the full 84-gene multigene panel. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Yeah, and I think for our audience, Dr. Mittal, that's great. I don't think you and I will be too draconian deciding which platform one uses. It's just that we want to make sure that at least you test those patients. And I think the importance of this is if you look at the New England Journal paper from many years ago, from the Pritchard data looking at the incidence of DNA repair deficiency in men with prostate cancer in North America, that was about what,  around 10% or so, take it or leave it. So if you were to look only for germline testing, you only will, in theory, capture around 10% of patients. But if you add somatic changes that are also impacting the DNA pathway, then you may add around 23%, 25% of patients. So we really are talking that if we only do one type of testing, we may be missing a significant proportion of patients who still may be candidates, maybe not for family counseling if you had a somatic change, rather than germline testing, the positivity, but if you do have somatic, then you can add into that equation the potential for that patient to embark on PARP inhibitors down the road as you stated earlier. It may not change how we think of the patient today, or the treatment for that matter. But you may allow to counsel that patient differently and may allow to sequence your treatments in a different way based upon the findings that you have. So I could not stress the importance of the NCCN guidelines and the importance of doing genetic testing for pretty much the vast majority of our patients with prostate cancer. Dr. Kriti Mittal: Going back to our patient, three years after completion of his therapy, the patient was noted to have a rising PSA. On surveillance testing, his PSA rose from 0.05 a few months prior to 12.2 at the time of his medical oncology appointment. He was also noted to have worsening low back pain. A PSMA scan was performed that was noteworthy for innumerable intensely PSMA avid osseous lesions throughout his axial and appendicular skeleton. The largest lesion involved the right acetabulum and the right ischium. Multiple additional sizable lesions were seen throughout the pelvis and spine without any evidence of pathologic fractures. So the question is, what do we do next? Dr. Jorge Garcia: The first question that I would have is, the patient completed ADT, right? So the patient did not have treatment intensification, but at the very least he got at least systemic therapy based upon the EORTC data. And therefore, one would predict that his outcome will have been improved compared to those patients who receive either no ADT or less time on ADT. But what I'm interested in understanding is his nadir PSA matters to me while he was on radiation and ADT. I would like to know if his nadir PSA was undetectable, that's one thing. If he was unable to achieve an undetectable PSA nadir, that would be a different thought process for me.   And secondly, before I can comment, I would like to know if you have access to his testosterone level. Because notably, what happens to patients like this maybe is that you will drive down testosterone while you get ADT, PSAs become undetectable. Any of us could assume that the undetectability is the result of the radiation therapy. But the true benefit of the combination of radiation and ADT in that context really comes to be seen when the patient has got off the ADT, has recovered testosterone, and only when your testosterone has normalized or is not castrated, then we'll know what happens with your serologic changes. If you rise your PSA while you recover testosterone, that is one makeup of patient. But if you rise your PSA while you have a testosterone at the castrated level, that would be a different makeup of a patient. So do we have a sense as to when the patient recovered testosterone and whether or not if his PSA rose after recovery?  Dr. Kriti Mittal: At the time his PSA rose to 12, his testosterone was 275. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Okay, perfect. You and I would call this patient castration-naive or castration-sensitive. I know that it's semantics. A lot of people struggle with the castration-naive and castration-sensitive state. What that means really to me, castration-naive is not necessarily that you have not seen ADT before. It's just that your cancer progression is dependent on the primary fuel that is feeding prostate cancer, in this case, testosterone or dihydrotestosterone, which is the active metabolite of testosterone. So in this case, recognizing the patient had a testosterone recovery and his biochemical recurrence, which is the rising of his PSA occur when you have recovery of testosterone, makes this patient castration-sensitive. Now the PET scan demonstrates now progression of his disease. So clearly he has a serologic progression, he has radiographic progression. I assume that the patient may have no symptoms, right, from his disease?  Dr. Kriti Mittal: This patient had some low back pain at the time of this visit. So I think we can conclude he has clinical progression as well. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Okay, so he had the triple progression, serologic, clinical, and radiographic progression. The first order of business for me would be to understand the volume of his disease and whether we use the US CHAARTED definition of high volume or low volume, or whether we use the French definition for high volume from Latitude, or whether we use STAMPEDE variation for definition, it does appear to me that this patient does have high-volume disease. Why? If you follow the French, it's a Gleason score of >8, more than three bone metastases, and the presence of visceral disease, and you need to have two out of the three. If you follow CHAARTED definition, we did not use Gleason scoring, the US definition. We only use either the presence of visceral metastases or the presence of more than four bone lesions, two of which had to be outside the appendicular skeleton. So if we were to follow either/or, this patient would be high-volume in nature.  So the standard of care for someone with metastatic disease, regardless of volume, is treatment intensification, is you suppress testosterone with androgen deprivation therapy. And in this case, I'd love to hear how you do it in Massachusetts, but here, for the most part, I would actually use a GnRH agonist-based approach, any of the agents that we have. Having said that, I think there is a role to do GnRH antagonist-based therapy. In this case, degarelix, or the oral GnRH antagonist, relugolix, is easier to get patients on a three-month injection or six-month injection with GnRH agonist than what it is on a monthly basis. But I think it's also fair for our audience to realize that there is data suggesting that perhaps degarelix can render testosterone at a lower level, meaning that you can castrate even further or have very low levels of testosterone contrary to GnRH agonist-based approaches.  And also for patients maybe like this patient that you're describing, you can minimize the flare that possibly you could get with a GnRH agonist by transiently raising the DHT before the hypothalamic-pituitary axis would shut it down. So either/or would be fine with me. Relugolix, as you know, the attraction of relugolix for us right now, based upon the HERO data, is that you may have possibly less cardiovascular side effects. My rationale not to use a lot of relugolix when I need treatment intensification is quite simple. I'm not aware, I don't know if you can mitigate or minimize that potential cardiovascular benefit by adding abiraterone or adding one of the ARIs, because ARIs and abiraterone by themselves also have cardiovascular side effects. But either/or would be fine with me. The goal of the game is to suppress your male hormone.  But very important is that regardless of volume, high or low, every patient with metastatic disease requires treatment intensification. You can do an adrenal biosynthesis inhibitor such as abiraterone acetate. You can pick an androgen receptor inhibitor such as apalutamide or enzalutamide if that's the case. The subtleties in how people feel comfortable using these agents, I think, none of us – as you know, Dr. Mittal - can comment that one oral agent is better than the other one. Independently, each of these three oral agents have randomized level 1, phase III data demonstrating survival improvement when you do treatment intensification with each respective agent. But we don't have, obviously, head-to-head data looking at this.  What I think is different right now, as you know, is the data with the ARASENS data, which was a randomized phase III trial, an international effort looking at triple therapy, and that is male hormone suppression plus docetaxel-based chemotherapy against testosterone suppression plus docetaxel-based chemotherapy plus the novel androgen receptor inhibitor known as darolutamide. This trial demonstrated an outcome survival improvement when you do triple therapy for those high-volume patients. And therefore, what I can tell you in my personal opinion and when I define a patient of mine who is in need of chemotherapy, then the standard of care in my practice will be triple therapy. So if I know you are a candidate for chemotherapy, however, I make that decision that I want you to get on docetaxel upfront. If you have high-volume features, then the standard of care would not be ADT and chemo alone, it would be ADT, chemo, and darolutamide.  What I don't know, and what we don't know, as you know, is whether or not triple therapy for a high-volume patient is better, the same, equivalent, or less than giving someone ADT plus a novel hormonal agent. That is the data that we don't have. There are some meta-analyses looking at the data, but I can tell you that at the very least, if you prefer chemo, it should be triple therapy. If you prefer an oral agent, it certainly should be either apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and/or enzalutamide. But either/or, patients do need treatment intensification, and what is perplexing to me, and I know for you as well, is that a significant proportion of our patients in North America are still not getting treatment intensification, which is really sub-optimal and sub-standard for our practice.  Dr. Kriti Mittal: Thank you, Dr. Garcia, for a terrific discussion on the application of recent advances in prostate cancer to clinical practice. In an upcoming podcast, we will continue that discussion exploring management of de novo metastatic prostate cancer.   The ASCO Education Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologists' well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the ASCO Education Podcast, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

Andreas Rimner, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, joins us for a conversation about radiation oncology and currently available clinical trials. He discussed various ways patients can benefit from radiation therapy, including an overview of different types of radiation and different modes of treatment. Radiation therapy can be applied alone, or in combination with other treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy. Dr. Rimner is a radiation oncologist who specializes in caring for people with cancers of the chest, known as thoracic cancers. These include non-small cell and small cell lung cancers, pleural mesotheliomas, thymomas, lung metastases, sarcomas, and other rare tumors of the chest. He works closely with a highly skilled team of experts from many areas — including surgeons, medical oncologists, radiologists, medical physicists, and radiation therapists — to determine the best treatment options for his patients. HIs team uses the most advanced radiation techniques, including stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic ablative body radiation (SABR), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy (IMPRINT), MR-guided radiation therapy, and proton radiation to precisely target cancers while limiting damage to normal tissues. MesoTV is a program by the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation. This program is made possible by our generous sponsors: Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC (MRHFM); Bristol Myers Squibb; Novocure, Merck, The Gori Law Firm, TCR2, AstraZeneca, Early Lucarelli Sweeney & Meisenkothen. Search our previous episodes for topics/speakers of interest to you at www.curemeso.org/mesotv.

School is in session! The Accelerators (Drs. Anna Brown, Matt Spraker, and Simul Parikh) sit down for a radiation oncologist and colorectal specialist Dr. Nina Sanford for an informal lesson on the state of radiotherapy for rectal cancer in 2023.  We work our way through an informal discussion of total neoadjuvant therapy, sequencing of therapies, radiotherapy techniques, and my favorite new #RadOnc concept, PULSAR. We close the show by peer reviewing Simul's case and discussing the finer points of rectal cancer contouring.Here are other some things we discussed during the show:We talked about a lot of rectal studies, just check out Rad Onc Tables GI TabTodd's Twitter poll on IMRT for rectal cancer Bob Timmerman's excellent editorial about his SBRT constraintsTzeng sarcoma study referenced for bowel constraintsThe Janus StudyWax Lips and Fun Dip CandyPodcast art generously donated by Dr. Danielle Cunningham. Intro and Outro music generously donated by Emmy-award winning artist Lucas Cantor Santiago.The Accelerators Podcast is a Photon Media production. 

Join us as Scott Richard, MD, co-chair of the SGO Taskforce for Board Certification Support, interviews Janelle Darby, MD and Kathryn Mills, MD to discuss best resources for radiation oncology when preparing for the ABOG oral board exam. This podcast episode addresses important resources and questions regarding study preparation, radiation prevention strategies, the benefits of joining a study group, reviewing treatment and management of the patients on your case list, knowing the principles of radiation and how it is administered, discussing treatment decisions with your local radiation oncologist, and more. The taskforce will offer six informative podcasts focused on high yield topics and best preparation practices.  ABOG and SGO CollaborationThe American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ABOG) will join the SGO Taskforce for Board Certification Support to discuss logistics of the certifying exam as well as the assessment and scoring process during the SGO 2023 Annual Meeting on Women's Cancer in Tampa, FL. Keep an eye for this session opportunity when registering for the upcoming SGO 2023 Annual Meeting and be sure to sign up if interested in participating.  We will also have several meetings where participants will meet in small groups with a taskforce facilitator to discuss hypothetical cases and have an opportunity to discuss some of their own cases. ResourcesClick here to access SGO ConnectEd to review additional resources on radiation oncology. Radiation Planning Principles for Gynecologic Oncology (part of the Fellow Core Lecture Series) – Hour long lecture from Anuja Jhingran, MD at MD Anderson that reviews radiation fields, IMRT, specific organ dose limits, vaginal brachytherapy delivery to name a few. This is a good overview of radiation basics and treatment for the different disease sites.  SGO Fellows Bootcamp – Another introductory lecture on radiation oncology that was created for new fellows and provides a nice overview.Click here to access the full-text guideline titled, “Radiation Therapy for Cervical Cancer: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline,” which provides recommendations on the use of radiation therapy to treat adult women with cervical cancer. Special thanks to Drs. Darby and Mills for your contribution to this episode.Sound engineered and produced by Betheon Whyte on behalf of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

While radiation is a common cancer treatment, few people actually know what it is and how it affects patients. In this episode, Dr. Richard Pearlman shares with listeners his expertise in radiation oncology.  Episode At A Glance: Whether we battle it ourselves or walk through it with friends and family, cancer touches almost everyone. This week, Dr. Richard Pearlman joins The SavvyCast to educate listeners on radiation oncology. Dr. Pearlman is a radiation oncologist with Alliance Cancer Care. In this episode, he shares what radiation oncology is, who can benefit from it, as well as what treatment looks like.  Who is Dr. Richard Pearlman?  Dr. Pearlman was born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama. He attended Birmingham-Southern College in Birmingham, Alabama. He received his medical doctorate from the University of South Alabama College of Medicine in Mobile, Alabama. Following medical school, he completed his internship at Brookwood Baptist Health in Birmingham, Alabama. Additionally, he completed his residency in radiation oncology at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, where he served as Chief Resident in his final year. Dr. Pearlman has experience in several radiation therapy treatments, including stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR brachytherapy). In addition to his education and medical training, Dr. Pearlman has been awarded numerous honors and has authored several articles in peer-reviewed medical publications. He is married to Dr. Hailey Park, who is a dentist in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Questions Answered In This Episode:  How did Dr. Pearlman get into radiation oncology? What is the difference between radiology and radiation oncology? When is radiation the best option? What is radiation oncology? How does radiation treat breast cancer? What are some of the differences between radiation treatment and chemotherapy? Does insurance typically cover radiation treatment? What diseases does Dr. Pearlman treat the most? What are the side effects of radiation, especially for head and neck cancer patients? How many treatments a week are typical? What are most radiation treatments like? I hope you enjoyed this episode! As always, if you have time to rate, review, and subscribe to The SavvyCast on Apple Podcasts, it would be SO appreciated!!! If you like this podcast, be sure to check these out: Men can get Breast Cancer Too: Talking with a Male Breast Cancer Survivor Let's Talk: Surviving Cancer When You're Given Two Months To Live  

The Accelerators host (Dr. Anna Laucis, Matt Spraker, and Simul Parikh) the Suneja Lab, leaders in health equity research! Radiation Oncologist Dr. Gita Suneja and PGY-5 resident Dr. Ryan Hutten to discuss their recent publication examining disparities in initiation of advanced radiotherapy between White patients and patients of minoritized groups. We summarize and analyze the paper, then discuss potential causes of these disparities. Of course, we must #FixPriorAuthNow - like, yesterday - but the causes spill outside the hospital. Racism and disparities in wealth, power, and resources add up in complex ways to delay care. We then discuss Dr. Suneja's local efforts to act on these findings, her health equity research laboratory. The group offers mentorship for a diverse group of students and cross pollination of ideas while recognizing health equity research as a valid academic pursuit. But you don't have to start a lab to act; we share ways to improve equity in your clinic as well.Finally, Simul's Lighting Round is back! Grab your favorite mocktail, we're headed to Salt Lake City.Other things we talked about in the show:Hutten et al. on worsening disparities between racial and ethnic groups in IMRT use in the US.The Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC)Podcast art generously donated by Dr. Danielle Cunningham. Intro and Outro music generously donated by Emmy-award winning artist Lucas Cantor Santiago.

Neste episódio, o Dr. Renan Lira e o Dr. Diego Rezende discutem os resultados a longo prazo do ORATOR Trial. Estudo muito interessante, publicado na JCO agora em fevereiro de 2022 que comparou as técnicas de radioterapia (IMRT) vs. Cirurgia (robótica), avaliando desfechos de qualidade de vida, como tratamento para tumores de orofaringe.Apesar de pequeno e passível de críticas, é um estudo decisivo na conduta desses pacientes.Você vai adorar esse episódio! Ele está cheio de conceitos interessantes e uma discussão muito elegante e inteligente entre esses colegas que se encontram em lados, praticamente, opostos nessa situação.Sejam muito bem vindos ao episódio 106 do Clinical Papers Podcast!Para sabem mais sobre o paper, acesse: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31416685/

WARNING: This is a funny yet graphic discussion of the side effects associated with CC's colorectal cancer treatment. It contains explicit language and is not suitable for all audiences. Not all cancer patient's experiences will be the same. Now that CC is officially done with chemo - YAY! And feeling better each day - we can share (with humor) this conversation about CC's radiation and chemo side effects. Even in the tough moments CCnDoc found humor and were committed to keeping a positive outlook! She got through it and so can you. You are stronger than you know! CC's radiation was a new short course IMRT (25 days worth in 5 days) and chemo was Folxfox 6. She had some atypically extreme side effects with radiation which led to a 20 lb weight loss in less than a month. Effective, but not a diet she recommends! She was to do a minimum of 6 and a max of 8 rounds of chemo. The oncologist stopped her at round 7 in order to avoid further neurotoxicity and permanent damage… CC was considered an “under processor” of chemo which is not as it sounds. Her body and especially her neurology did not like it, which means it took longer to process and get out of her system each round. She had some intense and more rare side effects. As she says, “I was luckier than some, unluckier than others.” Some of the symptoms that CC experienced were not typical for many patients, yet some are very common among her peer group, though not always discussed by research papers; and thus communicating these to her oncologist became critical. Our biggest advice: ALWAYS make sure your docs and nurses know your side effects and their severity! Regardless of how rare a side effect is, if you are experiencing it, let them know! If you'd like to support our podcast you can make a one-time donation HERE or a recurring monthly donation HERE or grab a CCnDoc Talk Tote from our Amazon Store! (affiliate link) --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ccndoc/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/ccndoc/support

We are joined by a panel of radiation oncologists who specialize in mesothelioma: - Charles B. Simone, II, MD, FACRO, Research Professor, Chief Medical Officer, New York Proton Center - Andreas Rimner, MD, Director of Thoracic Radiation Oncology Research, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center - Kenneth Rosenzweig, MD, Professor and Chairman, Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York They join us to discuss radiation therapy for the treatment of mesothelioma. Some areas discussed include: • Difference/similarities between photon, proton, external beam, IMRT, stereotactic body radiation • The palliative effect of radiation therapy • The side effects of radiation therapy and the different treatment options available • The feasibility of radiation therapy for pleural mesothelioma vs. peritoneal mesothelioma • The overview of a typical radiation procedure

Accelerator Dr. Simul Parikh and friend of the show Dr. Jason Beckta join Dr. Todd Scarborough as he signs on live from #ACRO2022! In this unfiltered, slightly edited chat, they debrief on the job market and discuss the RO-APM, adaptive radiotherapy, breast IMRT, and more! And remember folks, #PantsArentReal

In this episode of Hey Kuya Jay, naka-receive tayo ng isang inquiry via whatsapp: “Kuya Jay, hingi sana ako ng advise. Plan kasi nmin ikuha ng life insurance ang aking mga anak 1y/o and 4 y/o. Ano bang best na insurance kunin?” In most cases, it's not recommended to buy life insurance for children. Kasi ang main purpose ng Life Insurance is to cover the loss of income if the bread winner dies. Pero ano ba ang pros and cons of having a life insurance for your young child? Let's talk about it in this episode! You'll like this episode if: - You're not sure if you need to get a Life Insurance policy for your child - You want to know if you can use Life Insurance to plan for your child's education as well Resource Mentioned: - Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) vs. world: [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?locations=PH]

Improving care in vulvar cancer via the prospective Vulvar GROINSS VII study   TRANSCRIPT This JCO Podcast provides observations and commentary on the JCO article “Radiotherapy Versus Inguinofemoral Lymphadenectomy as Treatment for Vulvar Cancer Patients with Micrometastases in the Sentinel Node: Results of GROINSS-V II” by Oonk et al. My name is David Gaffney, and I am a professor and Vice Chair of Radiation Oncology at the University of Utah. I am also Senior Director for Clinical Research at the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah. My oncologic specialty is radiation oncology. I have no relevant disclosures to this study. The GROINS VII study is the successor trial of the GROINS V I trial. In the GROINSS-V I study, the authors demonstrated that omission of an inguinal femoral lymphadenectomy was safe in patients with a negative sentinel lymph node with an isolated GROIN recurrence rate of 2.3%. It also showed that with long term follow up a significant proportion of patients will recur. At 10 years local recurrence occurred in 39.5% of all patients. Although local recurrences are treated with curative intent, the disease-specific survival of these patients decreases significantly. It is important to ask if there is a dose response to radiotherapy in vulvar cancer?  GOG 101 was published in 1998 and employed a split course of radiotherapy to a dose of 47.6 Gy with concurrent cisplatin and 5-FU. The complete response rate was 46.5%. The subsequent prospective phase II randomized trial, GOG 205, was published in 2012 and employed 10 Gy more of radiotherapy with weekly cisplatin to a total dose of 57.6 Gy. This study demonstrated a 78% pathologic complete response rate. Hence, by adding 10 Gy, the complete response rate increased by 30%, indicating a steep dose response. Also, by way of background, a retrospective study from MD Anderson by Stecklein et al. published in 2018 demonstrated a 3-year actuarial groin control rate of 83% with high dose conformal radiotherapy with a median dose of 66 Gy to grossly positive nodes. These data demonstrate that radiotherapy can sterilize gross disease in select circumstances.   The GROINSS-V II study was a phase II prospective study in a rare disease, and sought to answer whether radiotherapy to 50 Gy could be an effective and less morbid alternative to inguinofemoral lymphadenctomy   Patients were accrued from 59 hospitals in 11 countries. Eligibility for this study were patients with tumors less than 4 cm, with  negative groin nodes on preoperative CT, MRI, or ultrasound. The primary endpoint was a groin recurrence rate at 24 months. A combined technique was used to evaluate the sentinel lymph node of lymphoscintigram and blue dye. Bilateral sentinel lymph node procedures were required for midline lesions. The radiotherapy was 50 Gy in 25-28 fractions with the field size to extend to the bottom of the SI joints, including the distal external iliac lymph nodes. Greater than 1700 patients were registered. One hundred sixty patients were found to have micrometastases, that is disease less than 2 mm, whereas 162 patients were found to have macrometastases. The median size vulvar lesion for patients with negative sentinel lymph node was 18 mm, 23 mm for patients with micrometastases, and 25 mm for patients with macrometastases.   Results at 2 years demonstrated an isolated groin recurrence rate occurred in 1.6% of patients that were treated per protocol with micrometastases. Whereas patients with macrometastases had an isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years of 12.2%. For patients with macrometastases treated with radiotherapy, the groin recurrence rate was 22%. Whereas groin failure was 6.9% for patients who had macrometastases treated with inguinal femoral lymphadenectomy and radiotherapy. For patients with macrometastases, no groin recurrences were observed in 7 patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. Among the 1213 patients with a negative sentinel lymph node, an isolated groin recurrence occurred in 31 patients for a rate of 2.7% at 2 years. For the 56 patients who suffered a groin recurrence, 31 of them died of vulvar cancer for an overall survival rate of 39% at 2 years.   This trial also looked at morbidity of patients treated with inguinal femoral lymphadenectomy versus sentinel lymph node procedure plus radiotherapy. The lower extremity edema rate was 32% at 6 months versus half of that for patients treated with the sentinel lymph node procedure plus radiotherapy. It should be noted that IMRT was utilized in 19% of cases, and chemotherapy was utilized in 12% of cases.   This trial clearly demonstrated that in patients with a macrometastasis or disease greater than 2 mm within a groin node, radiotherapy is not a safe alternative to inguinal femoral lymphadenectomy due to a higher rate of groin recurrence, albeit there was no difference in disease-specific survival.   Management of patients with vulvar cancer is complex. Clinicians need to control the ipsilateral and the contralateral groin. The GROINSS-V II study gives us data on contralateral groin failures also. Overall, there was a very low rate of contralateral groin failure.   The subsequent study GROINSS-V III will evaluate patients with macrometastases and compare inguinal femoral lymphadenectomy versus chemoradiotherapy with weekly cisplatin and an elevated dose of radiotherapy to the groin with 56 Gy utilizing a simultaneous integrated boost technique. It will be quite interesting in years to come to discern if IMRT with more precise daily imaging and dose escalation together with chemotherapy will improve local regional control. Additionally, there may be select populations of node positive patients where intensification of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or more extensive surgery may be useful. McAlpine and colleagues have demonstrated that cases of HPV-negative vulvar cancers had a markedly inferior survival rate with a hazard ratio of 0.35. It is also hoped that advance radiotherapy techniques such as IMRT will decrease longstanding morbidity such as lymphedema. The GOG prospective study 244 demonstrated no increase in lymphedema in gynecologic cancer patients where radiotherapy was added compared to surgery alone.   The study by Oonk et al. is a remarkable effort in a rare disease demonstrating that patients with micromets can be safely treated with 50 Gy and patients with macromets should be treated with an inguinal femoral lymphadenectomy. It will be very interesting to see if chemoradiotherapy with increased dose can improve local-regional control and provide a high quality of life for patients with macro mets in the GROINS VIII trial.    This concludes this JCO Podcast. Thank you for listening.

An interview with Dr. Valeria Mercadante from University College London, Dr. Siri Beier Jensen from Aarhus University, and Dr. Douglas Peterson from UConn Health, authors on “Salivary Gland Hypofunction and/or Xerostomia Induced by Non-Surgical Cancer Therapies: ISOO/MASCC/ASCO Guideline.” This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for interventions to prevent, minimize, and manage salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia in patients receiving nonsurgical cancer therapy. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. Suggest a topic for guideline development at www.surveymonkey.com/r/ascoguidelinesurvey.   TRANSCRIPT [MUSIC PLAYING]   SPEAKER: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. [MUSIC PLAYING]   BRITTANY HARVEY: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcasts.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Valeria Mercadante from University College London and University College London Hospitals Trust in London, United Kingdom, Dr. Siri Beier Jensen from Aarhus University in Aarhus, Denmark, and Dr. Douglas Peterson from the School of Dental Medicine and Neag Comprehensive Cancer Center UConn Health in Farmington, Connecticut, authors on salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia induced by non-surgical cancer therapies, International Society of Oral Oncology, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, and American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline. Thank you for being here, Dr. Mercadante, Dr. Beier Jensen, and Dr. Petersen. VALERIA MERCADANTE: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. DOUGLAS PETERSON: Thank you. SIRI BEIER JENSEN: Thank you. BRITTANY HARVEY: First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Mercadante, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? VALERIA MERCADANTE: No, I do not have any relevant disclosure. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you. And Dr. Beier Jensen, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline? SIRI BEIER JENSEN: No, I have no conflicts to declare related to this guideline topic. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you. And finally, Dr. Peterson, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline topic? DOUGLAS PETERSON: No. No related conflicts to declare. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you. Then let's delve into some of the content of the guideline. First, Dr. Mercadante, can you give us an overview of this guideline's scope and purpose? VALERIA MERCADANTE: Of course. These clinical practice guidelines focus on the prevention and management of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia due to non-surgical cancer therapies. This is something we are deeply passionate about because nonsurgical cancer therapies, including all type of radiation regimens, chemotherapy, and biological cancer therapy, can damage the glands in our mouth that produce saliva, resulting in xerostomia, which we define as patient-reported subjective sensation of dryness and salivary gland hypofunction, which we define as reduced salivary flow rate as measured objectively. And this condition may last for several months or may become permanent. And because saliva serves so many important function, xerostomia may lead to a range of other symptoms that can impact patient quality of life. And therefore, ASCO, MASCC, and ISOO decided to update the findings of their two previous systematic reviews published in 2010 and provide a practical, evidence-based approach in a multidisciplinary testing to address this important topic. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you for that background. So then I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline. This guideline covers two clinical questions, one on prevention and one on management. So Dr. Peterson, starting with prevention, what are the key recommendations regarding pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for the prevention of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia induced by non-surgical cancer therapies? DOUGLAS PETERSON: Thank you, Brittany. As you've noted, the guideline is framed in the context of two clinical questions, prevention and then followed by the management once the condition has occurred. Relative to prevention, there were eight recommendations, all of which were directed to reducing the risk of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer. And as with other ASCO guidelines, each of these recommendations was in turn supported by text directed to literature review and analysis and clinical interpretation. So let me just briefly highlight the eight recommendations on prevention. Recommendation 1.1 was that intensity-modulated radiation therapy, IMRT, should be used to spare major and minor salivary glands from a higher dose of radiation. This was a very strong, well-evidenced recommendation. The evidence quality was high. The strength of the recommendation was strong. Recommendation 1.2 is that other radiation modalities that limit cumulative dose to an irradiated volume of major and minor salivary glands as one or more effectively than IMRT may be offered. Recommendation 1.3 reads that acupuncture may be offered during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer to reduce the risk of developing the symptom of xerostomia. Recommendation 1.4, systemic administration of the sialogogue bethanechol may be offered during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Recommendation 1.5-- and this is an important different type of recommendation-- vitamin E or other antioxidants should not be used to reduce the risk of chemoradiation-induced salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia. And this is because of the potential adverse impact of these antioxidants on cancer-related outcomes and the lack of evidence of benefit. In addition to those five recommendations, there were three recommendations for which the evidence was insufficient. In the panel's view, it was important to delineate these three recommendations in the context of current clinical practice as well as opportunities for future research that we'll talk about in a little bit. The three recommendations for which there was insufficient evidence are 1.6. The panel was unable to make a recommendation for or against the use of submandibular gland transfer administered before head and neck cancer treatment. This limitation is due to the current amount of evidence associated with this surgical intervention, submandibular gland transfer, in relation to ever-evolving contemporary radiation modalities. Recommendation 1.7-- evidence remains insufficient for a recommendation for or against use of the following three interventions during radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. The three interventions are oral pilocarpine, amifostine in association with contemporary radiation modalities, and low-level laser therapy. And then, finally, recommendation 1.8-- the evidence remains insufficient for or against the use of several interventions, including selected radiation technology, for example, boost radiation or hyper or hypofractionated radiation therapy, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation or TENS, human epidermal growth factor, and selected complementary medicines. And again, the evidence is insufficient in the panel's view for a recommendation for or against these and several other interventions that are listed in the guideline. So I'll now turn the microphone back to Brittany. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you for reviewing those prevention recommendations and explaining the evidence that supported those as well. That's very helpful. So following that, Dr. Beier Jensen, what are the key recommendations on pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for the management of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia induced by non-surgical cancer therapies? SIRI BEIER JENSEN: The key recommendations for the management of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies are based on the principles of stimulation of the salivary reflex and lubrication of the oral tissues of, say, the mucosa and the teeth. The recommendations 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 address this stimulatory approach. If there is residual secretory capacity of the salivary glands, stimulation of natural saliva secretion may be provided by chewing or taste stimuli. This can be regular use of sugar-free lozenges, sugar-free candies, or sugar-free non-acidic chewing gum. In patients who has their natural teeth, it's important to be aware that if acidic candies are used to stimulate saliva secretion, then it should be a special nonerosive preparation for dentate patients that will say that they do not dissolve the tooth substance. Pharmacological stimulation is also an option by prescription medication such as oral pilocarpine and cevimeline in countries where this is available. This may result in systemic adverse effects that limit use in some patients. So the gustatory and masticatory salivary reflex stimulation, recommendation 2.2, the evidence-based quality was intermediate, and the strength of the recommendation was moderate. And for the pharmacological stimulation by pilocarpine and cevimeline, it was evidence-based, high-quality, and strong recommendation strength. For patients who have salivary gland hypofunction or xerostomia induced by radiation therapy for head and neck cancer, stimulation of saliva secretion may also be provided by acupuncture, transcutaneous electricity stimulation, or acupuncture-like transcutaneous electricity stimulation, although the evidence base here is less strong than for the other stimulatory management options mentioned. This is addressed in recommendation 2.4 and 2.5. If the residual secretory capacity of the salivary glands is low or maybe even nonexistent, then regular lubrication of the oral mucosa and teeth is of relevance. This is addressed in recommendation 2.1. Such lubrication may be provided by topical application of mucosal lubricants and saliva substitutes, which are agents directed at ameliorating xerostomia and other salivary gland hypofunction-related symptoms. It is important to notice that available stimulatory and lubricating options all provide transitory increased salivary flow rates and transitory relief from xerostomia. If you would like to review the specific recommendations, they can be found in the manuscript. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you for reviewing those recommendations on the management of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia. So Dr. Peterson, you mentioned this earlier, but there are some cases in the guideline in which evidence was insufficient to make recommendations. And you went through a few of these areas. So what areas of future research did the panel discuss? DOUGLAS PETERSON: Thanks, Brittany. The panel worked very carefully to relate the quality of evidence to strength of each of the recommendations. In addition to providing important context regarding clinical prevention and treatment of xerostomia salivary hypofunction, novel directions for future research were therefore identified. And I'll just briefly delineate these future directions. Studies directed to the continued, rapidly-evolving radiation technology such as proton therapy and volumetric modulated art therapy or VMAT, as well as the length of time after this treatment is completed, for example, one to five years after completion of treatment, these studies are needed to assess the relationship of this rapidly-evolving technology to the long-term adverse oral events such as salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia as well as advanced dental disease and osteoradionecrosis as well. Importantly, and the panel spent quite a bit of time deliberating this, ethical considerations must continue to be paramount in the study designs. And this is pertinent relative to this guideline. An important issue is that implementation of randomized clinical trials comparing current and novel radiation therapy modalities is typically precluded for ethical reasons. So this is a barrier to address, and the panel wanted to call attention to the scientific and clinical community. In addition to the radiation technology itself, two additional future research directions also represent potential strategic advances in the field as well. First, radiosensitivity of parotid gland stem cells. For example, it has been recently shown that not all constituents of the parotid gland are equally radiosensitive because of an unequal distribution of the stem cells within the gland. This and related biologic concepts should be incorporated in future randomized controlled trials of head and neck cancer patients. Secondly, novel regenerative medicine options may be used to spare, optimize, or restore salivary gland function after treatment. The guideline addresses these innovative treatment approaches in the context of both the current state of the science as well as opportunities for future research. I'll turn the microphone back to Brittany. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you, Dr. Peterson, for reviewing those areas where additional research would be helpful. So next, in your view, Dr. Mercadante, what is this guideline's importance and how will it affect clinicians? VALERIA MERCADANTE: Thank you for this question. We believe these guidelines offers an opportunity for any clinician involved in non-surgical cancer therapies-- oncologists, dentists, dental specialist, dental hygienists, oncology nurses, clinical researchers, advanced practitioner. We all have an essential role in supporting our patient for the entire journey by optimizing symptoms management and improve our patient quality of life. These guidelines thus suggest a preventative and treatment course, but we've also delineated what we feel is common practice between expert and what areas would need further research to provide, as Dr. Peterson beautifully described, an ethical framework for future studies in this field. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you so much. So finally, Dr. Beier Jensen, how will these guideline recommendations impact patients? SIRI BEIER JENSEN: Well, for patients who live with these complications during cancer treatment or as [INAUDIBLE] of cancer therapies, these guideline recommendations on prevention and management of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia will enable them evidence-based and with the help of professional health care providers to support the natural functions of saliva and promote their oral comfort and health. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Well, thank you all, Dr. Mercadante, Dr. Beier Jensen, and Dr. Peterson for taking the time to work on this guideline and produce evidence-based recommendations for clinicians and patients. And thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. VALERIA MERCADANTE: Thank you. DOUGLAS PETERSON: Thank you. BRITTANY HARVEY: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive care guidelines. Additionally, our annual survey for guideline topics is open for submissions. Suggest a topic for guideline development at SurveyMonkey.com /r/ascoguidelinesurvey by August 1st. The link is also available in the episode notes of this podcast. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Dr. Andreas Rimner of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center joins us to discuss a clinical trial "Testing the Addition of Targeted Radiation Therapy to Surgery and the Usual Chemotherapy Treatment (Pemetrexed and Cisplatin [or Carboplatin]) for Stage I-IIIA Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma." Dr. Rimner is a radiation oncologist specializing in thoracic cancers. He in interviewed by Mary Hesdorffer, expert nurse practitioner and executive director of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation. Patients who need help with their diagnosis can contact Mary Hesdorffer, NP through the organization's website. The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation is the only national nonprofit organization dedicated to eradicating mesothelioma by providing patient services and education; funding peer-reviewed research; and advocating for government funding of mesothelioma research. More information about the organization is available at www.curemeso.org.

An interview with Dr. Jun Ma from Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology on “Chemotherapy in Combination with Radiotherapy for Definitive-intent Treatment of Stage II to IVA Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline.” Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. Transcript ASCO: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Jun Ma from Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy in Guangzhou, and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology, author on Chemotherapy in Combination with Radiotherapy for Definitive-intent Treatment of Stage II to IVA Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline. Thank you for being here today, Dr. Ma. JUN MA: Yes. BRITTANY HARVEY: First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines in ensuring that the ASCO conflict-of-interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict-of-interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Ma, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? JUN MA: Thank you, Brittany. Hi, everyone. I'm Dr. Jun Ma from the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in China. And I don't have any potential conflicts of interest related to this guideline topic. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you. Then can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? JUN MA: Yes. This guideline aims to highlight significant clinical questions about the chemotherapy in combination with the radiotherapy for the definitive treatment of stage II to stage IVA NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, It will clarify the fundamental principles of the radiotherapy planning and how to combine chemo with radiotherapy for a patient's success. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Then this guideline covers five clinical questions. I'd like to review those key recommendations for our listeners. First, what does the guideline state regarding radiotherapy for patients with stage II to IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma? JUN MA: Yes. For all nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients, we support the use of IMRT summarized in the current evidence. We don't recommend the use of other techniques, such as 2D or even 3D radiotherapy. If IMRT is not available at that spot, patients should be transferred to the institution that could that could implement IMRT whenever possible. For all NPC patients, a prescribed dose of 70 Gy in 33 or 35 fractions delivered over seven weeks should be offered. It should be noted that the radiation dose may be adjusted according to the tumor volume and its response to the chemoradiotherapy. In terms of the target delineation, we recommend you to follow several existing consensus guidelines. Thank you. BRITTANY HARVEY: OK. Then what is recommended regarding chemotherapy sequence in addition to radiotherapy? JUN MA: OK, generally speaking, patients with low disease burden, such as the lower end category of clinical stage, could receive lower intensity of chemotherapy. For T2, and if not negative of patients, chemotherapy is not routinely recommended, while for T1 or 2, N1 patients concurrent chemotherapy may be offered, particularly for T2 N1 patients. For locoregional advanced disease, except the T3 lymph node negative patients, we recommend the use after concurrent chemotherapy with induction or adjuvant chemotherapy. It should be noted that there is a lack of head-to-head trials comparing induction chemo plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemo. Thus, which sequence performs better in the contemporary era remains uncertain. Finally, for T3 lymph node-negative patients, concurrent chemoradiotherapy should be offered. Adjuvant or induction chemotherapy may also be offered if there are adverse features, such as the bulky tumor volumes or high EBV DNA copy numbers. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Then you just mentioned some chemoradiotherapy regimens. So for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy, what are the recommended chemotherapy options? JUN MA: OK, for all NPC patient without contraindications, concurrent cisplatin should be offered along with radiotherapy. Weekly use after suspending with 48 milligrams per square meter or three weekly with eight or 200 milligram per square meter is acceptable. We recommended the cisplatin dose should be attempted to achieve a cumulative dose of at least 200 milligrams per square meter. For patients with contraindications to cisplatin, nedaplatin, carboplatin, or oxaliplatin may be alternative choice. For patients with contraindications to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, Fluoropyrimidines such as 5FU with concurrent chemotherapy also may be offered. Thank you. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. And then for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving induction chemotherapy, what are those recommended options? JUN MA: Yes. For all patients receiving induction or adjuvant chemotherapy, platinum-based induction regimens should be offered in terms of induction chemo, such as GP, TPF, TP, PF, and the PX regimens are recommended. So induction regimens should be administered every three weeks for a total of three cycles, or at least the minimum two cycles. If the patients receive induction chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy should be commenced within 21 to 28 days from the first day of the last cycle of induction chemotherapy. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. And then for the final set of recommendations for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, what are those recommended chemotherapy options? JUN MA: Considering that adjuvant chemotherapy is a choice of adjuvant regimens were much fewer than those of induction chemotherapy, according to current evidence. PF regimen administered every four weeks for a total of three cycles is recommended. If with contraindication to cisplatin, carboplatin may be combined with 5-FU. It should be noted that for all patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and with contraindications to platinum-containing chemotherapy, the use of non-platinum based regimens remain experimental at this time and should not be offered routinely outside of the context of a clinical trial. The main difference between the recommendation for the induction and adjuvant chemotherapy are primarily due to the number of the randomized trials in which there are few studies regarding the adjuvant chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Thank you. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you for reviewing each of those recommendations. So then, what is the importance of this guideline? And how will it impact clinical practice in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma? JUN MA: For nasopharyngeal carcinoma, it has extremely uneven geographically global distribution. More than 70 percent of this new diagnosis worldwide in the 2018 year, occurred in the East and Southeast Asia. Therefore, nasopharyngeal carcinoma remains a significant public health problem in these regions, which emphasize the significance of this guideline for providers and patients from the endemic area. From my point of view, one of the novel features of this joint deadline is that it was developed through the international collaboration with the regional groups. Experts from the CSCO and ASCO shared interpretation of the evidence while accounting for the organizing national or cultural diversity of different regions. In brief, the guideline provides the guidelines on how to plan radiotherapy and when and how to add chemotherapy. Through the interpretation protecting the guideline, care providers can avoid over or under-treatment. And providing the most suitable chemoradiotherapy for NPC patients. Besides, for the patients, they could receive the most suitable treatment, which is the balance of the efficiency as a quantity of the life. Thank you. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Definitely, we appreciate the collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology. So thank you so much for your work on these guidelines. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Ma. JUN MA: Thank you. BRITTANY HARVEY: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in iTunes or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

Hematology Oncology News:  IMRT new standard of care for high-risk cervical cancer: https://bit.ly/3k7ji3y Real-world results with checkpoint inhibitors found inferior to trial results: https://bit.ly/35cIt0v Are HMAS appropriate for posttransplant maintenance in acute leukemias?: https://bit.ly/3lfqsE7 You can email the show at podcasts@mdedge.com.

Historically radiation side effects and cure rates were not comparable to what surgery could achieve. However, with breakthroughs in radiation, computerized beam radiation now rivals surgery for cure rates and minimizes the risk of side effects. This episode of PROSTATE PROS compares and contrasts the three types of computerized beam radiation: IMRT, IMPT, and SBRT. The episode also covers how to prevent and manage side effects of radiation therapy.

his episode explores and defines brachytherapy from the difference between HDR (temporary) and LDR (permanent) seeds, to who is eligible and why seeds might be an appealing treatment choice.

In this Episode, Andrea and Sean discuss the report from AAPM TG-218, “Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA.” They review some of the TG Report, the report recommendations, and the background of IMRT QA. The hosts share their thoughts and experiences on the IMRT QA process and its impact on clinical outcomes.Have any questions or comments? Talk to us at https://www.reddit.com/r/HormesisPodcast/comments/cgsys3/episode_3_the_definition_of_insanityand_tg218/Miften et al. “Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM TG-218.” Med Phys. 45(4). 2018. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.12810]Low et al. “Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT.” Med Phys. 38(3). 2011. [DOI: 10.1118/1.3514120]Ezzel et al. “IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparison, a report of AAPM TG-119.” Med Phys. 36(11). 2009. [DOI: 10.1118/1.3238104]Nelms et al. “Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors.” Med Phys. 38(2). 2011. [DOI: 10.1118/1.3544657]

Dr. Soombal Zahid believes in a team approach to managing cancer pain. Through her patient experiences, she has seen that proper pain management has the power to decrease patient suffering and increase the quality of life. Her ultimate goal is to help people realize that the fight against cancer-related pain is a team approach: physicians, counselors, therapists, trainers, families, and of course patients themselves should all take advantage of the therapeutic options available and work together to create an ideal pain management plan for affected individuals. Dr. Soombal Zahid is a resident physician in Internal Medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. She completed her medical training at New York College of Osteopathic Medicine and her undergraduate education at Barnard College of Columbia University. She has written for the Practical Pain Management Magazine on supplemental techniques for decreasing cancer-related pain and worked on research projects exploring organ-sparing radiation treatments in an effort to enhance palliative benefit from such therapies. Soombal Zahid’s Articles: Esophagus and contralateral lung-sparing IMRT for locally advanced lung cancer in the community hospital setting Managing Cancer-Related Pain: A Combined Approach About Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Integrative Medicine Approach “Together, I hope we can succeed in raising awareness about different ways of coping with pain and in effect, ensure patients find their life worth living!” -Soombal Zahid, DO

Dr Liao talks to ecancertv at ASCO 2016 about the results of a Bayesian randomised trial comparing intensity modulated radiation therapy versus passively scattered proton therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Of the 255 patients selected, Dr Liao reports that the occurence of treatment failure (TF), defined as either local recurrence or grade ≥ 3 radiation pneumonitis (RP), was no different between those receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or 3D proton therapy, (3DPT) but hightlights that 3DPT offers more targeted dosing, and could spare damage to surrounding tissues.

Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, Radiation Oncologist at Washington University in St. Louis, defines the V20 standard for lung radiation and outlines the advantages of limiting dose and field size in lung radiation therapy.

Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, Radiation Oncologist at Washington University in St. Louis, defines the V20 standard for lung radiation and outlines the advantages of limiting dose and field size in lung radiation therapy.

Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, Radiation Oncologist at Washington University in St. Louis, defines the V20 standard for lung radiation and outlines the advantages of limiting dose and field size in lung radiation therapy.

Prof David Dearnaley - Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK Prof Dearnaley talks to ecancertv at ECC 2015 about the results of a phase III trial that compared hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to conventional IMRT for localised prostate cancer. The results of the randomized, non-inferiority trial show that using the hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen could result in 45% fewer hospital visits as the frequency of treatments needed was reduced from 37 to 20. Dr. Dearnaley says that there was a high standard of radiotherapy delivered throughout the trial. However, not all of the 70 centres that took part were highly specialized. This shows that given the right guidance and support, smaller centers could perform hypofractionated radiotherapy safety and effectively.

Prof Livi (Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy) talks to ecancertv at SABCS 2014 about his work looking at new techniques in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to improve dose conformity and reduce tissue damage in breast cancer.

Background: To report our experience with increased dose intensity-modulated radiation and concurrent systemic chemotherapy as definitive treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Patients and methods: We analyzed 27 consecutive patients with histologically proven esophageal cancer, who were treated with increased-dose IMRT as part of their definitive therapy. The majority of patients had T3/4 and/or N1 disease (93%). Squamous cell carcinoma was the dominating histology (81%). IMRT was delivered in step-and-shoot technique in all patients using an integrated boost concept. The boost volume was covered with total doses of 56-60 Gy (single dose 2-2.14 Gy), while regional nodal regions received 50.4 Gy (single dose 1.8 Gy) in 28 fractions. Concurrent systemic therapy was scheduled in all patients and administered in 26 (96%). 17 patients received additional adjuvant systemic therapy. Loco-regional control, progression-free and overall survival as well as acute and late toxicities were retrospectively analyzed. In addition, quality of life was prospectively assessed according to the EORTC QLQs (QLQ-OG25, QLQ-H&N35 and QLQ-C30). Results: Radiotherapy was completed as planned in all but one patient (96%), and 21 patients received more than 80% of the planned concurrent systemic therapy. We observed ten locoregional failures, transferring into actuarial 1-, 2- and 3-year-locoregional control rates of 77%, 65% and 48%. Seven patients developed distant metastases, mainly to the lung (71%). The actuarial 1-, 2- and 3-year-disease free survival rates were 58%, 48% and 36%, and overall survival rates were 82%, 61% and 56%. The concept was well tolerated, both in the clinical objective examination and also according to the subjective answers to the QLQ questionnaire. 14 patients (52%) suffered from at least one acute CTC grade 3/4 toxicity, mostly hematological side effects or dysphagia. Severe late toxicities were reported in 6 patients (22%), mostly esophageal strictures and ulcerations. Severe side effects to skin, lung and heart were rare. Conclusion: IMRT with concurrent systemic therapy in the definitive treatment of esophageal cancer using an integrated boost concept with doses up to 60 Gy is feasible and yields good results with acceptable acute and late overall toxicity and low side effects to skin, lung and heart.

Background: To report an unplanned interim analysis of a prospective, one-armed, single center phase I/II trial (NCT01566123). Methods: Between 2007 and 2013, 27 patients (pts) with primary/recurrent retroperitoneal sarcomas (size > 5 cm, M0, at least marginally resectable) were enrolled. The protocol attempted neoadjuvant IMRT using an integrated boost with doses of 45-50 Gy to PTV and 50-56 Gy to GTV in 25 fractions, followed by surgery and IOERT (10-12 Gy). Primary endpoint was 5-year-LC, secondary endpoints included PFS, OS, resectability, and acute/late toxicity. The majority of patients showed high grade lesions (FNCLCC G1:18%, G2:52%, G3:30%), predominantly liposarcomas (70%). Median tumor size was 15 cm (6-31). Results: Median follow-up was 33 months (5-75). Neoadjuvant IMRT was performed as planned (median dose 50 Gy, 26-55) in all except 2 pts (93%). Gross total resection was feasible in all except one patient. Final margin status was R0 in 6 (22%) and R1 in 20 pts (74%). Contiguous-organ resection was needed in all grossly resected patients. IOERT was performed in 23 pts (85%) with a median dose of 12 Gy (10-20 Gy). We observed 7 local recurrences, transferring into estimated 3- and 5-year-LC rates of 72%. Two were located outside the EBRT area and two were observed after more than 5 years. Locally recurrent situation had a significantly negative impact on local control. Distant failure was found in 8 pts, resulting in 3-and 5-year-DC rates of 63%. Patients with leiomyosarcoma had a significantly increased risk of distant failure. Estimated 3-and 5-year-rates were 40% for PFS and 74% for OS. Severe acute toxicity (grade 3) was present in 4 pts (15%). Severe postoperative complications were found in 9 pts (33%), of whom 2 finally died after multiple re-interventions. Severe late toxicity (grade 3) was scored in 6% of surviving patients after 1 year and none after 2 years. Conclusion: Combination of neoadjuvant IMRT, surgery and IOERT is feasible with acceptable toxicity and yields good results in terms of LC and OS in patients with high-risk retroperitoneal sarcomas. Long term follow-up seems mandatory given the observation of late recurrences. Accrual of patients will be continued with extended follow-up.

Q and A session following presentation on history & general approaches for radiation, with focus on head/neck cancer, by Dr. Alex Lin, Assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology at the Univ. of Pennsylvania.

Q and A session following presentation on history & general approaches for radiation, with focus on head/neck cancer, by Dr. Alex Lin, Assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology at the Univ. of Pennsylvania.

Lecture on history and general approaches for radiation, with specific attention to its role in post-operative treatment of head/neck cancer, by Dr. Alex Lin, Assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology at the Univ. of Pennsylvania.

Lecture on history and general approaches for radiation, with specific attention to its role in post-operative treatment of head/neck cancer, by Dr. Alex Lin, Assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology at the Univ. of Pennsylvania.

Background: Several randomized trials have documented the value of radiation dose escalation in patients with prostate cancer, especially in patients with intermediate risk profile. Up to now dose escalation is usually applied to the whole prostate. IMRT and related techniques currently allow for dose escalation in sub-volumes of the organ. However, the sensitivity of the imaging modality and the fact that small islands of cancer are often dispersed within the whole organ may limit these approaches with regard to a clear clinical benefit. In order to assess potential effects of a dose escalation in certain sub-volumes based on choline PET imaging a mathematical dose-response model was developed. Methods: Based on different assumptions for alpha/beta, gamma 50, sensitivity and specificity of choline PET, the influence of the whole prostate and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) dose on tumor control probability (TCP) was calculated. Based on the given heterogeneity of all potential variables certain representative permutations of the parameters were chosen and, subsequently, the influence on TCP was assessed. Results: Using schedules with 74 Gy within the whole prostate and a SIB dose of 90 Gy the TCP increase ranged from 23.1% (high detection rate of choline PET, low whole prostate dose, high gamma 50/ASTRO definition for tumor control) to 1.4% TCP gain (low sensitivity of PET, high whole prostate dose, CN + 2 definition for tumor control) or even 0% in selected cases. The corresponding initial TCP values without integrated boost ranged from 67.3% to 100%. According to a large data set of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients the resulting TCP gains ranged from 22.2% to 10.1% (ASTRO definition) or from 13.2% to 6.0% (CN + 2 definition). Discussion: Although a simplified mathematical model was employed, the presented model allows for an estimation in how far given schedules are relevant for clinical practice. However, the benefit of a SIB based on choline PET seems less than intuitively expected. Only under the assumption of high detection rates and low initial TCP values the TCP gain has been shown to be relevant. Conclusions: Based on the employed assumptions, specific dose escalation to choline PET positive areas within the prostate may increase the local control rates. Due to the lack of exact PET sensitivity and prostate alpha/beta parameter, no firm conclusions can be made. Small variations may completely abrogate the clinical benefit of a SIB based on choline PET imaging.

Purpose: The observation that human meningioma cells strongly express somatostatin receptor (SSTR 2) was the rationale to analyze retrospectively in how far DOTATOC PET/CT is helpful to improve target volume delineation for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Patients and Methods: In 26 consecutive patients with preferentially skull base meningioma, diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and planning- computed tomography (CT) was complemented with data from [Ga-68]-DOTA-DPhe(1)-Tyr(3)-Octreotide (DOTATOC)-PET/CT. Image fusion of PET/CT, diagnostic computed tomography, MRI and radiotherapy planning CT as well as target volume delineation was performed with OTP-Masterplan (R). Initial gross tumor volume (GTV) definition was based on MRI data only and was secondarily complemented with DOTATOC-PET information. Irradiation was performed as EUD based IMRT, using the Hyperion Software package. Results: The integration of the DOTATOC data led to additional information concerning tumor extension in 17 of 26 patients (65%). There were major changes of the clinical target volume (CTV) which modify the PTV in 14 patients, minor changes were realized in 3 patients. Overall the GTVMRI/CT was larger than the GTV-PET in 10 patients (38%), smaller in 13 patients (50%) and almost the same in 3 patients (12%). Most of the adaptations were performed in close vicinity to bony skull base structures or after complex surgery. Median GTV based on MRI was 18.1 cc, based on PET 25.3 cc and subsequently the CTV was 37.4 cc. Radiation planning and treatment of the DOTATOC-adapted volumes was feasible. Conclusion: DOTATOC-PET/CT information may strongly complement patho-anatomical data from MRI and CT in cases with complex meningioma and is thus helpful for improved target volume delineation especially for skull base manifestations and recurrent disease after surgery.