In oncology, medical imaging is crucial for diagnosis, treatment planning and therapy execution. Treatment responses can be complex and varied and are known to involve factors of treatment, patient characteristics and tumor microenvironment. Longitudinal image analysis is able to track temporal changes, aiding in disease monitoring, treatment evaluation, and outcome prediction. This allows for the enhancement of personalized medicine. However, analyzing longitudinal 2D and 3D images presents unique challenges, including image registration, reliable segmentation, dealing with variable imaging intervals, and sparse data. This review presents an overview of techniques and methodologies in longitudinal image analysis, with a primary focus on outcome modeling in radiation oncology.

Radiation therapy (RT) is a critical component of multidisciplinary cancer care, but has inconsistent curricular exposure. We characterize the radiation oncology (RO) content on the standardized undergraduate medical examinations by comparing its context and prevalence with other domains in oncology. National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) self-assessments and sample questions for the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Steps 1-3 and NBME clinical science shelf examinations were accessed (n = 3878). Questions were inductively analyzed for content pertaining to oncology and treatment modalities of RT, systemic therapy (ST), and surgical intervention (SI). Questions were coded using USMLE Physician Tasks/Competencies and thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics and analyses using the Kruskal-Wallis test are reported. A total of 337 questions (8.6%) within the USMLE and shelf exams included oncology content, with 101 questions (2.6%) referencing at least one cancer treatment modality (n = 35 RT, 45 ST, 57 SI). Treatment questions were more common on USMLE Step 2 CK (n = 35/101, 32%) compared to Step 1 (n = 23/101, 23%) and Step 3 (n = 8/101, 8%) (p < 0.001). RT was significantly less likely to be the correct answer (2/35, 6%) compared to ST (4/45, 9%) and SI (18/57, 32%) (p = 0.003). Therapeutic oncology questions are uncommon on the examination material, with an under-representation of radiation-related content, and contextual bias favoring surgical approaches. We advocate for greater RO involvement in the content creation of such examinations to help trainees better understand multidisciplinary cancer care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop expert consensus statements on multiparametric dose prescriptions for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) aligning with ICRU report 91. These statements serve as a foundational step towards harmonizing current SBRT practices and refining dose prescription and documentation requirements for clinical trial designs.
METHODS: Based on the results of a literature review by the working group, a two-tier Delphi consensus process was conducted among 24 physicians and physics experts from three European countries. The degree of consensus was predefined for overarching (OA) and organ-specific (OS) statements (≥ 80%, 60-79%, < 60% for high, intermediate, and poor consensus, respectively). Post-first round statements were refined in a live discussion for the second round of the Delphi process.
RESULTS: Experts consented on a total of 14 OA and 17 OS statements regarding SBRT of primary and secondary lung, liver, pancreatic, adrenal, and kidney tumors regarding dose prescription, target coverage, and organ at risk dose limitations. Degree of consent was ≥ 80% in 79% and 41% of OA and OS statements, respectively, with higher consensus for lung compared to the upper abdomen. In round 2, the degree of consent was ≥ 80 to 100% for OA and 88% in OS statements. No consensus was reached for dose escalation to liver metastases after chemotherapy (47%) or single-fraction SBRT for kidney primaries (13%). In round 2, no statement had 60-79% consensus.
CONCLUSIONS: In 29 of 31 statements a high consensus was achieved after a two-tier Delphi process and one statement (kidney) was clearly refused. The Delphi process was able to achieve a high degree of consensus for SBRT dose prescription. In summary, clear recommendations for both OA and OS could be defined. This contributes significantly to harmonization of SBRT practice and facilitates dose prescription and reporting in clinical trials investigating SBRT.

Cardiac risk mitigation is a major priority in improving outcomes for cancer survivors as advances in cancer screening and treatments continue to decrease cancer mortality. More than half of adult cancer patients will be treated with radiotherapy (RT); therefore it is crucial to develop a framework for how to assess and predict radiation-induced cardiac disease (RICD). Historically, RICD was modelled solely using whole heart metrics such as mean heart dose. However, data over the past decade has identified cardiac substructures which outperform whole heart metrics in predicting for significant cardiac events. Additionally, non-RT factors such as pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors and toxicity from other therapies contribute to risk of future cardiac events. In this review, we aim to discuss the current evidence and knowledge gaps in predicting RICD and provide a roadmap for the development of comprehensive models based on three interrelated components, (1) baseline CV risk assessment, (2) cardiac substructure radiation dosimetry linked with cardiac-specific outcomes and (3) novel biomarker development.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene are a heterogeneous population who often develop brain metastases (BM). The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic brain metastases is unclear given the activity of newer-generation targeted therapies in the central nervous system. We present a protocol for an individual patient data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis to evaluate whether the addition of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) before osimertinib treatment will lead to better control of intracranial metastatic disease. This is a clinically relevant question that will inform practice.
METHODS: Randomised controlled trials will be eligible if they include participants with BM arising from EGFR-mutant NSCLC and suitable to receive osimertinib both in the first-line and second-line settings (P); comparisons of SRS followed by osimertinib versus osimertinib alone (I, C) and intracranial disease control included as an endpoint (O). Systematic searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsychInfo, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO\'s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform\'s Search Portal will be undertaken. An IPD meta-analysis will be performed using methodologies recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The primary outcome is intracranial progression-free survival, as determined by response assessment in neuro-oncology-BM criteria. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, time to whole brain radiotherapy, quality of life, and adverse events of special interest. Effect differences will be explored among prespecified subgroups.
BACKGROUND: Approved by each trial\'s ethics committee. Results will be relevant to clinicians, researchers, policymakers and patients, and will be disseminated via publications, presentations and media releases.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42022330532.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Malignant lymphoma (ML) including Hodgkin\'s lymphoma and non-Hodgkin\'s lymphoma is often treated with local radiation therapy (RT) in combination with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) to prevent relapse; however, the efficacy and optimal timing of this approach is unclear. In this study, a national survey conducted by the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group reviewed ML cases from 2011 to 2019 to determine whether RT should be added to ASCT, focusing on the use of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (auto-PBSCT), a predominant form of ASCT.
METHODS: The survey encompassed 92 patients from 11 institutes, and assessed histological ML types, treatment regimens, timing of RT relative to auto-PBSCT, and associated adverse events.
RESULTS: The results indicated no significant differences in adverse events, including myelosuppression, based on the timing of RT in relation to auto-PBSCT. However, anemia was more prevalent when RT was administered before auto-PBSCT, and there was a higher incidence of neutropenia recovery delay in patients receiving RT after auto-PBSCT.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable insights into the variable practices of auto-PBSCT and local RT in ML treatment, emphasizing the need for optimized timing of these therapies to improve patient outcomes and reduce complications.