Kidney cancer used to be a clinical dx w symptoms, and it has evolved to become a radiographic dx wo symptoms.
Small renal masses (SRMs) are common today, akin to PSA-detected low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed in the 1990s.
The findings from a randomized trial in the 1980s led to a dark age of radiation therapy for kidney cancer.
A meta-analysis of prospective (*actually retrospective) research served as an echo chamber, to suggest that radiotherapy for kidney cancer does not work.
In 2013, @NCCN guidelines did not mention #radonc, except to say that radiation therapy had no role in the adjuvant setting. Meanwhile, partial nephrectomy (vs radical nephrectomy) become the most popular treatment approach.
Next, @_ShankarSiva led #radonc to re-introduce use of radiotherapy for kidney cancer.
The mechanism of cell death with high doses per fraction (>5-8 Gy/fx) is different than low doses per fraction (2 Gy/fx, similar to 1980s trial), and it seems to be effective for RCC.
#RadOnc physicians were already using SBRT for metastatic disease for many other cancers, so why not expand its use for primary and metastatic RCC?
IMO, TKIs should be held during RT.
In all of oncology, for every cancer where oncologists have combined RT + TKIs, there is never an improvement in survival, only worse toxicity.
Tx of the primary in setting of metastatic cancer has been area of controversy.
The pts derive most benefit:
1, low volume mets (eg, STAMPEDE, w tx to mets), and
2, get SBRT (not surgery)
What are the arguments for and against the combination of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (2 Gy / fx; ~10-45 fractions) with concurrent immunotherapy (ipi, nivo, etc)?
Proponents of combination therapy will reference:
1, numerous studies of RT + ICI, all seemingly safe
2, ICI is the best option if cisplatin ineligible
3, RT is immunostimulatory, should boost effect of ICI, RT + ICI is synergistic
Counterargument to #1:
Yes, there are data on toxicity, but almost all studies use SBRT/SRS, ie, > ~5 Gy per fraction x 1-5 fractions (not 2 Gy). There are limited mature studies on efficacy.
Meta-analysis from @PennStHershey MD PhD student Mike Sha:
1, #RadOnc oral boards are the most clinically relevant exams (vs rad bio, physics, written exam, inservice, etc).
Many of the questions about management come straight from @NCCN guidelines, so use these as a primary reference.
2, have a prepared script of what to say for standard questions. eg, workup, setup, margins, doses
Here is an example for prostate ca history / workup #pcsm
How to run a meeting at an academic medical center
🧵
Originally, this presentation was for our oncology trainees, and we figured we would share it on #AcademicTwitter#MedTwitter to maximize the impact of your meetings.