Introduction: Initiated in June 2019, this collaborative effort involved 15 public and private sector hospitals in Pakistan. The primary objective was to enhance the capacity for pediatric neuro-oncology (PNO) care, supported by a My Child Matters/Foundation S grant.Methods: We aimed to establish and operate Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MTBs) on a national scale, covering 76% of the population (185.7 million people). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, MTBs transitioned to videoconferencing. Fifteen hospitals with essential infrastructure participated, holding monthly sessions addressing diagnostic and treatment challenges. Patient cases were anonymized for confidentiality. Educational initiatives, originally planned as in-person events, shifted to a virtual format, enabling continued implementation and collaboration despite pandemic constraints.Results: A total of 124 meetings were conducted, addressing 545 cases. To augment knowledge, awareness, and expertise, over 40 longitudinal lectures were organized for healthcare professionals engaged in PNO care. Additionally, two symposia with international collaborators and keynote speakers were also held to raise national awareness. The project achieved significant milestones, including the development of standardized national treatment protocols for low-grade glioma, medulloblastoma, and high-grade glioma. Further protocols are currently under development. Notably, Pakistan's first pediatric neuro-oncology fellowship program was launched, producing two graduates and increasing the number of trained pediatric neuro-oncologists in the country to three.Discussion: The initiative exemplifies the potential for capacity building in PNO within low-middle income countries. Success is attributed to intra-national twinning programs, emphasizing collaborative efforts. Efforts are underway to establish a national case registry for PNO, ensuring a comprehensive and organized approach to monitoring and managing cases. This collaborative initiative, supported by the My Child Matters/Foundation S grant, showcases the success of capacity building in pediatric neuro-oncology in low-middle income countries. The establishment of treatment protocols, fellowship programs, and regional tumor boards highlights the potential for sustainable improvements in PNO care.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and report the frequency of changes in radiation therapy treatment plans after peer review in a simulation review meeting once a week. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 1 and August 31, 2016, the radiation plans of 116 patients were discussed in departmental simulation review meetings. All plans were finalized by the primary radiation oncologist before presenting them in the meeting. A team of radiation oncologists reviewed each plan, and their suggestions were documented as no change, major change, minor change, or missing contour. Changes were further classified as changes in clinical target volume, treatment field, or dose. All recommendations were stratified on the basis of treatment intent, site, and technique. Data were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences and are presented descriptively. RESULTS: Out of 116 plans, 26 (22.4%) were recommended for changes. Minor changes were suggested in 15 treatment plans (12.9%) and a major change in 10 (8.6%), and only one plan was suggested for missing contour. The frequency of change recommendations was greater in radical radiation plans than in palliative plans (92.3% v 7.7%). The head and neck was the most common treatment site recommended for any changes (42.3%). Most of the changes were recommended in the technique planned with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (50%). Clinical target volume (73.1%) was identified as the most frequent parameter suggested for any change, followed by treatment field (19.2%) and dose (0.08%). CONCLUSION: Peer review is an important tool that can be used to overcome deficiencies in radiation treatment plans, with a goal of improved and individualized patient care. Our study reports changes in up to a quarter of radiotherapy plans.

Background: The ideal timing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial due to its side effects and uncertain impact on survival outcomes. Methods: We performed a review of the current literature by comprehensively searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to determine the optimal timing of ADT initiation after biochemical recurrence. We selected 26 studies including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and retrospective studies, while also reviewing practice guidelines. Results: Not all patients with BCR cancer experience clinical or radiological progression. While early ADT may delay progression, evidence of its effect on PCa-specific mortality remains inconclusive. The PSA thresholds for initiating ADT vary, complicating decision-making. Key predictors of progression include a short PSA doubling time (PSADT), a high Gleason score (GS), and a brief interval to BCR of PCa post-radiotherapy (RT). Combining ADT with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) has been shown to improve metastasis-free survival in high-risk patients. Conclusion: The ideal timing of ADT initiation in BCR PCa remains uncertain. Early ADT can help control the progression, but its effect on PCa-specific mortality is unclear. Stratifying patients by their risk factors, such as their PSADT, GS, and time to BCR can guide individualized treatment. In high-risk patients, delaying ADT should be avoided, while combining ADT with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) may further improve outcomes.

Background: There is an ongoing debate on the optimal sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa). Recent data favors concurrent ADT and RT over the neoadjuvant approach. Methods: We conducted a systematic review in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases assessing the combination and optimal sequencing of ADT and RT for Intermediate-Risk (IR) and High-Risk (HR) PCa. Findings: Twenty randomized control trials, one abstract, one individual patient data meta-analysis, and two retrospective studies were selected. HR PCa patients had improved survival outcomes with RT and ADT, particularly when a long-course Neoadjuvant-Concurrent-Adjuvant ADT was used. This benefit was seen in IR PCa when adding short-course ADT, although less consistently. The best available evidence indicates that concurrent over neoadjuvant sequencing is associated with better metastases-free survival at 15 years. Although most patients had IR PCa, HR participants may have been undertreated with short-course ADT and the absence of pelvic RT. Conversely, retrospective data suggests a survival benefit when using the neoadjuvant approach in HR PCa patients. Interpretation: The available literature supports concurrent ADT and RT initiation for IR PCa. Neoadjuvant-concurrent-adjuvant sequencing should remain the standard approach for HR PCa and is an option for IR PCa.