UNASSIGNED: The human embryo or foetus is susceptible to harmful effects of radiation, which include growth delay, malformations, impaired cognitive function, cancer and foetal demise. The purpose of this study is to describe pregnancy screening practices in radiation oncology, so that potential health effects may be avoided and areas of prevention may be identified.
UNASSIGNED: An electronic survey was delivered to 6,304 members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. The survey subjects were radiation oncologists who are currently practicing in the world. Chi-square tests and a multiple logistic regression model were used to analyse the data. All tests were two-sided and the statistical significance level used was 0.05. This study (STUDY00009765) was approved by an Institutional Review Board.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 434 responses from practicing radiation oncologists were received. Of these respondents, 69.1% were practicing in the United States. Of all respondents, 19.8% reported treating paediatric patients and 93.6% reported treating premenopausal patients. Despite 84.8% of radiation oncologists saying they would \'strongly agree\' or \'agree\' that one should screen for pregnancy prior to radiation therapy, 29.7% of respondents reported their department has no screening policy and 7.1% of respondents reported they do not screen for pregnancy. Having a departmental policy was associated with screening for pregnancy (p-value = 0.0005).Of all respondents, 93 reported treating a known pregnant patient. Of these 93 respondents, 76 reported intentionally treating and 17 reported accidentally treating a pregnant patient. Respondents who did not screen at time of simulation were significantly more likely to treat a pregnant patient than those who screened at time of simulation (p-value = 0.0459).
UNASSIGNED: Heterogeneity exists among practicing radiation oncologists regarding pregnancy screening. Institutional policies should be clear and consistent. All members of the radiation oncology team should make every effort to minimise unintended radiation exposure to the embryo or foetus.

暂无摘要。

Recognizing the rapidly increasing interest and evidence in using metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) for oligometastatic disease (OMD), ESTRO and ASTRO convened a committee to establish consensus regarding definitions of OMD and define gaps in current evidence.
A systematic literature review focused on curative intent MDRT was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Subsequent consensus opinion, using a Delphi process, highlighted the current state of evidence and the limitations in the available literature.
Available evidence regarding the use of MDRT for OMD mostly derives from retrospective, single-centre series, with significant heterogeneity in patient inclusion criteria, definition of OMD, and outcomes reported. Consensus was reached that OMD is largely independent of primary tumour, metastatic location and the presence or length of a disease-free interval, supporting both synchronous and metachronous OMD. In the absence of clinical data supporting a maximum number of metastases and organs to define OMD, and of validated molecular biomarkers, consensus supported the ability to deliver safe and clinically meaningful radiotherapy with curative intent to all metastatic sites as a minimum requirement for defining OMD in the context of radiotherapy. Systemic therapy induced OMD was identified as a distinct state of OMD. High-resolution imaging to assess and confirm OMD is crucial, including brain imaging when indicated. Minimum common endpoints such as progression-free and overall survival, local control, toxicity and quality-of-life should be reported; uncommon endpoints as deferral of systemic therapy and cost were endorsed.
While significant heterogeneity exists in the current OMD definitions in the literature, consensus was reached on multiple key questions. Based on available data, OMD can to date be defined as 1-5 metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be safely treatable. Consistent definitions and reporting are warranted and encouraged in ongoing trials and reports generating further evidence to optimize patient benefits.

Radiotherapy (RT) has been a fundamental component of the anti-cancer armamentarium for over a century. Approximately half of all cancer patients are treated with radiotherapy during their disease course. Over the two past decades, there has been a growing body of preclinical evidence supporting the immunomodulatory effects of radiotherapy, particularly when combined with immunotherapy, but only anecdotal clinical examples existed until recently. The renaissance of immunotherapy and the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and other immuno-oncology (IO) agents in multiple cancers provides the opportunity to investigate how localized radiotherapy can induce systemic immune responses. Early clinical experiences have demonstrated feasibility of this approach but additional preclinical and clinical investigation is needed to understand how RT and immunotherapy can be optimally combined.To address questions that are critical to successful incorporation of radiation oncology into immunotherapy, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) organized a collaborative scientific workshop, Incorporating Radiation Oncology into Immunotherapy, that convened on June 15 and 16 of 2017 at the Natcher Building, NIH Campus in Bethesda, Maryland. This report summarizes key data and highlights from each session.

OBJECTIVE: An increasing attention is being paid to disclosures of conflicts of interests in the field of oncology. The purpose of this study was to examine how radiation oncologists report their conflicts of interests with pharmaceutical or technology industries.
METHODS: We collected the data of conflicts of interests disclosures in the abstract books from the annual 2012 and 2013 meetings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) in Miami (FL, USA), and in Atlanta (GA, USA), respectively. Geographic origins of abstracts as well other factors were examined.
RESULTS: We identified a total of 4219 abstracts published in the past two years. The total number of involved authors was of 28,283. All of the published abstracts had conflicts of interests disclosures. Amongst them, 563 abstracts (13.4%) reported at least one potential conflict of interests, in which 1264 (4.5%) declared a potential conflict of interests in their disclosures. Geographic distribution of abstracts with financial relationship was as following: 67.9%, 15.5%, 7.7% and 7.7% for USA, Europe, Asia/Pacifica, and Canada, respectively. Abstracts with conflict of interest originated from North America in 75.6% of cases. USA distribution was 70.6% and 29.4% for Eastern and Western, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of physicians declaring financial conflicts of interests remains extremely low, whichever geographic area authors are from. In comparison to the rest of the world, the US proved itself better at declaring potential links. Changes in medical culture and education could represent a significant step to improve the process of revealing conflicts of interest in medical journal as well as in international meetings.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the use of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy as adjuvant or salvage therapy.
METHODS: A systematic literature review using the PubMed®, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the use of radiotherapy after prostatectomy. The review yielded 294 articles; these publications were used to create the evidence-based guideline statements. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles when insufficient evidence existed.
RESULTS: Guideline statements are provided for patient counseling, the use of radiotherapy in the adjuvant and salvage contexts, defining biochemical recurrence, and conducting a re-staging evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should offer adjuvant radiotherapy to patients with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy (i.e., seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and should offer salvage radiotherapy to patients with prostatic specific antigen or local recurrence after prostatectomy in whom there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The offer of radiotherapy should be made in the context of a thoughtful discussion of possible short- and long-term side effects of radiotherapy as well as the potential benefits of preventing recurrence. The decision to administer radiotherapy should be made by the patient and the multi-disciplinary treatment team with full consideration of the patient\'s history, values, preferences, quality of life, and functional status. Please visit the ASTRO and AUA websites (http://www.redjournal.org/webfiles/images/journals/rob/RAP%20Guideline.pdf and http://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/radiation-after-prostatectomy.cfm) to view this guideline in its entirety, including the full literature review.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluate long-term disease control and chronic toxicities observed in patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.
METHODS: A total of 302 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy between July 2000 and May 2005 were retrospectively analyzed. Risk groups (low, intermediate and high) were designated based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Biochemical control was based on the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (Phoenix) consensus definition. Chronic toxicity was measured at peak symptoms and at last visit. Toxicity was scored based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.
RESULTS: The median radiation dose delivered was 75.6 Gy (range 70.2 to 77.4) and 35.4% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were followed until death or from 6 to 138 months (median 91) for those alive at last evaluation. Local and distant recurrence rates were 5% and 8.6%, respectively. At 9 years biochemical control rates were 77.4% for low risk, 69.6% for intermediate risk and 53.3% for high risk cases (log rank p = 0.05). On multivariate analysis T stage and prostate specific antigen group were prognostic for biochemical control. At last followup only 0% and 0.7% of patients had persistent grade 3 or greater gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, respectively. High risk group was associated with higher distant metastasis rate (p = 0.02) and death from prostate cancer (p = 0.0012).
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents one of the longest experiences with intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. With a median followup of 91 months, intensity modulated radiation therapy resulted in durable biochemical control rates with low chronic toxicity.