Moving Forward in the Next Decade: Radiation Oncology Sciences for Patient-Centered Cancer Care

NRG Oncology White Paper on the Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy

This position paper, led by the NRG Oncology Particle Therapy Work Group, focuses on the concept of relative biologic effect (RBE) in clinical proton therapy (PT), with the goal of providing recommendations for the next-generation clinical trials with PT on the best practice of investigating and using RBE, which could deviate from the current standard proton RBE value of 1.1 relative to photons. In part 1, current clinical utilization and practice are reviewed, giving the context and history of RBE. Evidence for variation in RBE is presented along with the concept of linear energy transfer (LET). The intertwined nature of tumor radiobiology, normal tissue constraints, and treatment planning with LET and RBE considerations is then reviewed. Part 2 summarizes current and past clinical data and then suggests the next steps to explore and employ tools for improved dynamic models for RBE. In part 3, approaches and methods for the next generation of prospective clinical trials are explored, with the goal of optimizing RBE to be both more reflective of clinical reality and also deployable in trials to allow clinical validation and interpatient comparisons. These concepts provide the foundation for personalized biologic treatments reviewed in part 4. Finally, we conclude with a summary including short- and long-term scientific focus points for clinical PT. The practicalities and capacity to use RBE in treatment planning are reviewed and considered with more biological data in hand. The intermediate step of LET optimization is summarized and proposed as a potential bridge to the ultimate goal of case-specific RBE planning that can be achieved as a hypothesis-generating tool in near-term proton trials.

The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Disparities Research Partnership Program: a unique funding model 20 years later

The burden of cancer and access to effective treatment are not experienced equally by all in the United States. For underserved populations that often access the health-care system when their cancers are in advanced disease stages, radiation oncology services are essential. In 2001, the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Radiation Research Program created and implemented the Cancer Disparities Research Partnership Program (CDRP). CDRP was a pioneering funding model whose goal was to increase participation of medically underserved populations in NCI clinical trials. CDRP's Cooperative Agreement funding supported for awardees the planning, development, and conduct of radiation oncology clinical research in institutions not traditionally involved in NCI-sponsored research and cared for a disproportionate number of medically underserved, health-disparities populations. The awardee secured and provided support for mentorship from 1 of 2 NCI comprehensive cancer centers named in its application. Six CDRP awards were made over two 5-year funding periods ending in 2013, with the end-of-program accomplishments previously reported. With the current focus on addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion, the 6 principal investigators were surveyed, 5 of whom responded about the impact of CDRP on their institutions, communities, and personal career paths. The survey that was emailed included 10 questions on a 5-point Likert scale. It was not possible to collect patient data this long after completion of the program. This article provides a 20-year retrospective of the experiences and observations from those principal investigators that can inform those now planning, building, and implementing equity, diversity, and inclusion programs.

Evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) has suggested using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to grade the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies. This approach has not been applied to radiation therapy (RT) yet. We applied the ESMO-MCBS to experiences describing the use of RT to assess (1) the 'scoreability' of the data, (2) evaluate the reasonableness of the grades for clinical benefit and (3) identify potential shortcomings in the current version of the ESMO-MCBS in its applicability to RT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We applied the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 to a selection of studies in radiotherapy that had been identified as references in the development of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guidelines on whole breast radiation. Of the 112 cited references, we identified a subset of 16 studies that are amenable to grading using the ESMO-MCBS.

RESULTS

Of the 16 studies reviewed, 3/16 were scoreable with the ESMO tool. Six of 16 studies could not be scored because of shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1: (1) in 'non-inferiority studies', there is no credit for improved patient convenience, reduced patient burden or improved cosmesis; (2) in 'superiority studies' evaluating local control as a primary endpoint, there is no credit for the clinical benefit such as reduced need for further interventions. In 7/16 studies, methodological deficiencies in the conduct and reporting were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents a first step in determining the utility of the ESMO-MCBS in the evaluation of clinical benefit in radiotherapy. Important shortcomings were identified that would need to be addressed in developing a version of the ESMO-MCBS that can be robustly applied to radiotherapy treatments. Optimization of the ESMO-MCBS instrument will proceed to enable assessment of value in radiotherapy.

Inter-agency perspective: Translating advances in biomarker discovery and medical countermeasures development between terrestrial and space radiation environments

Over the past 20+ years, the U.S. Government has made significant strides in establishing research funding and initiating a portfolio consisting of subject matter experts on radiation-induced biological effects in normal tissues. Research supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) provided much of the early findings on identifying cellular pathways involved in radiation injuries, due to the need to push the boundaries to kill tumor cells while minimizing damage to intervening normal tissues. By protecting normal tissue surrounding the tumors, physicians can deliver a higher radiation dose to tumors and reduce adverse effects related to the treatment. Initially relying on this critical NCI research, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), first tasked with developing radiation medical countermeasures in 2004, has provided bridge funding to move basic research toward advanced development and translation. The goal of the NIAID program is to fund approaches that can one day be employed to protect civilian populations during a radiological or nuclear incident. In addition, with the reality of long-term space flights and the possibility of radiation exposures to both acute, high-intensity, and chronic lower-dose levels, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has identified requirements to discover and develop radioprotectors and mitigators to protect their astronauts during space missions. In sustained partnership with sister agencies, these three organizations must continue to leverage funding and findings in their overlapping research areas to accelerate biomarker identification and product development to help safeguard these different and yet undeniably similar human populations - cancer patients, public citizens, and astronauts.