As the global COVID-19 pandemic escalates there is a need within radiation oncology to work to support our patients in the best way possible.Measures are required to reduce infection spread between patients and within the workforce. Departments need contingency planning to create capacity and continue essential treatments despite a reduced workforce.

<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.

Purpose Numerous publications during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy. This project assessed aggregate changes in the quality of the evidence supporting these schedules to establish a comprehensive evidence base for future reference and highlight aspects for future study. Methods and Materials Based on a systematic review of published recommendations related to dose fractionation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 expert panelists assigned to 14 disease groups named and graded the highest quality of evidence schedule(s) used routinely for each condition and also graded all COVID-era recommended schedules. The American Society for Radiation Oncology quality of evidence criteria were used to rank the schedules. Process-related statistics and changes in distributions of quality ratings of the highest-rated versus recommended COVID-19 era schedules were described by disease groups and for specific clinical scenarios. Results From January to May 2020 there were 54 relevant publications, including 233 recommended COVID-19–adapted dose fractionations. For site-specific curative and site-specific palliative schedules, there was a significant shift from established higher-quality evidence to lower-quality evidence and expert opinions for the recommended schedules ( P = .022 and P < .001, respectively). For curative-intent schedules, the distribution of quality scores was essentially reversed (highest levels of evidence "pre-COVID" vs "in-COVID": high quality, 51.4% vs 4.8%; expert opinion, 5.6% vs 49.3%), although there was variation in the magnitude of shifts between disease sites and among specific indications. Conclusions A large number of publications recommended hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules across numerous major disease sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by a lower quality of evidence than the highest-quality routinely used dose fractionation schedules. This work provides an evidence-based assessment of these potentially practice-changing recommendations and informs individualized decision-making and counseling of patients. These data could also be used to support radiation therapy practices in the event of second waves or surges of the pandemic in new regions of the world.

There are limited data available regarding the management of oligometastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) patients, and no consensus guidelines are available. The objective is to review the available literature for the management of oligometastatic SCCHN. Articles were selected from English Medline literature between 1995 and 2018, searched by using the keywords: oligometastatic SCCHN/metastasectomy/stereotactic body radiation treatment (SBRT). With the available data, oligometastatic SCCHN patients appear to behave differently and tend to have a better prognosis than those with widespread metastases. Retrospective evidence suggests that the aggressive treatment of the primary disease and local treatment of the metastatic sites improves survival in oligometastatic SCCHN at diagnosis. The definitive treatment of the distant metastatic sites using metastasectomy or SBRT correlates with better survival in oligorecurrent patients. Oligometastatic SCCHN patients may have a better prognosis if treated aggressively.