New Approaches in Radiation Oncology

Purpose: Errors and incidents may occur at any point within radiotherapy (RT). The aim of the present retrospective analysis is to evaluate the impact of a customized ARIA Visual Care Path (VCP) on quality assurance (QA) for the RT process. Materials and Methods: The ARIA VCP was implemented in June 2019. The following tasks were customized and independently verified (by independent checks from radiation oncologists, medical physics, and radiation therapists): simulation, treatment planning, treatment start verification, and treatment completion. A retrospective analysis of 105 random and unselected patients was performed, and 945 tasks were reviewed. Patients’ reports were categorized based on treatment years period: 2019–2020 (A); 2021 (B); and 2022–2023 (C). The QA metrics included data for timeliness of task completion and data for minor and major incidents. The major incidents were defined as incorrect prescriptions of RT dose, the use of different immobilization systems during RT compared to the simulation, the absence of surface-guided RT data for patients’ positioning, incorrect dosimetric QA for treatment plans, and failure to complete RT as originally planned. A sample size of approximately 100 was able to obtain an upper limit of 95% confidence interval below 5–10% in the case of zero or one major incident. Results: From June 2019 to December 2023, 5300 patients were treated in our RT department, an average of 1300 patients per year. For the purpose of this analysis, one hundred and five patients were chosen for the study and were subsequently evaluated. All RT staff achieved a 100% compliance rate in the ARIA VCP timely completion. A total of 36 patients were treated in Period A, 34 in Period B, and 35 in Period C. No major incidents were identified, demonstrating a major incident rate of 0.0% (95% CI 0.0–3.5%). A total of 26 out of 945 analyzed tasks (3.8%) were reported as minor incidents: absence of positioning photo in 32 cases, lack of patients’ photo, and absence of plan documents in 4 cases. When comparing periods, incidents were statistically less frequent in Period C. Conclusions: Although the present analysis has some limitations, its outcomes demonstrated that software for the RT workflow, which is fully integrated with both the record-and-verify and treatment planning systems, can effectively manage the patient’s care path. Implementing the ARIA VCP improved the efficiency of the RT care path workflow, reducing the risk of major and minor incidents. Full article

Unlike drug selection, radiation parameters (field, dose) are not based on driver gene mutations in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to compare radiosensitivity in NSCLC with and without EGFR driver gene mutations using clinical and in vitro data. The clinical study included 42 patients who underwent whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastases from NSCLC; of these, 13 patients had EGFR mutation-positive tumors. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to calculate the cranial control rate without intracranial recurrence. In the in vitro study, colony formation and double-strand DNA breaks were examined in two EGFR mutation-negative and three EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC-derived cell lines. Colony formation was assessed 14 days after irradiation with 0 (control), 2, 4, or 8 Gy. DNA double-strand breaks were evaluated 0.5 and 24 h after irradiation. EGFR mutation-positive patients had a significantly better cranial control rates than EGFR mutation-negative patients (p = 0.021). EGFR mutation-positive cells formed significantly fewer colonies after irradiation with 2 or 4 Gy than EGFR mutation-negative cells (p = 0.002, respectively) and had significantly more DNA double-strand breaks at 24 h after irradiation (p < 0.001). Both clinical and in vitro data suggest that EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC is radiosensitive. Full article