Search

PURPOSE: This practice parameter for the performance of proton beam radiation therapy was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Radium Society (ARS). This practice parameter was developed to serve as a tool in the appropriate application of proton therapy in the care of cancer patients or other patients with conditions in which radiation therapy is indicated. It addresses clinical implementation of proton radiation therapy, including personnel qualifications, quality assurance (QA) standards, indications, and suggested documentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This practice parameter for the performance of proton beam radiation therapy was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters - Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. RESULTS: The qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, such as the proton center Chief Medical Officer or Medical Director, Radiation Oncologist, Radiation Physicist, Dosimetrist and Therapist, are outlined, including the necessity for continuing medical education. Proton therapy standard clinical indications and methodologies of treatment management are outlined by disease site and treatment group (e.g. pediatrics) including documentation and the process of proton therapy workflow and equipment specifications. Additionally, this proton therapy practice parameter updates policies and procedures related to a quality assurance and performance improvement program (QAPI), patient education, infection control, and safety. CONCLUSION: As proton therapy becomes more accessible to cancer patients, policies and procedures as outlined in this practice parameter will help ensure quality and safety programs are effectively implemented to optimize clinical care.

ImportanceRadiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a standard of care for high-risk prostate cancer. However, the interplay between radiotherapy dose and the required minimum duration of ADT is uncertain.ObjectiveTo determine the specific ADT duration threshold that provides a distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) benefit in patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT).Design, settings, and participantsThis was a cohort study of 3 cohorts assembled from a multicenter retrospective study (2000-2013); a post hoc analysis of the Randomized Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy 03/04 (RADAR; 2003-2007) randomized clinical trial (RCT); and a cross-trial comparison of the RADAR vs the Deprivación Androgénica y Radio Terapía (Androgen Deprivation and Radiation Therapy; DART) 01/05 RCT (2005-2010). In all, the study analyzed 1827 patients treated with EBRT and 1108 patients treated with EBRT+BT from the retrospective cohort; 181 treated with EBRT and 203 with EBRT+BT from RADAR; and 91 patients treated with EBRT from DART. The study was conducted from October 15, 2020, to July 1, 2021, and the data analyses, from January 5 to June 15, 2021.ExposuresHigh-dose EBRT or EBRT+BT for an ADT duration determined by patient-physician choice (retrospective) or by randomization (RCTs).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was DMFS; secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Natural cubic spline analysis identified minimum thresholds (months).ResultsThis cohort study of 3 studies totaling 3410 men (mean age [SD], 68 [62-74] years; race and ethnicity not collected) with high-risk prostate cancer found a significant interaction between the treatment type (EBRT vs EBRT+BT) and ADT duration (binned to

ImportanceProstate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can detect low-volume, nonlocalized (ie, regional or metastatic) prostate cancer that was occult on conventional imaging. However, the long-term clinical implications of PSMA PET/CT upstaging remain unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prognostic significance of a nomogram that models an individual's risk of nonlocalized upstaging on PSMA PET/CT and to compare its performance with existing risk-stratification tools.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included patients diagnosed with high-risk or very high-risk prostate cancer (ie, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level >20 ng/mL, Gleason score 8-10, and/or clinical stage T3-T4, without evidence of nodal or metastatic disease by conventional workup) from April 1995 to August 2018. This multinational study was conducted at 15 centers. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to March 2021.ExposuresCurative-intent radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy (BT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy.Main outcomes and measuresPSMA upstage probability was calculated from a nomogram using the biopsy Gleason score, percentage positive systematic biopsy cores, clinical T category, and PSA level. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Fine-Gray and Cox regressions. Model performance was quantified with the concordance (C) index.ResultsOf 5275 patients, the median (IQR) age was 66 (60-72) years; 2883 (55%) were treated with RP, 1669 (32%) with EBRT, and 723 (14%) with EBRT plus BT; median (IQR) PSA level was 10.5 (5.9-23.2) ng/mL; 3987 (76%) had Gleason grade 8 to 10 disease; and 750 (14%) had stage T3 to T4 disease. Median (IQR) follow-up was 5.1 (3.1-7.9) years; 1221 (23%) were followed up for at least 8 years. Overall, 1895 (36%) had BCR, 851 (16%) developed DM, and 242 (5%) died of prostate cancer. PSMA upstage probability was significantly prognostic of all clinical end points, with 8-year C indices of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61-0.65) for BCR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71) for DM, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) for PCSM, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.62) for PCSM (P

ContextManagement of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiotherapy remains controversial due to the perceived high rates of severe genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with any local salvage modality.ObjectiveTo quantitatively compare the efficacy and toxicity of salvage radical prostatectomy (RP), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy, and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy.Evidence acquisitionWe performed a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Two- and 5-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates and crude incidences of severe GU and GI toxicity were extracted as endpoints of interest. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to characterize summary effect sizes and quantify heterogeneity. Estimates for each modality were then compared with RP after adjusting for individual study-level covariates using mixed-effect regression models, while allowing for differences in between-study variance across treatment modalities.Evidence synthesisA total of 150 studies were included for analysis. There was significant heterogeneity between studies within each modality, and covariates differed between modalities, necessitating adjustment. Adjusted 5-yr RFS ranged from 50% after cryotherapy to 60% after HDR brachytherapy and SBRT, with no significant differences between any modality and RP. Severe GU toxicity was significantly lower with all three forms of radiotherapeutic salvage than with RP (adjusted rates of 20% after RP vs 5.6%, 9.6%, and 9.1% after SBRT, HDR brachytherapy, and LDR brachytherapy, respectively; p ≤ 0.001 for all). Severe GI toxicity was significantly lower with HDR salvage than with RP (adjusted rates 1.8% vs 0.0%, p

AbstractThe present research is conducted in the southern region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, to identify groundwater potential zones (GWPZ). We used three models including Weight of Evidence (WOE), Frequency Ratio (FR), and Information Value (IV) with twelve parameters (elevation, slope, aspect, curvature, drainage network, LULC, precipitation, geology, Lineament, NDVI, road, and soil texture, that have been prepared and integrated into ArcGIS 10.8. The reliability of the applied models’ results was validated using Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC). The GWPZ were reclassified into five classes, i.e. very low, low, medium, high, and very high zone. The area occupied by mentioned classes using WOE are very low (10.14%), low (19.58%), medium (26.75%), high (27.10%), very high (16.40%), while using FR are very low (20.93%), low (32.38%), medium (18.92%), high (13.13%), very high (14.61%) and using IV are very low (14.41%), low (17.17%), medium (29.01%), high (25.85%), and very High (13.53%). The Success Rate Curve of WOE, FR, and IV were 0.86, 0.91, and 0.87, while the Predicted Rate Curve values were 0.89, 0.93, and 0.90, respectively. The results revealed that all applied statistical models performed very well to delineate GWPZ. However, use of the FR technique is strongly encouraged to evaluate the GWPZ, and its findings are especially useful for managing groundwater resources in urban planning. Our approaches for assessing the GWPZ mapping can be applied in any region with similar scenarios and are recommended as a helpful tool for policymakers to manage groundwater.

The natural history of radiorecurrent high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) is not well-described. To better understand its clinical course, we evaluated rates of distant metastases (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in a cohort of 978 men with radiorecurrent HRPCa who previously received either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT, n = 654, 67%) or EBRT + brachytherapy (EBRT + BT, n = 324, 33%) across 15 institutions from 1997 to 2015. In men who did not die, median follow-up after treatment was 8.9 yr and median follow-up after biochemical recurrence (BCR) was 3.7 yr. Local and systemic therapy salvage, respectively, were delivered to 21 and 390 men after EBRT, and eight and 103 men after EBRT + BT. Overall, 435 men developed DM, and 248 were detected within 1 yr of BCR. Measured from time of recurrence, 5-yr DM rates were 50% and 34% after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. Measured from BCR, 5-yr PCSM rates were 27% and 29%, respectively. Interval to BCR was independently associated with DM (p

PurposeIn 2009, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) genitourinary members published a consensus atlas for contouring prostate pelvic nodal clinical target volumes (CTVs). Data have emerged further informing nodal recurrence patterns. The objective of this study is to provide an updated prostate pelvic nodal consensus atlas.Methods and materialsA literature review was performed abstracting data on nodal recurrence patterns. Data were presented to a panel of international experts, including radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists. After data review, participants contoured nodal CTVs on 3 cases: postoperative, intact node positive, and intact node negative. Radiation oncologist contours were analyzed qualitatively using count maps, which provided a visual assessment of controversial regions, and quantitatively analyzed using Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficients and Hausdorff distances compared with the 2009 RTOG atlas. Diagnostic radiologists generated a reference table outlining considerations for determining clinical node positivity.ResultsEighteen radiation oncologists' contours (54 CTVs) were included. Two urologists' volumes were examined in a separate analysis. The mean CTV for the postoperative case was 302 cm3, intact node positive case was 409 cm3, and intact node negative case was 342 cm3. Compared with the original RTOG consensus, the mean Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficient for the postoperative case was 0.63 (standard deviation [SD] 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.68 (SD 0.13), and the intact node negative case was 0.66 (SD 0.18). The mean Hausdorff distance (in cm) for the postoperative case was 0.24 (SD 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.23 (SD 0.09), and intact node negative case was 0.33 (SD 0.24). Four regions of CTV controversy were identified, and consensus for each of these areas was reached.ConclusionsDiscordance with the 2009 RTOG consensus atlas was seen in a group of experienced NRG Oncology and international genitourinary radiation oncologists. To address areas of variability and account for new data, an updated NRG Oncology consensus contour atlas was developed.

This research used the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) with Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) model. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method, while also incorporating the use of a geographic information system (GIS) and remote sensing (RS) to predict the annual soil loss rate and spatialise the processes of water erosion at the scale of the Loukkos Watershed, Morocco. The RUSLE model and AHP parameters were estimated using RS data, and the erosion vulnerability zones were determined using GIS. We used five parameters, including precipitation erosivity, soil erodibility, slope length and steepness, vegetation cover, and soil erosion control practices in the RUSLE. For the AHP technique, we used seven geo‐environmental factors, including annual average precipitation, drainage density, lineament density, slope, soil texture, land use/land cover and landform maps. The results of RUSLE indicated that the average annual soil loss varied from 0 to 2388.27 t·ha−1·year−1. The total estimated annual potential soil loss was approximately 40 790 220.11 t·ha−1·year−1, and a sediment yield estimated by RUSLE‐SDR was 8 647 526.66 t·ha−1·year−1, equivalent to 6.65 Mm3. This value is very close to the measured value of 6.81 Mm3, for a difference of 0.16 Mm3. Furthermore, the results of the AHP indicate that the soil erosion potential index varies from 0 to 0.205315 t·ha−1·year−1. Overall, nearly 13.7% of the area suffered from severe soil erosion exceeding 50 t·ha−1·year−1. Approximately 80% of the Loukkos Watershed area experienced only slight erosion, while the remaining 6% incurred moderate erosion. Integrating GIS and RS into the RUSLE model and AHP helped us robustly estimate the extent and degree of erosion risk. Territorial decision‐makers should adopt our results to develop soil conservation strategies, water management plans and other necessary soil and water conservation measures for this region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In our paper, we examine various facets of prostate cancer lung metastasis. We explore their clinical manifestations, such as respiratory symptoms and potential complications. Diagnostic modalities, including imaging techniques and biomarker analysis, are scrutinized for accurate identification. Treatment strategies, encompassing surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies, are discussed for their efficacy. Survival outcomes are assessed to gauge the effectiveness of different interventions. Through comprehensive analysis, we aim to provide insights into managing prostate cancer lung metastasis and enhancing patient care and outcomes. Prostate cancer lung metastasis represents a clinical conundrum due to its implications for advanced disease progression and the complexities it introduces in treatment planning. As the disease progresses to distant sites such as the lung, the clinical management becomes increasingly intricate, requiring tailored therapeutic strategies to address the unique characteristics of metastatic lesions. This review seeks to synthesize the current state of knowledge surrounding prostate cancer metastasis to the lung, shedding light on the diverse array of clinical presentations encountered, ranging from subtle radiological findings to overt symptomatic manifestations. By examining the diagnostic modalities utilized in identifying this metastasis, including advanced imaging techniques and histopathological analyses, this review aims to provide insights into the diagnostic landscape and the challenges associated with accurately characterizing lung metastatic lesions in prostate cancer patients. Moreover, this review delves into the nuances of therapeutic interventions employed in managing prostate cancer lung metastasis, encompassing systemic treatments such as hormonal therapies and chemotherapy, as well as metastasis-directed therapies including surgery and radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials have established the benefit of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiotherapy in prostate cancer. ADT sensitizes prostate cancer to radiotherapy-induced death at least in part through inhibition of DNA repair machinery, but for unknown reasons, adjuvant ADT provides further survival benefits. Here, we show that androgen receptor (AR) expression and activity are durably upregulated following radiotherapy in multiple human prostate cancer models in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, the degree of AR upregulation correlates with survival in vitro and time to tumor progression in animal models. We also provide evidence of AR pathway upregulation, measured by a rise in serum levels of AR-regulated hK2 protein, in nearly 20% of patients after radiotherapy. Furthermore, these men were three-fold more likely to experience subsequent biochemical failure. Collectively, these data demonstrate that radiotherapy can upregulate AR signaling after therapy to an extent that negatively affects disease progression and/or survival.