If you think about it, we are actually unlikely to see a dose-response relationship for rectal cancer in the (neo-)adjuvant setting: Even if there exists a dose-response relationship, it must be very shallow
So what matters to patients? Organ preservation (NOM) would - but that depends on 1) clinical complete response (cCR), and 2) long term local control without surgery #radonc#jc
Can we get more cCR with higher RT dose? pCR is different from cCR, so we can't rely just on the trials examining pCR. We only have the (old) data from Lyon R 96-02: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22579379/#radonc#jc
On the other hand, the trials quoted above (INTERACT, RECTAL-BOOST, Dose-Effect) are consistent in showing an effect of dose escalation on tumour regression (TRG1-2). OR=1.6, OR=2.7, OR=1.9. This is still path endpoint, though, so still doesn't matter to patients #radonc#jc
This doesn't address the question of dose escalation for patients w/ risk of incomplete surgical resection: T4 tumours, pelvic side wall nodes, etc. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have firm evidence in this setting either - and I'm unsure if any ongoing trials? #radonc#jc
And here ends my tweetorial on rectal cancer dose escalation. That was probably far more than you wanted to know 😉 #radonc#jc
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After reviewing 'predictive modelling & radiomics' abstracts for #ESTRO202, I had quite a few thoughts. I've finally found time to organise them in a semi-coherent manner
To follow: Some common pitfalls in modelling & radiomics abstracts for clinical conferences #radonc#medphys
First of all, the basic stuff:
Get somebody who’s never seen your study before to read through the abstract - to ensure fundamental information isn't missing.
(And no, you won't notice yourself, because you’re too concerned with whether you can squeeze in another AUC value ...)
If you are submitting to a radiotherapy conference, maybe make clear what the relevance is for radiotherapy? Several image analysis / radiomics / AI abstracts were probably technically excellent, but I scored them low due to lack of radiotherapy relevance
First, what characterises medical physicists?
- We're quantitative, systematic & analytical
- We're trained in modelling, data visualisation, & interpretation of evidence
(And sometimes we - by which I mean me - go exploring in caves, which is almost like running a trial 😅)
But importantly, we understand the opportunities and limitations in current technology & are uniquely placed to understand current gaps in knowledge.
We can ask
“How can we best utilise technology to improve outcomes?”
“Will this be achievable in daily practice?”