Advances in Radiation Oncology最新文献

{"title":"National Trends in Radiation Treatment for Small Cell Lung Cancer Brain Metastases in the Modern Era","authors":"Jay Desai BA ,&nbsp;Sujay Rajkumar BS ,&nbsp;Matthew J. Shepard MD ,&nbsp;Rodney E. Wegner MD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101720","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101720","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a highly aggressive form of lung cancer that often leads to brain metastases. Traditional treatment has largely relied on whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). However, concerns about neurocognitive side effects have led to the adoption of advanced techniques such as hippocampal avoidance WBRT (HA-WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>This retrospective study used data from the National Cancer Database spanning from 2010 to 2021. The study included adult patients diagnosed with brain metastases from SCLC who received primary radiation therapy directed at the brain. Patients were categorized into 3 treatment groups: WBRT, HA-WBRT, and SRS. Statistical analyses, including logistic regression, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, and Cox regression, were performed to identify predictors of treatment type and survival outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The study analyzed 24,858 patients with a median age of 65 years. Over time, there was a significant increase in the use of advanced radiation techniques (HA-WBRT and SRS). SRS and HA-WBRT were associated with longer median survival (10.6 and 10.1 months, respectively) than WBRT (7.3 months). Factors such as advanced age, extracranial disease, and higher comorbidity scores were linked to poorer survival, whereas the use of chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and higher socioeconomic status were associated with improved outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>From 2010 to 2021, there has been an increase in the use of more advanced techniques to treat brain metastasis from SCLC. These advanced techniques were associated with improved survival outcomes, although selection bias and the retrospective nature of the study limit definitive conclusions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 3","pages":"Article 101720"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143430225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Investigating an Artificial Object Detected in Radiographic Images in a Child: Unique Considerations Related to Proton Therapy","authors":"Jiyeon Park PhD ,&nbsp;Daniel J. Indelicato MD ,&nbsp;Soon N. Huh PhD ,&nbsp;Bobby R. Waldrip BS, RTT ,&nbsp;Mark Artz PhD, MBA ,&nbsp;Yawei Zhang PhD ,&nbsp;Michael Vieceli MS ,&nbsp;Hardev Grewal PhD ,&nbsp;Perry Johnson PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101715","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101715","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 3","pages":"Article 101715"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143453314","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Phase I/II Study of Ultra-Hypofractionated Carbon-ion Radiation therapy for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer","authors":"Noriyuki Okonogi MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Hiroshi Tsuji MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Kana Kobayashi MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Mio Nakajima MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Shuri Aoki MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Takanobu Utsumi MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Hiroyoshi Suzuki MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Koichiro Akakura MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Tomohiko Ichikawa MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Hitoshi Ishikawa MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101705","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101705","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>We report herein the 3-year results of a phase I/II prospective study of 4-fraction course of carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>The present was a single-institution, phase I/II prospective study including patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to a 1- or 2-week schedule. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were defined as any genitourinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity grade 3 or higher within 90 days of beginning CIRT. Ten patients were enrolled in each group, and the CIRT dose was increased in a stepwise manner if there were fewer than 4 cases of DLT. The initial CIRT dose was 36 Gy, followed by 40 Gy or 44 Gy. Low-risk patients did not receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), whereas intermediate-risk patients received 4 to 8 months of neoadjuvant ADT.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Between October 2018 and October 2020, 60 patients were enrolled in the present study and completed the treatment regimen. The median post-CIRT follow-up period was 42 months (range, 27-59 months). Of the 60 patients enrolled, 10 were in the low-risk group, and 50 were in the intermediate-risk group. Neither group experienced grade 3 or higher GI or GU adverse events; therefore, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The incidence of grade 2 GU toxicity within 90 days post CIRT was significantly higher in the 44 Gy group than in the 36 to 40 Gy group (<em>P</em> &lt; .01, chi-square test with Yates correction). Biochemical failure was observed in 3 cases by 3 years post CIRT. No clinical recurrence or death because of prostate cancer occurred.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Forty Gy in 4 fractions of CIRT may be appropriate for balancing the therapeutic effects and toxicity. Our findings support further investigations into the efficacy of this strategy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 3","pages":"Article 101705"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143094116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Integrating Radiosensitivity Index and Radiation Resistance Related Index Improves Prostate Cancer Outcome Prediction","authors":"Qi-Qiao Wu MD ,&nbsp;Zhao-Sheng Yin MD ,&nbsp;Yi Zhang MD ,&nbsp;Yu-Fu Lin MD ,&nbsp;Jun-Rong Jiang BS ,&nbsp;Ruo-Yan Zheng BS ,&nbsp;Tao Jiang MD ,&nbsp;Dong-Xu Lin MD ,&nbsp;Peng Lai MD ,&nbsp;Fan Chao PhD ,&nbsp;Xin-Yue Wang MD ,&nbsp;Bu-Fu Tang PhD ,&nbsp;Shi-Suo Du PhD ,&nbsp;Jing Sun MD ,&nbsp;Ping Yang MD ,&nbsp;Zhao-Chong Zeng PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101713","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101713","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study aimed to establish a nomogram combining 31-gene signature (31-GS), radiosensitivity index (RSI), and radiation-resistance-related gene index (RRRI) to predict recurrence in prostate cancer (PCa) patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>Transcriptome data of PCa were obtained from gene expression omnibus and the cancer genome atlas to validate the predictive potential of 3 sets of published biomarkers, namely, 31-GS, RSI, and RRRI. To adjust these markers for the characteristics of PCa, we analyzed 4 PCa-associated radiosensitivity predictive indices based on 31-GS, RSI, and RRRI by the Cox analysis and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression analysis. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves, decision curve analyses, integrated discrimination improvement, net reclassification improvement and decision tree model construction were used to compare the radiosensitivity predictive ability of these 4 gene signatures. Key modules and associated functions were identified through a weighted gene co-expression network analysis and gene function enrichment analysis. A nomogram was built to improve the recurrence-prediction capability.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We validated and compared the predictive potential of 2 published predictive indices. Based on the 31-GS, RSI, and RRRI, we analyzed 4 PCa-associated radiosensitivity predictive indices: 14Genes, RSI, RRRI, and 20Genes. Among them, 14Genes showed the most promising predictive performance and discriminative capacity. Genes in the key module defined by the 14Genes model were significantly enriched in radiation therapy-related cell death pathways. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve and decision tree variable importance for 14Genes was the highest in the cancer genome atlas and Gene Expression Omnibus Series (GSE) cohorts.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study successfully established a radiosensitivity-related nomogram, which had excellent performance in predicting recurrence in patients with PCa. For patients who received radiation therapy, the 20Genes and RRRI models can be used to predict recurrence-free survival, whereas 20Genes is more radiation therapy-specific but needs further external validation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 3","pages":"Article 101713"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143394618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer Review","authors":"Leslie Chang MD ,&nbsp;Sara Alcorn MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Khinh Ranh Voong MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Todd R. McNutt PhD ,&nbsp;Ori Shokek MD ,&nbsp;Suzanne Evans MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Jean L. Wright MD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101708","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101708","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Radiation oncology peer review evaluates case-specific qualitative treatment planning decisions. We sought to understand interdisciplinary perspectives on peer review to identify factors affecting stakeholder engagement and implementation of recommendations.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Semistructured interviews and Likert surveys (scaled, 0-10) with radiation oncology peer review participants were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two independent coders utilized a grounded theory approach to extract dominant themes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Participants included 6 academic and 3 community radiation oncologists, 2 residents, 2 medical physicists, 2 radiation therapists, 4 dosimetrists, and 1 industry representative. Thematic priorities of peer review included adherence to institutional guidelines, clinical background to inform decision-making, detection of rare errors, and education. Key facilitators included pretreatment peer review, clear planning guidelines, and feedback on peer recommendations. Barriers to recommendation adoption included resource limitations and a lack of prospective data guiding qualitative recommendations. Participants perceived benefits of peer review were assessed with Likert surveys with higher values placed on reducing practice variation (8.0) and education (7.6) and a lower value placed on the detection of medical errors (7.4) and reduction of treatment delivery incidents (6.9). When comparing Likert scores by participant role, nonphysicians rated the overall importance of peer review (mean, 9.8 vs 6.5, <em>P</em> = .03) and education (mean, 9.0 vs 6.7, <em>P</em> = .02) significantly higher than physicians.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Participants in radiation oncology acknowledged the importance of peer review, but there was significant variation in the perceived benefits. A higher value was placed on the alignment of clinical practice and nonphysician participant education. Future processes to improve communication and prospective plan review were identified as beneficial to peer review-mediated plan changes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 3","pages":"Article 101708"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143093658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Raising the Bar for Assessing Nutritional Risk Among Patients with Cancer","authors":"Miriam A. Knoll MD ,&nbsp;Julie Wilcox MS","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101645","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101645","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 1","pages":"Article 101645"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143174833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment for Men Diagnosed With Localized Prostate Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Doris Kitson-Mills MPH, MPhil ,&nbsp;Andrew Donkor PhD ,&nbsp;Yaw Ampem Amoako MBChB, FWACS ,&nbsp;Kofi Adesi Kyei PhD ,&nbsp;Ernest Barwuah Osei Bonsu MBChB, FWACS ,&nbsp;Verna Vanderpuye MBChB, FWACS ,&nbsp;Yaw Amo Wiafe PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101670","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101670","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Current management for clinically localized prostate cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) includes surgery, external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and brachytherapy either alone or in combination, with plus or minus hormone therapy. The toxicity profiles and oncological outcomes of these treatment modalities vary. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of treatment-related outcomes and toxicities for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in LMICs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>The review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Cochrane Library, Embase, and Medline were searched for eligible articles. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager version 5.4.1 using a random effects model at a 95% confidence interval.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 2,820 patients were analyzed from 24 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Following 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), the most common clinician-reported toxicities were acute skin grade 1, acute genitourinary grade 1, acute gastrointestinal grade 1, and late gastrointestinal grade 1, with 46%, 29%, 24%, and 18%, respectively. Acute and late genitourinary grade 3 and gastrointestinal grade 3 toxicities were below 3% with no grade 4 toxicities reported after 3D-CRT. In the brachytherapy group, the prevalence of acute genitourinary grade 1 toxicity was 19%. Perioperative rectal injury was the least prevalent (2%) after retropubic radical prostatectomy. Following 3D-CRT, the 5-year overall survival rate was 87%, and for the combined brachytherapy and EBRT group, it increased to 96%. The prevalence of 5-year biochemical failure following EBRT and brachytherapy was 18% and 30%, respectively. The 4- and 3-year biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and combined EBRT with brachytherapy were 22% and 2%, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that in LMICs, EBRT, brachytherapy, and radical prostatectomy, either alone or in combination has an excellent potential for localized prostate cancer control with low toxicities and good oncological outcomes. Results of treatment-related toxicities and outcomes can support policymakers, patients, and clinicians on informed decision-making to strengthen prostate cancer care in the region. However, efforts are required to improve early detection, treatment accessibility, regular post-treatment follow-up care, consistent quality assurance practices, and staff continues development to help minimize treatment toxicities and improve outcomes of localized prostate cancer in LMICs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 1","pages":"Article 101670"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699425/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142930389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Optimal Setup and Parameters of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Translational Evaluation of a Tumor Progression Model for Soft Tissue Sarcomas","authors":"Nadya Shusharina PhD ,&nbsp;Stephan E. Maier MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Miranda B. Lam MD, MBA ,&nbsp;Evangelia Kaza PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101661","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101661","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Defining a microscopic tumor infiltration boundary is critical to the success of radiation therapy. Currently, radiation oncologists use margins to geometrically expand the visible tumor for radiation treatment planning in soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Image-based models of tumor progression would be critical to personalize the treatment radiation field to the pattern of sarcoma spread. Evaluation of these models is necessary to demonstrate feasibility in the clinical setting. This study presents an imaging protocol for the preclinical evaluation of a tumor progression model in extremity STS.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>We recruited 7 healthy volunteers and acquired diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) images of the thigh on a magnetic resonance imaging scanner used for imaging cancer patients in a radiation oncology department. We developed a protocol that includes positioning the patient, configuring the radiofrequency coils, and setting the DW-MRI sequence parameters. To find the optimal parameter configuration, the image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the directional variability (DV) of the principal eigenvector of the diffusion tensor were calculated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The mean SNR across all trials and 12 thigh muscles was 41, with a range of 12 to 72. The mean DV was 13° and ranged from 11° to 23°. The longest scan time was 22 minutes and 58 seconds, and the shortest was 11 minutes and 46 seconds. For the high-resolution image with a voxel volume of 1.3 × 1.3 × 6 mm³ and 38 slices, the optimal parameters were found to be a repetition time of 8000 ms, 12 signal averages, and 6 gradient directions. This configuration resulted in a scan time of 11 minutes and 46 seconds, an SNR of 34, and a DV of 13°.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>A DW-MRI scan duration acceptable for imaging cancer patients was achieved with an image quality suitable for reproducible modeling of tumor infiltration. The developed protocol can be used for preclinical evaluation in STS patients.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 1","pages":"Article 101661"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699357/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142930385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Burden of Insurance Prior Authorization on Cancer Care: A Review of Evidence From Radiation Oncology","authors":"Jayden Gracie MD ,&nbsp;Rachel Jimenez MD ,&nbsp;Karen M. Winkfield MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101654","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101654","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Despite its high cost-effectiveness, radiation oncology faces the greatest prior authorization (PA) burden of any medical specialty. Insurance denials and resulting treatment delays have been documented across several treatment modalities, including stereotactic body radiation, intensity modulated radiation, and proton therapy. Although insurance companies suggest that PA is intended to control health care spending and ensure the implementation of evidence-based practice, the number of radiation treatment plans reviewed by the PA process that result in changes is quite low. Yet, the cost to patients, providers, and the health care system is rising.</div><div>The increased administrative work required to address the appeal process, including the development of radiation plan comparisons, results in lost productivity of radiation staff and increased clinic costs that are not currently reimbursed. Treatment delays from PA may elevate patient anxiety and affect their ability to enroll in clinical trials, resulting in decreased quality of care. As a result of possible harm to patients, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services developed a ruling that mandates increased transparency of insurers’ requirements, decreased allowable time for arriving at PA decisions, and a more efficient electronic communication system to address the time and resource burden of PA.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>This article summarizes key discussions from the literature and provides recommendations to help mitigate insurance PA strain.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>These recommendations broadly address the following key areas: (1) omission of PA for routine care and clinical trials, (2) implementation of efficient, streamlined electronic peer-to-peer communication, (3) increased transparency of insurance requirements and rationale for denials, and (4) decreased time allowances for PA decisions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Policy reform focused on evidence-driven treatment coverage, reduction of the proportion of cases requiring PA, and a simplified, timely insurance appeal process is necessary to ensure optimal cancer care for patients requiring radiation therapy as part of their cancer journey.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 1","pages":"Article 101654"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699354/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142930399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"FCB-CHOPS: An Evolution of a Commonly Used Acronym for Evaluating Radiation Treatment Plans","authors":"Michael Weisman MD ,&nbsp;Shearwood McClelland III MD ,&nbsp;Namita Agrawal MD ,&nbsp;Rachel B. Jimenez MD ,&nbsp;Raphael Yechieli MD ,&nbsp;Emma Fields MD ,&nbsp;Omar Ishaq MD ,&nbsp;Jordan A. Holmes MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Daniel W. Golden MD, MHPE ,&nbsp;Raymond Mak MD ,&nbsp;Kevin Shiue MD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101627","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101627","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Checklists have been used across many fields as a systematic framework to reduce human error and improve safety. In radiation oncology, the CB-CHOP acronym was previously developed as a tool to aid physicians in assessing the quality of radiation treatment plans for approval. This manuscript updates the acronym for the modern era with the addition of F and S to create FCB-CHOPS: fusion, contours, beams, coverage, heterogeneity, organs at risk, prescription, and dose summation. These 2 additions reflect the evolution and importance of image fusion to aid in the delineation of targets and organs at risk and dose summation to reflect the increased incidence of reirradiation and the need to consider prior treatment courses in the final plan evaluation. Utilization of this and similar checklists is critical in maintaining high-quality and safe radiation oncology treatments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 1","pages":"Article 101627"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143175449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}