- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 93
- Reaction score
- 28
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1203770
Curious what the preliminary safety profile is from RTOG 0813.
Curious what the preliminary safety profile is from RTOG 0813.
Penn hates SRS/SBRT.
While the protocol does not specify the number of patients per dose level it is likely on the order of 10-20, so adding an additional n of 1 to that is meaningful.
No, it's not. In fact, it's irrelevant. Those 10-20 patients were carefully selected, screened and met rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria with meticulous QA hardware requirements BEFORE they were treated.
I'm a little surprised how shocked people are at the presentation of a toxicity, which is well-established with previous fractionation schedules, which was now seen at a lower threshold. What would you have them do, not report something they believe to be clinically important?
Did they follow RTOG 0813 dose constraints precisely? The paper says they did, but who knows. Did they actually treat the peripheral lesion and central lesion simultaneously?
They did treat both simultaneously. There's a picture of the dose color wash of both lesions at the link (figure 1). Interesting how they gloss over this. Also this patient had multiple mediastinal recurrences/mets along with the airway injury. They don't really go into this issue much in the paper, yet I (along with most I would assume) would think this to be an important issue.
scrybe9 said:So what you are saying is that you have more faith in an RTOG protocol being applied at a wide variety of local institutions than a seemingly identical protocol at a single institution, which also happens to be an RTOG member?
scrybe9 said:What would you have them do, not report something they believe to be clinically important?
There are risks of treatment and you have to go through it with the patient, but seriously, what else would you offer a patient? Of course we should have caution, of course we should notify patients of risks of treatment. But it would be unethical to treat a patient with early stage lung cancer any other way, S
People can and do publish whatever the heck they want. Our job is to look at data with a critical eye and proceed accordingly.
Of course we should have caution, of course we should notify patients of risks of treatment. But it would be unethical to treat a patient with early stage lung cancer any other way,
S
I've never done 70 Gy/28 Fx. Just looked over the article. Looks like a really good scheme. I'd still prefer Cyber/SBRT, though, just because of so much accumulated data from Japan, here, and other places.
-S
We can accept 5% rate of serious (grade 3) toxicity - TD5/5 concept.
We should not accept even 1% rate of grade 5 toxicity (death). That's what this case report is about.
This comment is ridiculous. We frequently subject patients with potentially lethal cancer to a risk of fatal treatment related toxicity on the order of 1-5% (essentially any concurrent chemo-rads regimen). If you are not willing to do this as a radiation oncologist you might as well not even come to work.
Would NEJM publish a case report of a patient with stage I lung cancer who underwent lobectomy and died of a postoperative pulmonary embolism? No. If they did, would (or should) thoracic surgeons stop operating on patients with stage I lung cancer? No.
Absolutely! Grade 5 toxicity has been seen and you have to mention it. I think not mentioning seems somewhat misleading. Things happen. These are sick patients and even though they may die of other reasons, any potentially curative treatment of NSCLC has a small, but potential risk of grade 5 toxicity. Anyone claiming otherwise - "patients should run away from your cancer program and do it fast"
-S
So you consent your stage I lung SBRT patients for treatment-related death? Patients should run away from your cancer program and do it fast.
What are you talking about?
Of course you need to obtain informed consent for treatment-related death if you are doing SBRT.
Pneumonitis can be deadly and treating close to the main airway or trachea can cause uncontrollable bleeding or mediastinitis in case of necrosis.
"The stomach and bowel were not contoured as part of the treatment plan and neither intravenous (IV) nor oral contrast was used to define the stomach during simulation"
No contours= No DVH= No constraints that were used!
Look, fact is, people aren't going to back down after making some statements. Above it said: "So you consent your stage I lung SBRT patients for treatment-related death?" and I said, of course, and then the argument changed about what constitues treatment-related death. Grade 5 is grade 5 is grade 5. I'm not mad-dogging you, Seper, but there is no good evidence to not do it other than anecdote and case report. If you don't want to do it, it's fine, but going to less than 100 BED isn't supported in evidence, so at that point maybe reconsider doing it at all and sending to an academic center (that's what I do, since I don't have the modality). The Japanese data: 1.1%-3 >grade 2 pulmonary toxicity in many hundreds of patients utilizing 50 Gy/5 fx for central and peripheral tumors and they've done it in many hundreds of patients. The American data is similar. The Danish data is similar. The Swedish data is similar. The Pittsburgh data is similar. Everyone is showing the same thing: local control in the 90% range, grade 3 toxicity of 5% or less, and survival in the 3-4 year range. If you want to not do it or treat it at an ineffectual lower dose, that's fine, but I don't think it's based in any strong evidence to tell others to not do it.
People want to defend the NEJM publishing a case report of a T4N0M0 tumor being treated off-protocol and suffering a consequence, that's fine. They might want to mention that SBRT has led to a tripling of survival in patients that were nearly incurable before. The New York Times wants to talk about 3 mistakes a a sloppy hospital made, while forgetting to mention of radiation has cured and palliated and improved the lives of millions of people. As always, most radoncs will just sit there and take it because we get paid well and the job is enjoyable. But amongst ourselves, we oughtta be able to call a spade a spade. This is just more propaganda. Unfortunately, it's being produced by our own. They should be called out for mistreating a locally advanced patient, not supported for publishing nonsense.
And UPenn may be considere a "great institution", but the rad-onc department has not been an early adopter of new technology, nor had they contributed much to the literature in the early era of IMRT and SRS. For being a "top-notch place", they hardly published anything at the beginning, while Beaumont, UPMC, Stanford, MDACC, MSKCC were publishing paper after paper of outcomes data. Now, they are coming up with this nonsense. Give me a break.
I'm genuinely surprised. Let me understand this right - I'm trying to learn:
- your consent form for SBRT has the word "death" printed on it in late side effects section, and
- when you consent SBRT patient, you tell them something like "radiation can cause damage to lungs and other organs that may lead to your becoming very sick and possibly dying"?
In my current practice and in residency training, both busy SBRT centers on East Coast, we don't expect treatment related mortality from a standard SBRT treatment. Any grade 5 toxicity would trigger an internal investigation.
I'm genuinely surprised. Let me understand this right - I'm trying to learn:
- your consent form for SBRT has the word "death" printed on it in late side effects section, and
- when you consent SBRT patient, you tell them something like "radiation can cause damage to lungs and other organs that may lead to your becoming very sick and possibly dying"?
In my current practice and in residency training, both busy SBRT centers on East Coast, we don't expect treatment related mortality from a standard SBRT treatment. Any grade 5 toxicity would trigger an internal investigation.
Digression: Do Medical oncologists consent a patient with the word "death" when they start chemotherapy? (Personally- I don't recall them doing that with patients...)
Digression: Do Medical oncologists consent a patient with the word "death" when they start chemotherapy? (Personally- I don't recall them doing that with patients...)
In Europe this is common practice, especially for the more aggressive chemotherapy regiments.