PURPOSE: Global access to radiotherapy (RT) is inequitable, with obstacles to implementing modern technologies in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). The Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA) is a web-based automated RT planning software package intended to increase accessibility of high-quality RT planning. We surveyed LMIC RT providers to identify barriers and facilitators of future RPA deployment and uptake. METHODS: RT providers underwent a pilot RPA teaching session in sub-Saharan Africa (Botswana, South Africa, and Tanzania) and Central America (Guatemala). Thirty providers (30 of 33, 90.9% response rate) participated in a postsession survey. RESULTS: Respondents included physicians (n = 10, 33%), physicists (n = 9, 30%), dosimetrists (n = 8, 27%), residents/registrars (n = 1, 3.3%), radiation therapists (n = 1, 3.3%), and administrators (n = 1, 3.3%). Overall, 86.7% expressed interest in RPA; more respondents expected that RPA would be usable in 2 years (80%) compared with now (60%). Anticipated barriers were lack of reliable internet (80%), potential subscription fees (60%), and need for functionality in additional disease sites (48%). Expected facilitators included decreased workload (80%), decreased planning time (72%), and ability to treat more patients (64%). Forty-four percent anticipated that RPA would help transition from 2-dimensional to 3-dimensional techniques and 48% from 3-dimensional to intensity-modulated radiation treatment. Of a maximum acceptability/feasibility score of 60, physicians (45.6, standard deviation [SD] = 7.5) and dosimetrists (44.3, SD = 9.1) had lower scores than the mean for all respondents (48.3, SD = 7.7) although variation in scores by roles was not significantly different ( P = .21). CONCLUSION: These data provide an early assessment and create an initial framework to identify stakeholder needs and establish priorities to address barriers and promote facilitators of RPA deployment and uptake across global sites, as well as to tailor to needs in LMICs.

PURPOSE: Local consolidative therapy (LCT) for patients with synchronous oligometastatic non–small-cell lung cancer is an evolving treatment strategy, but outcomes following LCT stratified by genetic mutations have not been reported. We sought to identify genomic associations with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for these patients. METHODS: We identified all patients presenting between 2000 and 2017 with stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer and ≤ 3 synchronous metastatic sites. Patients were grouped according to mutational statuses. Primary outcomes included OS and PFS following initial diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 194 included patients, 121 received comprehensive LCT to all sites of disease with either surgery or radiation. TP53 mutations were identified in 40 of 78 (55%), KRAS in 32 of 95 (34%), EGFR in 24 of 109 (22%), and STK11 in nine of 77 (12%). At median follow-up of 96 months, median OS and PFS were 26 (95% CI, 23 to 31) months and 11 (95% CI, 9 to 13) months, respectively. On multivariable analysis, patients with EGFR mutations had lower mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.98; P = .044) compared with wild-type patients, and patients with STK11 mutations had higher risk of progression or mortality (HR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 4.79; P = .023) compared with wild-type patients. TP53 and KRAS mutations were not associated with OS or PFS. Among 71 patients with known EGFR mutational status who received comprehensive LCT, EGFR mutations were associated with lower mortality compared with wild-type (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.94; P = .032). CONCLUSION: When compared with wild-type patients, those with EGFR and STK11 mutations had longer OS and shorter PFS, respectively. EGFR mutations were associated with longer OS among oligometastatic patients treated with comprehensive LCT in addition to systemic therapy.

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is associated with less toxicity relative to conventional photon radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer (HNC). Upfront delivery costs are greater, but PBT can provide superior long-term value by minimizing treatment-related complications. Cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) estimate the relative value of novel technologies (such as PBT) as compared with the established standard of care. However, the uncertainties of CEMs can limit interpretation and applicability. This review serves to (1) assess the methodology and quality of pertinent CEMs in the existing literature, (2) evaluate their suitability for guiding clinical and economic strategies, and (3) discuss areas for improvement among future analyses. PubMed was queried for CEMs specific to PBT for HNC. General characteristics, modeling information, and methodological approaches were extracted for each identified study. Reporting quality was assessed via the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 24-item checklist, whereas methodologic quality was evaluated via the Philips checklist. The Cooper evidence hierarchy scale was employed to analyze parameter inputs referenced within each model. At the time of study, only 4 formal CEMs specific to PBT for HNC had been published (2005, 2013, 2018, 2020). The parameter inputs among these various Markov cohort models generally referenced older literature, excluding many clinically relevant complications and applying numerous hypothetical assumptions for toxicity states, incorporating inputs from theoretical complication-probability models because of limited availability of direct clinical evidence. Case numbers among study cohorts were low, and the structural design of some models inadequately reflected the natural history of HNC. Furthermore, cost inputs were incomplete and referenced historic figures. Contemporary CEMs are needed to incorporate modern estimates for toxicity risks and costs associated with PBT delivery, to provide a more accurate estimate of value, and to improve their clinical applicability with respect to PBT for HNC.