Search

Abstract Background Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is greatly affected by prostate cancer (PCa) and associated treatments. This study aimed to measure the impact of radiotherapy on HRQoL and to further validate the Spanish version of the 16-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-16) in routine clinical practice. Methods An observational, non-interventional, multicenter study was conducted in Spain with localized PCa patients initiating treatment with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or brachytherapy (BQT). Changes from baseline in EPIC-16, University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), and patient-perceived health status were longitudinally assessed at end of radiotherapy (V2) and 90 days thereafter (V3). Psychometric evaluations of the Spanish EPIC-16 were conducted. Results Of 516 patients enrolled, 495 were included in the analysis (EBRT, n = 361; BQT, n = 134). At baseline, mean (standard deviation [SD]) EPIC-16 global scores were 11.9 (7.5) and 10.3 (7.7) for EBRT and BQT patients, respectively; scores increased, i.e., HRQoL worsened, from baseline, by mean (SD) of 6.8 (7.6) at V2 and 2.4 (7.4) at V3 for EBRT and 4.2 (7.6) and 3.9 (8.2) for BQT patients. Changes in Spanish EPIC-16 domains correlated well with urinary, bowel, and sexual UCLA-PCI domains. EPIC-16 showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .84), reliability, and construct validity. Conclusion The Spanish EPIC-16 questionnaire demonstrated sensitivity, strong discriminative properties and reliability, and validity for use in clinical practice. EPIC-16 scores worsened after radiotherapy in different HRQoL domains; however, a strong tendency towards recovery was seen at the 3-month follow-up visit.

BackgroundIntermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is usually treated by a combination of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and a short course of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). ADT is associated with multiple side effects, including weight gain, loss of libido, and hot flashes. In contrast, anti-androgen monotherapy is generally better tolerated in spite of higher rates of gynecomastia.ObjectiveThis study assessed the effectiveness of enzalutamide monotherapy combined with hypofractionated EBRT (Hypo-EBRT) for treating intermediate risk prostate cancer.MethodThis trial was a multicenter, open-label phase II study of 6 months of enzalutamide monotherapy combined with Hypo-EBRT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Hypo-EBRT was initiated 8–12 weeks after initiating enzalutamide. The primary endpoint was PSA decline >80% measured at the 25th week of enzalutamide administration. Secondary end-points included assessment of toxicity, changes in anthropomorphic body measurements, sexual hormones, and metabolic changes.ResultsSixty-two patients were included in the study from January 2018 to February 2020. A PSA decline of >80% was observed in all evaluable patients at the end of enzalutamide treatment and 92% achieved PSA values under 0.1 ngr/ml. All patients remain in PSA response (

Background: Intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is usually treated by a combination of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and a short course of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). ADT is associated with multiple side effects, including weight gain, loss of libido, and hot flashes. In contrast, anti-androgen monotherapy is generally better tolerated in spite of higher rates of gynecomastia. Objective: This study assessed the effectiveness of enzalutamide monotherapy combined with hypofractionated EBRT (Hypo-EBRT) for treating intermediate risk prostate cancer. Method: This trial was a multicenter, open-label phase II study of 6 months of enzalutamide monotherapy combined with Hypo-EBRT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Hypo-EBRT was initiated 8-12 weeks after initiating enzalutamide. The primary endpoint was PSA decline >80% measured at the 25th week of enzalutamide administration. Secondary end-points included assessment of toxicity, changes in anthropomorphic body measurements, sexual hormones, and metabolic changes. Results: Sixty-two patients were included in the study from January 2018 to February 2020. A PSA decline of >80% was observed in all evaluable patients at the end of enzalutamide treatment and 92% achieved PSA values under 0.1 ngr/ml. All patients remain in PSA response (<80% reduction of the initial values) 6 months after the end of enzalutamide treatment. The most frequent adverse events were hypertension, asthenia, and gynecomastia. There were no significant changes in bone density, body mass index (BMI), or patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Conclusion: Enzalutamide monotherapy is very effective along with hEBRT in reducing PSA levels for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the potential use of this combination in future randomized trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is greatly affected by prostate cancer (PCa) and associated treatments. This study aimed to measure the impact of radiotherapy on HRQoL and to further validate the Spanish version of the 16-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-16) in routine clinical practice.Methods: An observational, non-interventional, multicenter study was conducted in Spain with localized PCa patients initiating treatment with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or brachytherapy (BQT). Changes from baseline in EPIC-16, University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), and patient-perceived health status were longitudinally assessed at end of radiotherapy (V2) and 90 days thereafter (V3). Psychometric evaluations of the Spanish EPIC-16 were conducted.Results: Of 516 patients enrolled, 495 were included in the analysis (EBRT, n = 361; BQT, n = 134). At baseline, mean (standard deviation [SD]) EPIC-16 global scores were 11.9 (7.5) and 10.3 (7.7) for EBRT and BQT patients, respectively; scores increased, i.e., HRQoL worsened, from baseline, by mean (SD) of 6.8 (7.6) at V2 and 2.4 (7.4) at V3 for EBRT and 4.2 (7.6) and 3.9 (8.2) for BQT patients. Changes in Spanish EPIC-16 domains correlated well with urinary, bowel, and sexual UCLA-PCI domains. EPIC-16 showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .84), reliability, and construct validity.Conclusion: The Spanish EPIC-16 questionnaire demonstrated sensitivity, strong discriminative properties and reliability, and validity for use in clinical practice. EPIC-16 scores worsened after radiotherapy in different HRQoL domains; however, a strong tendency towards recovery was seen at the 3-month follow-up visit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lessons Learned: Cemiplimab in combination with radiation therapy, cyclophosphamide, and granulocyte macrophage colony‐stimulating factor did not demonstrate efficacy above what can be achieved with other PD‐1 inhibitor monotherapies in patients with refractory and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.The safety profile of cemiplimab combination therapy was consistent with previously reported safety profiles of cemiplimab monotherapy. No new safety signal was observed. Background: Refractory and metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) generally does not respond to PD‐1 inhibitor monotherapy. Cemiplimab is a human anti–PD‐1 monoclonal antibody. An expansion cohort enrolled patients with R/M HNSCC in a phase I study combining cemiplimab plus radiation therapy (RT), cyclophosphamide, and granulocyte macrophage colony‐stimulating factor (GM‐CSF). Methods: Patients with R/M HNSCC refractory to at least first‐line therapy and for whom palliative RT is clinically indicated received cemiplimab plus RT, cyclophosphamide, and GM‐CSF. The co‐primary objectives were the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of cemiplimab plus RT, cyclophosphamide, and GM‐CSF in 15 patients with R/M HNSCC. Results: Fifteen patients were enrolled. Patients discontinued treatment due to progression of disease. The most common treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade were fatigue (40.0%), constipation (26.7%), and asthenia, dyspnea, maculo‐papular rash, and pneumonia (each 20%). The only grade ≥3 TEAE that occurred in two patients was pneumonia (13.3%). By investigator assessment, there was one partial response (6.7%); disease control rate was 40.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.3–67.7; five patients with stable disease); seven patients had progressive disease, and two were not evaluable. Median progression‐free survival by investigator assessment was 1.8 months (95% CI, 1.7–4.7). Conclusion: The regimen demonstrated tolerability but not efficacy above that which can be achieved with anti–PD‐1 inhibitor monotherapy for R/M HNSCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The Working Group on Patient Safety and Quality of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology, revised the most relevant national and international recommendations, selecting a series of important aspects for patient safety, evaluating whether they are included in Spanish legislation Materials and methods: We have considered a concept as relevant to the patient safety in radiotherapy if so defined in at least 8 of the 16 documents reviewed. Results: 12 subjects were selected: training and qualification, human resources, protocols, safety culture, communication, peer review, accreditation: audits, checklists, areas without interruptions, maps of processes and risks, prospective risk analysis, notification, registration and incident learning, and quality control of the equipment. Conclusions: At the legislative level, as well as the professional organizations and the health center directorates, the implementation of safety culture must continue to be fostered. Only in this environment will the tools and measures to increase patient safety be effective. The current Spanish legislation must be revised and updated, in accordance with directive 2013/59/EURATOM and the Patient Safety Strategy 2015–2020 of the Spanish National Health System, introducing the obligation to perform risk analysis and incidents management. Audits and accreditations must be carried out, thus raising the general level of practice of the specialty. In this process, the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology must continue playing its fundamental role, collaborating with the institutions and the rest of the scientific societies involved in the radiotherapy process, issuing recommendations on patient safety and disseminating the safety culture in our specialty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The treatment for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) is a highly unmet medical need. The classic treatment approach for these patients—androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone—until metastatic progression is now considered suboptimal. Several randomized phase III clinical trials have demonstrated significant clinical benefits—including significantly better overall survival (OS)—for treatments that combine ADT with apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. As a result, these approaches are now included in treatment guidelines and are considered a standard of care. In the present article, we discuss the changing landscape of the management of patients with nmCRPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 30% of patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) who undergo radical prostatectomy will develop biochemical recurrence. In these patients, the only potentially curative treatment is postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) with or without hormone therapy. However, the optimal radiotherapy dose is unknown due to the limited data available., Aim: To determine whether the postoperative radiotherapy dose influences biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) in patients with PCa., Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for PCa followed by PORT-either adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or salvage radiotherapy (SRT)-between April 2002 and July 2015. From 2002 to 2010, the prescribed radiation dose to the surgical bed was 66-70 Gy in fractions of 2 Gy; from 2010 until July 2015, the prescribed dose was 70-72 Gy. Patients were grouped into three categories according to the total dose administered: 66-68 Gy, 70 Gy, and 72 Gy. The primary endpoint was BFFS, defined as the post-radiotherapy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir + 0.2 ng/mL. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS; based on conventional imaging tests). Treatment-related genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was evaluated according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria. Finally, we aimed to identify potential prognostic factors. BFFS, OS, CSS, and MFS were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were performed to explore between-group differences in survival outcome measures., Results: A total of 301 consecutive patients were included. Of these, 93 (33.6%) received ART and 186 (66.4%) SRT; 22 patients were excluded due to residual macroscopic disease or local recurrence in the surgical bed. In this subgroup ( n = 93), 43 patients (46.2%) were Gleason score (GS) ≤ 6, 44 (47.3%) GS 7, and 6 (6.5%) GS ≥ 8; clinical stage was cT1 in 51 (54.8%), cT2 in 35 (39.3%), and cT3 in one patient (1.1%); PSA was < 10 ng/mL in 58 (63%) patients, 10-20 ng/mL in 28 (30.6%), and ≥ 20 ng/mL in 6 (6.4%) patients. No differences were found in BFFS in this patient subset versus the entire cohort of patients ( P = 0.66). At a median follow-up of 113 months (range, 4-233), 5- and 10-year BFFS rates were 78.8% and 73.7%, respectively, with OS rates of 93.3% and 81.4%. The 5-year BFFS rates in three groups were as follows: 69.6% (66-68 Gy), 80.5% (70 Gy) and 82.6% (72 Gy) ( P = 0.12):the corresponding 10-year rates were 63.9%, 72.9%, and 82.6% ( P = 0.12), respectively. No significant between-group differences were observed in MFS, CSS, or OS. On the univariate analysis, the following variables were significantly associated with BFFS: PSA at diagnosis; clinical stage (cT1 vs cT2); GS at diagnosis; treatment indication (ART vs SRT); pre-RT PSA levels; and RT dose 66 -68 Gy vs. 72 Gy (HR: 2.05; 95%CI: 1.02-4.02, P = 0.04). On the multivariate analysis, the following variables remained significant: biopsy GS (HR: 2.85; 95%CI: 1.83-4.43, P < 0.001); clinical stage (HR: 2.31; 95%CI: 1.47-4.43, P = 0.01); and treatment indication (HR: 4.11; 95%CI: 2.06-8.17, P < 0.001). Acute grade (G) 1 GU toxicity was observed in 11 (20.4%), 17 (19.8%), and 3 (8.3%) patients in each group (66-68 Gy, 70 Gy and 72 Gy), respectively ( P = 0.295). Acute G2 toxicity was observed in 2 (3.7%), 4 (4.7%) and 2 (5.6%) patients, respectively ( P = 0.949). Acute G1 GI toxicity was observed in 16 (29.6%), 23 (26.7%) and 2 (5.6%) patients in each group, respectively ( P = 0.011). Acute G2 GI toxicity was observed in 2 (3.7%), 6 (6.9%) and 1 (2.8%) patients, respectively ( P = 0.278). No cases of acute G3 GI toxicity were observed., Conclusion: The findings of this retrospective study suggest that postoperative radiotherapy dose intensification in PCa is not superior to conventional radiotherapy treatment., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all the named authors. All authors declare no conflict of interests for this article., (©The Author(s) 2022. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

According to the main international clinical guidelines, the recommended treatment for locally-advanced rectal cancer is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. However, doubts have been raised about the appropriate definition of clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy and the role of surgery in patients who achieve a cCR. Surgical resection is associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life (QoL), which is especially relevant given the favourable prognosis in this patient subset. Accordingly, there has been a growing interest in alternative approaches with less morbidity, including the organ-preserving watch and wait strategy, in which surgery is omitted in patients who have achieved a cCR. These patients are managed with a specific follow-up protocol to ensure adequate cancer control, including the early identification of recurrent disease. However, there are several open questions about this strategy, including patient selection, the clinical and radiological criteria to accurately determine cCR, the duration of neoadjuvant treatment, the role of dose intensification (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy), optimal follow-up protocols, and the future perspectives of this approach. In the present review, we summarize the available evidence on the watch and wait strategy in this clinical scenario, including ongoing clinical trials, QoL in these patients, and the controversies surrounding this treatment approach., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: Authors declare no potential conflict of interests for this article., (©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)