Great breakdown👇 Clean randomized signal for pembro + MDT in oligometastatic RCC: RFS 11 → 25.4 mo (HR 0.47), 72% got SABR Next Q: patterns of recurrence after MDT ± pembro #radonc #ESMO26

Honored to be elected to the @nnecos_oncology Board. NNECOS brings together oncology across ME, NH, and VT & gives our trainees a real regional stage. Looking forward to the work ahead with colleagues across the region.

ENZARAD @JCO | ANZUP 1303 n=802 | mFU 92 mo ADT+RT ± enza 24 mo vs NSAA 6 mo MFS/OS overall ⛔️ pelvic RT subgroup 🎯 HR 0.47 no Decipher/PAM50 - still unclear who benefits from intensification ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO…

#ESMO26 @niazi_Dr7 DASL-HiCaP (ANZUP1801) n=1,106 | mFU 3.8 yrs | 85% definitive RT darolutamide + ADT + RT v placebo + ADT + RT MFS-CI ➡️ HR 0.42 (0.27–0.66) 4-yr MFS 95% vs 88%

best time of year 🍁 #vermont

At #ASTRO26, we are proud to welcome so many Yale attendees, including our current residents and the alumni of our Radiation Oncology Residency Program @YaleRadOnc, all representing @YaleMed @SmilowCancer @YNHH and advancing the field of radiation oncology. @ASTRO_org @OncoAlert

Back in 🇬🇧 but still able to listen to @nickva1 presenting @ASTRO_org #ASTRO26 @royalmarsdenNHS @EmmaHall71 No surprises here, patients have better sexual outcomes after SBRT compared to prostatectomy

Grateful to organizers for PRO 11 @ #ASTRO26: Trial design keeps getting more complicated. Ph II data, de-escalation/omission studies, new tech routinely reported as practice-changing. Outstanding talks on how to read that evidence and which results should change practice!

#ASTRO26 climate change, IT risk, and other system shocks make this more relevant every year. The real value here was in the stories: lessons for prevention and prep, and what we can actually do to safeguard RT when the next disruption hits. Thank you to this panel!

#ASTRO26 @NRGonc NRG GU 003 results at 5 years ⬆️ grade 3+ GU AEs (eg particularly cystitis) with HYPORT (62.5 Gy / 25 vs 66.6 / 37 fx) No difference in PROs or cancer outcomes

I’ve been saying this for years… Now we have randomized data. GETUG P05: brachytherapy boost vs dose-escalated EBRT in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Oncologic outcomes similar but far more toxicity with brachy. #ASTRO26 #ProstateCancer @ASTRO_org @NehaVapiwala @AmarUKishan @DrAndrewLoblaw @seanmmcbride @HimanshuNagarMD @TylerSbrt @seanmmcbride @alison_tree @Soum_Roy_RadOnc @NicholasZaorsky @angela_jia_

Boston-bound for #ASTRO26 — “When Disaster Strikes” is feeling particularly timely. Join us Sunday for a conversation on safeguarding radiotherapy continuity through catastrophic events @fumikochino @MDAnderson_ES @DrNogueiraL @AmericanCancer @DartmouthCancer @SpeedofLightFdn

Radiotherapy after surgery halves risk of recurrence in a type of brain tumour that can often grow back, trial shows. Find out more in The Lancet: spkl.io/60137TUFS #EANO2026

Happening in 2 wks! Join us Sun 9/27, 4:45P #ASTRO26: Making Sense of Trials in Community Rad Onc: From Headlines to High-Value Care 3 talks on Ph II trials, omission studies & novel RT technologies - practical frameworks for interpreting new data & translating into practice.

Landmark, practice changing study at #WCLC26. The phase III MAVERICK study shows no improvement in OS with PCI for SCLC, across limited and extensive stages, with worse cognitive failure free survival and increased toxicity in PCI arm. The end of the PCI era.

📊 Research Summary: In localized intermediate-risk #ProstateCancer, stereotactic body #Radiotherapy and moderately hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy had similar urinary quality-of-life outcomes, while bowel outcomes favored stereotactic body radiotherapy. ja.ma/4fSjyDM

this is actually from r/MedicalPhysicsMemes 😜

Continuing on with added context: The reason this one paper matters so much is its recency. EviCore has, for many years now, deemed LDRT for OA as medically necessary. To reverse course means new information must have become available between their last version and this one. This Hammadeh paper was published in September 2025, which means it technically predates the guidelines from February 2026 covering LDRT, but...we'll just say EviCore didn't find it in time for those guidelines. Unfortunately, it's not "new" data to justify this reversal, it's just a meta-analysis. But it has a convenient conclusion (if you're an insurance company). Alright, we can skip over the publishing Round Robin AI Ring the authors have going and just head right to the first graphic. Table 1. So, Table 1, second column. Several of the study design labels are incorrect - RCTs listed as cohort, retrospectives listed as RCTs, etc. Ultimately, not SUPER problematic. But uh, the next column is. The number of patients for each study in the third column. Those are not anywhere close to the patient populations actually used in those studies. The difference is severe (Hermann 2021 is listed as 160, actual is 25; Keller 2013 is actually over a thousand, listed as 120, etc). Well that's not good. And then we get to "Duration of Complaints". Somehow, mysteriously, all of these studies enrolled patients with 9.5-11.1 years of symptoms prior to treatment. Obviously...wildly incorrect as well. But the best are the final two columns which are outcomes. Second to last is pain, last is function. It sure is weird that, for a meta-analysis claiming LDRT has no effect, that each and every study allegedly used in their analysis ALL show an improvement in pain and functional status. Now, normally I would expect a meta-analysis to conclude positive treatment effect if, you know, each and every included study showed a benefit in multiple domains. Obviously...those results aren't what the original manuscripts themselves concluded (because, for example, they might have measured outcomes completely differently...). Oh and I totally forgot the column that somehow claims each included study miraculously enrolled 38-44% males. All of them. Crazy! The one outlier is the final study, Fazilat-Panah et al, 2025. If you look at the history of this Hammadeh paper, it was submitted originally in March 2025 and accepted in July 2025. The Fazilat-Panah paper was published online in March 2025. Obviously, Hammadeh and friends couldn't have included the Fazilat-Panah paper with their original submission - they wouldn't have known about it. So one of the reviewers (hard to imagine this paper had reviewers, but whatever) must have asked them to include this newly published paper as a revision. But that Fazilat-Panah paper is excellent: it's a double-blind sham-controlled RCT showing a tremendous benefit of LDRT. Thus, when Hammadeh plugged that paper in and re-ran his AI tool...that's what caused the the calculated I² to be a massive 96%. My assumption is the AI tool hallucinated much of the original data towards "no benefit". But when this Fazilat-Panah paper data was included after the fact with the real results - the heterogeneity went off the rails. No paper should be published with an I² of 96%. So, I assume no reviewer actually read this paper after it was re-submitted as a revision. Then the editors rubber-stamped the AI trash, and boom! @evicorehc and their AI scraping algorithm programmed to find any and every reason for denial uncovered this gem and here we are today. Who doesn't love science and medicine in 2026? (probably the suffering patients getting treatments denied don't love it, but EviCore hasn't ever cared about that before, and neither has @SpringerNature)

One of #radonc oldest dogmas: No full bladder, no treatment. Countless patients have spent years anxiously drinking water, waiting, and hoping they got it "just right." We asked a simple question: Do we really need a full bladder for prostate SBRT?

Neat! RT plan quality has been a sneaky confounder in trials forever. Nice to see practical efforts to measure it.