- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
- Messages
- 3,524
- Reaction score
- 6,393
I do 46 because I care more then you do.I always do 45
I do 46 because I care more then you do.I always do 45
I also do, but some payors have a hard limit of 40 fractions even when treating nodes. Funny enough I've never seen them mandate 200 over 180/fraction in any other site, except prostate which has the lowest alpha/beta.I always do 45
Nice post but I would emphasize the best evidence for RT improving survival by overcoming resistance to androgen blockage alone in high risk non-metastatic prostate cancer is quite compelling indeed. Established conventionally fractionated radiation as the standard of care and great to see the new standard raised to 80 Gy. This is signal (helping patients) while endless non-inferiority trials = shiny objects/plenary presentation/career advancement etc.Agree wholeheartedly. Non-inferiority trials are usually infuriating and need to both have an excellent rationale and a good way of assessing the impact on other rare outcomes (toxicity), particularly when there is a clear mechanism for increased late toxicity in the setting of XRT.
Equipoise...that peculiar word that is almost ironically employed in the defense of protons above yet is employed in basically the opposite way to encourage hypofractionation or even XRT omission trials. Maybe equipoise is too vague and too nuanced a concept for docs to employ meaningfully at all.
There is no easier way to make a mark as a clinical academic radonc than to be the PI on non-inferiority or omission trials (not to say getting any trial off the ground is easy, kudos to all those who work harder than me). The power of careerism in those heady days undoubtedly has contributed to our relative marginalization as a field today...but even worse I suspect, in moving the standard of care at times in the wrong direction.
To this day, I just don't know. I was a relatively late adopter of moderate hypofractionation in prostate (44--->28 fractions for most patients with occasional SBRT). The overwhelming rationale for the change was vague cultural pressure, rooted in regional competitor's practices, a sense that I was being a steward of resources (virtue signaling to myself) and patient expectations. To this day, I believe there is a slight increase in toxicity even with moderate fractionation. Cancer control outcomes are good enough that I will have no intuition about relative cancer control outcomes. I would never indict a practice for using 40-44 fractions (unless it was protons).
But...studying survival outcomes in pCA is just so tough, the cancer specific endpoint rare enough and OS overwhelmingly mitigated by other factors (the best data for OS benefit of XRT in pCA is 55Gy in the setting of limited metastatic disease) that any given trial only means so much. Is it not crazy to have variance of 10% in OS for two 250 person groups of 70 year old men at 10 years based on randomness alone (this likelihood is seriously increased in the setting of the temporal nature of clinical trials, where the number evaluable at late time points is much smaller that the number enrolled).
I doubt 10 Gy really changes OS by 10% and the trial does not help regarding the 80/40 vs 70/28 (maybe with an SIB) decision. But clearly, nobody should be shaming anyone for doing 40-45 fractions with long term ADT for high risk prostate cancer.
Old school high risk patients. Wonder what their PSMA pet scans would look like.Nice post but I would emphasize the best evidence for RT improving survival by overcoming resistance to androgen blockage alone in high risk non-metastatic prostate cancer is quite compelling indeed. Established conventionally fractionated radiation as the standard of care and great to see the new standard raised to 80 Gy. This is signal (helping patients) while endless non-inferiority trials = shiny objects/plenary presentation/career advancement etc.
Endocrine treatment, with or without radiotherapy, in locally advanced prostate cancer (SPCG-7/SFUO-3): an open randomised phase III trial - PubMed
In patients with locally advanced or high-risk local prostate cancer, addition of local radiotherapy to endocrine treatment halved the 10-year prostate-cancer-specific mortality, and substantially decreased overall mortality with fully acceptable risk of side-effects compared with endocrine...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
There is also the Canadian trialOld school high risk patients. Wonder what their PSMA pet scans would look like.
But a trial I still think about regularly when counseling very locally advanced men to incorporate XRT into their treatment. Very important work.
Old school high risk patients. Wonder what their PSMA pet scans would look like.
But a trial I still think about regularly when counseling very locally advanced men to incorporate XRT into their treatment. Very important work.
Noninferiority trials show non inferiority 85% of the time - what kind of science is that?Agree wholeheartedly. Non-inferiority trials are usually infuriating
There is no easier way to make a mark as a clinical academic radonc than to be the PI on non-inferiority in moving the standard of care at times in the wrong direction.
But...studying survival outcomes in pCA is just so tough,
I doubt 10 Gy really changes OS by 10% and the trial does not help regarding the 80/40 vs 70/28 (maybe with an SIB) decision. But clearly, nobody should be shaming anyone for doing 40-45 fractions with long term ADT for high risk prostate cancer.
They "let you" treat with 45. You have to appeal.I also do, but some payors have a hard limit of 40 fractions even when treating nodes. Funny enough I've never seen them mandate 200 over 180/fraction in any other site, except prostate which has the lowest alpha/beta.
Speaking of nodes, this trial treated nodes in 23 fractions. Not sure it will do much with Evicore as they only let you use conventional if you are treating nodes, and this is also a 40 fraction trial, not 45.
Didn't msk have a study going to 86.4/48 fx?I do 46 because I care more then you do.
Of course they did. Gets you another weekly chargeDidn't msk have a study going to 86.4/48 fx?
Double digit OTVs per pt. Unheard of otherwiseOf course they did. Gets you another weekly charge
Didn't msk have a study going to 86.4/48 fx?
It’s interesting how we have just ignored the FLAME trial.
Anyone have the info?
This may (probably will) IMPROVE outcomes rather than just proving non-inferiority
But are they using conventional fractionation per the trial?I know a lot of people dose escalating dominant nodule. Makes total sense to me.
But are they using conventional fractionation per the trial?
I see people doing hypofrac and boosting that area with SIB.
This is a great example of the disconnect between "the RadOnc conversation" and "the RadOnc reality".know people doing both.
They "let you" treat with 45. You have to appeal.
I have never been affiliated with MSKCC. But the change in paradigm in the late 2000s/early 2010s was remarkable. A colleague (who had been affiliated with MSKCC) informed me in the early/mid 2010s that MSKCC was now SBRTing tons of people (I had previously thought of them as fractionation maximalists regarding prostate cancer). Zelefsky's own research output changed to emphasize ultra hypofractionation.Ultra-high dose (86.4 Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes - PubMed
This report represents the largest data set of patients treated to ultra-high radiation dose levels of 86.4 Gy using IMRT for localized prostate cancer. Our findings indicate that this treatment is well tolerated and the early excellent biochemical control rates are encouraging.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Right - those are all either 1) diagnostic/workup or 2) metastatic setting.Idk I guess I may be missing your circles or social media view but I feel like lots of stuff gets talked about in prostate cancer other than hypofrac or omission. It’s changed quite a bit over the past few years. The sequencing and types of hormonal therapy, the impact of PSMA on staging, volume delineation, and prognosis in the high risk and salvage settings, the treatment of the primary or metastases in the metastatic setting, dominant nodule boosting, POP-ART - all of these to me are interesting and are discussed quite a bit I see in the literature and social media. Prostate RT has gotten a lot more interesting as of late IMO
Right - those are all either 1) diagnostic/workup or 2) metastatic setting.
I don't disagree.
I'm talking specifically about definitive radiotherapy in the primary, non-salvage, non-metastatic setting.
Show me ANYTHING that isn't hypofrac, SBRT, or surveillance in that topic.
Let's add to this intensified systemic therapy together with RT+ADT, e.g. STAMPEDE with abiraterone.I mentioned them in my post, among others:
1) pop ART - elective nodal radiation.
2) trials and literature on PSMA on volume delineation in definitive setting
3) dominant nodule boost!
I mentioned them in my post, among others:
1) pop ART - elective nodal radiation.
2) trials and literature on PSMA on volume delineation in definitive setting
3) dominant nodule boost!
Let's add to this intensified systemic therapy together with RT+ADT, e.g. STAMPEDE with abiraterone.
Practicing in a non competitive rural environment is the ultimate rad onc life hack.If/when we get a bundled payment program, pay close attention to the opinions of people working in different systems. We will learn a lot about them in that time. In theory, bundled will remove the marketing advantage of hypofrac... Im worried large networks will instead start trying to differentiate by just saying they do a better job on the same treatment (without posting outcomes)
Maybe it is only obvious to me because I lived it in my first job as someone who treated rare cancers. If academic centers did not care about growth and consult conversion rate, there would be far less American writing about hypofractionation. I explored both moving my service to hypofractionation to better treat patients myself and better training my community colleagues to do standard fractionation close to home. You can guess which was better supported by my administration of the two strategies.
Mark Storey has a great article out this morning that I think really efficiently captures the true motivation for why places like MSKCC are so over the top with hypofractionation.
It really bothers me that these "health economics researchers" in our field have become comfortable with publishing propaganda.
Market trends: A Rebuttal
A recent article made my blood boil. We'll look deeper and see if my gut was right or wrong.protons101.substack.com
I still do the hour long consult, but spend very little time on things like side effects.I have moved away from the hour long consults discussing every possible treatment permutation.
It’s simply “side effects may be worse if you want to get done quicker”
I just had one guy who would only do 5 fractions or nothing at all. He is getting 5 fractions. Without gel because I can’t do it and nobody else will either. I still prefer this to obs in intermediate risk.
For high and very high risk there is a discussion about how aggressive they want to be and pursue a brachy or SBRT boost although im starting to just prefer flame boosts now.
Ultra-high dose (86.4 Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes - PubMed
This report represents the largest data set of patients treated to ultra-high radiation dose levels of 86.4 Gy using IMRT for localized prostate cancer. Our findings indicate that this treatment is well tolerated and the early excellent biochemical control rates are encouraging.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Yet in that environment you have patients asking for prostate sbrt? Sounds oddPracticing in a non competitive rural environment is the ultimate rad onc life hack.
The bulk of my time is now spent on coordination of care and basically...emotional comfort? I can probably find a better word/phrase at some point.
In my (rural) area, there's a significant lack of coordination, availability of various services, and many of my patients have had very little contact with the healthcare system.
By the sadly simple fact that I treat patients as...people, and give them more time than any doctor they've ever seen, 100% of my consults who need radiation stick with me.
Definitely not common. Didn’t know what sbrt was. But didn’t want to come in for even 20 treatments. Was agreeable to 5. Not the first time that has happened. Have had people quit head and neck radiation halfway through because of seasonal farm duties.Yet in that environment you have patients asking for prostate sbrt? Sounds odd
STAMPEDE also studied instensified therapy in non-metastastic tumors.STAMPEDE is metastatic. What's your favorite intensified therapy paper?
STAMPEDE also studied instensified therapy in non-metastastic tumors.
Abiraterone on top of ADT is considered s.o.c. by many for these (very) high risk non-metastastic tumors, when giving RT+ADT.
Hmm, you know what hasn't had a complication?
I mean, the seminal vesicles are very important organs
I may have, but I really can't recall.
More than half of my patients with WBRT are dead within 6 months.Memantine past six months after WBRT I discuss with patient.
If they want to continue, I use indefinitely. I don't push.
I would say on the order of half of surviving patients don't take memantine the recommended six months for a variety of reasons.
Of the half who make it to six months, half extend it indefinitely while the other half don't.
my understanding is that in alzheimers momentine improves some symptoms. It does not help with progression of disease.More than half of my patients with WBRT are dead within 6 months.
View attachment 381768
77Gy in 35 fractions to the entire prostate is not conventional fractionation. It's an in-between between conventional and mod hypofx.But are they using conventional fractionation per the trial?
I see people doing hypofrac and boosting that area with SIB.
By the sadly simple fact that I treat patients as...people, and give them more time than any doctor they've ever seen, 100% of my consults who need radiation stick with me.
It's...really sad, actually.
I have been shocked how little time our med onc colleagues spend with patients.This 100%
You don't even have to be an amazing doctor, but give patients the time and speak to them like people and you're good. Occasionally it takes some extra work but pays off.
I've been surprised by the questions some of my patients have for me re HIFU, cryo, etc, in my rural area without much competition.