NCI: AT RO: SATURDAY

1
NCI AT RO SATURDAY

• Opportunities and Priorities
• Presentations 15 min or less
• Breakout sessions
• Summary Conclusions Feedback

2
BREAKOUT GROUPS

• Group 1 - Head (Brain, HN Peds)
•  
• Group 2 - Trunk (Breast, Lung Upper Abd)
•  
• Group 3 - Pelvis (Prostate, Cervix
  Colon-Rectum)

3
GROUP 1

• Bharat Mittal Leader
• Kian Ang
• Wally Curran
• Tom Delaney
• Jonathan Farr
• Jim Galvin
• Eric Hall
• Ed Halperin
• Larry Kun
• Minesh Mehta
• Tom Merchant

4
GROUP 2

• Ted Deweese Leader
• Michael Baumann
• Hank Choy
• Joseph Deasy
• Beryl McCormick
• Nancy Mendenhall
• Jatinder Palta
• James Purdy
• Randy Ten Haken
• Allan Thornton
• Jim Cox
• Radhe Mohan

5
GROUP 3

• Mary Gaspodarowicz Jeff Michalski Leaders
• Chuck Enke
• Thomas Fitzgerald
• David Jaffray
• David Gaffney
• Karin Haustermans
• Cliff Ling
• Howard Sandler
• Bill Shipley
• Anurag Singh
• Jerry Slater
• Chris Willet

6
My Take

• Photons, Protons
• IMRT, SRS, SBRT, IGRT
• Quality Assurance
• Image guidance
• Lung cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Head Neck Cancer
• Peds

7
GUIDELINES

• Timer, Scribe and Presenter 
• Limit comments to 2 minutes or less
• Try to have everybody voice opinions
• Please allow everybody around the table to voice
  opinions at least once before commenting second
  time, so on so forth
• Discussion and formulation 120 min.
• Summary and mock presentation among your
  group30 min. 

8
KEY QUESTION 1

• The raison detre for the advanced technologies
  is to increase the dose to the cancer without
  increasing toxicity, or deliver the same dose as
  conventional technology but with less toxicity.
• QUESTION In which cancers is there the most
  pressing need for new technology for increasing
  the dose or decreasing the toxicity?

9
KEY QUESTION 2

• Demonstrating improved ANTICIPATED dose
  distributions (in-silico or in phantoms) only
  generates the hypothesis that a new technology
  may be superior. To prove that hypothesis, we
  must demonstrate - by controlled clinical trials
  - a clinically meaningful increase in survival
  and/or decrease in toxicity.
• QUESTION What clinical trials are the most
  important for demonstrating a meaningful benefit
  to patients?

10
KEY QUESTION 3

• Demonstrating improved ACTUAL dose distribution
  in the patient could be useful in phase I/II
  trials.
• QUESTION What technological developments are
  required for demonstrating ACTUAL dose
  distribution in-vivo?

11
KEY QUESTION 4

• Other clinical or biological intermediate
  end-points may be useful in clinical trials.
• QUESTION What might those intermediate
  end-points be (and what lessons have we learned
  regarding their pitfalls from PSA, etc?)

12
SUCCESSFUL MEETING

• Do we clearly understand the objectives of the
  meeting?
• Are we focusing on relevant facts and keeping to
  the original objectives?
• Are we using our time efficiently?
• Are we working towards solutions and results?

13
SUMMARY, REC. FEEDBACK

• Each group presentation 10 -15 min
• Q A 15 min
• Feedback
• Overall impression
• Best part of the workshop
• What would you do to improve this kind of
  workshop?
• Rate the performance of this group