<b><i>Background:</i></b> Radiation therapy is a cornerstone of the therapeutic modalities used in modern oncology. However, it is sometimes limited in its ability to achieve optimal tumor control by radiation-induced normal tissue toxicity. In delivering radiation therapy, a balance must be achieved between maximizing the dose to the tumor and minimizing any injury to the normal tissues. Amifostine was the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved clinical radiation protector intended to reduce the impact of radiation on normal tissue, lessening its toxicity and potentially allowing for increased tumor dose/control. Despite being FDA-approved almost 20 years ago, Amifostine has yet to achieve widespread clinical use. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> A thorough review of Amifostine’s development, mechanism of action, and current clinical status were conducted. A brief history of Amifostine is given, from its development at Walter Reid Institute of Research to its approval for clinical use. The mechanism of action of Amifostine is explored. The results of a complete literature review of all prospective randomized trials to date involving the use of Amifostine in radiation therapy are presented. The results are arranged by treatment site and salient findings discussed. Side effects and complications to consider in using Amifostine are reviewed. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> Amifostine has been explored as a radiation protectant in most radiation treatment sites. Studies have demonstrated efficacy of Amifostine in all treatment sites reviewed, but results are heterogeneous. The heterogeneity of studies looking at Amifostine as a clinical radiation protectant has precluded a definitive answer on its efficacy. Complicating its clinical use is its toxicity and delivery requirements. Amifostine has largely fallen out of use with the advent of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). However, side effects with IMRT remain a challenge and concern. The use of Amifostine in the IMRT era has been poorly explored and is worthy of future study.

No abstract

To identify racial disparities in survival outcomes among Stage III & IV patients with squamous cell carcinomas (SCCa) of the oropharynx treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT), with concurrent chemotherapy. Method This is a retrospective analysis of patients with stage III & IV SCCa of oropharynx treated with definitive RT at the State Academic Medical Center. All patients were treated to 70 Gy utilizing intensity-modulated radiation treatment (IMRT), and received concurrent chemotherapy with weekly cisplatin or cetuximab. Chisquare test was used to test the goodness of fit, overall survival (OS), and locoregional control (LRC) comparing races were generated by using Log-rank test & Kaplan-Meier method. The covariables associated with the OS and LRC were determined by the Cox regression model. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The SPSS 24.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) was used. Results In the total 73 eligible patients, 54.8% were black, and 45.2% white patients. Stage distribution (per American Joint Committee on Cancer-AJCC 8 th Ed) between black patients vs. white patients, Stage III (45.5% vs. 54.5%) and for Stage IV (56.5% vs. 43.5%); p=0.499. Median follow-up for the entire group was 41 months (range: 4-144 months). In the univariate analysis, variables p16 status, body mass index (BMI), alcohol history and tumor subsite were found to be significant. In the multivariate analysis, only BMI has shown to be significant. Three-year LRC for black patients was 37.8% vs. 66.8% in white patients (p=0.354) and three-year OS for black patients was 51.8% vs. 80.9% for white patients (p=0.063), respectively. Five-year OS for p16 positive patients was 69.7% vs. 43% for p16 negative patients (p=0.034). Five-year OS for Stage IV black patients was 34% vs. 69.5% for Stage IV white patients (p=0.014). Conclusion Among all the co-variables examined, only BMI has shown affecting the OS outcomes; gender and BMI shown to be affecting the LRC. Racial factor appears to be significant in Stage IV patients.

Cancer care (CC) is incredibly complex and requires the coordination of multiple disciplines for optimal outcomes. Historically, this has been accomplished with multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs), but the benefits, while perhaps intuitive, have not always been demonstrated with sufficient research robustness and validity. We hypothesize that this difficulty in demonstrating the benefit of MDTBs may be related to a delay in decision-making and operationalizing those decisions. The history and value of MDTBs are presented as well as their weaknesses and limited demonstration of improved outcomes. A major weakness highlighted by the challenges of MDTBs is the concept of total package time (TPT) (rather, the inability to keep it as short as possible); any significant delays in CC for any discipline may have a deleterious impact on any given patient's care outcome. Drawing on our own experience with utilizing information and communication technology (ICT) during an effort to apply accountability theory to improve specifically radiation therapy package time (RTPT), we argue that similar principles will be applicable in the improvement of not only the TPT which relies on multiple disciplines, but other factors of CC as well, such as coordination. Experience with improvement in RTPT is discussed and the underlying theory is demonstrated as a sound methodology to apply beyond RTPT to TPT involving coordination of multiple disciplines and stands to lead to the full realization of the benefits of the multidisciplinary approach. The complexity of cancer means that real solutions to optimal outcomes are also, by nature, complex, but here simple accountability theory is demonstrated that may unlock the next phase of multidisciplinary coordination. In this work, we argue that the benefits of the MDTB format can be fully realized with the addition of ICT, a technological breakthrough in the past two decades, while not forgetting about continued human factors.