Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications have enabled remarkable advancements in healthcare delivery. These AI tools are often aimed to improve accuracy and efficiency of histopathology assessment and diagnostic imaging interpretation, risk stratification (i.e., prognostication), and prediction of therapeutic benefit for personalized treatment recommendations. To date, multiple AI algorithms have been explored for prostate cancer to address automation of clinical workflow, integration of data from multiple domains in the decision-making process, and the generation of diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers. While many studies remain within the pre-clinical space or lack validation, the last few years have witnessed the emergence of robust AI-based biomarkers validated on thousands of patients, and the prospective deployment of clinically-integrated workflows for automated radiation therapy design. To advance the field forward, multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary collaborations are needed in order to prospectively implement interoperable and accountable AI technology routinely in clinic.

IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the noninferiority of shorter radiotherapy (RT) courses (termed hypofractionation) compared with longer RT courses in patients with localized prostate cancer. Although shorter courses are associated with cost-effectiveness, convenience, and expanded RT access, their adoption remains variable. OBJECTIVE: To identify the current practice patterns of external beam RT for prostate cancer in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study obtained data from the National Cancer Database, which collects hospital registry data from more than 1500 accredited US facilities on approximately 72% of US patients with cancer. Patients were included in the sample if they had localized prostate adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between 2004 and 2020 and underwent external beam RT with curative intent. Analyses were conducted between February and March 2023. EXPOSURES: Radiotherapy schedules, which were categorized as ultrahypofractionation (≤7 fractions), moderate hypofractionation (20-30 fractions), and conventional fractionation (31-50 fractions). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Longitudinal pattern in RT fractionation schedule was the primary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the variables associated with shorter RT courses. Covariables included age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, rurality, race, facility location, facility type, median income, insurance type or status, and Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: A total of 313 062 patients with localized prostate cancer (mean [SD] age, 68.8 [7.7] years) were included in the analysis. There was a temporal pattern of decline in the proportion of patients who received conventional fractionation, from 76.0% in 2004 to 36.6% in 2020 (P for trend <.001). From 2004 to 2020, use of moderate hypofractionation increased from 22.0% to 45.0% (P for trend <.001), and use of ultrahypofractionation increased from 2.0% to 18.3% (P for trend <.001). By 2020, the most common RT schedule was ultrahypofractionation for patients in the low-risk group and moderate hypofractionation for patients in the intermediate-risk group. On multivariable analysis, treatment at a community cancer program (compared with academic or research program; odds ratio [OR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.52-0.56]; P < .001), Medicaid insurance (compared with Medicare; OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.41-1.57]; P < .001), Black race (compared with White race; OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.87-0.92]; P < .001), and higher median income (compared with lower median income; OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.25-1.31]; P < .001) were associated with receipt of shorter courses of RT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this cohort study showed an increase in the use of shorter courses of RT for prostate cancer from 2004 to 2020; a number of social determinants of health appeared to be associated with reduced adoption of shorter treatment courses. Realignment of reimbursement models may be necessary to enable broader adoption of ultrahypofractionation to support technology acquisition costs.

Combined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies are associated with less upgrading but more downgrading at radical prostatectomy. Our findings highlight a potential net harm of performing combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies if pathologic downgrading is considered more detrimental than upgrading at prostatectomy.

The understanding of the relationship between genetic variation and an individual patient's response to radiation therapy (RT) has gained significant ground over the past several years. Genetic markers have been identified that could ultimately serve as the foundation for predictive models in clinical practice, and that hold the potential to revolutionize the delivery of precision medicine in oncology. Single nucleotide polymorphisms, single genes, and/or gene signatures could ultimately serve as the basis for patient stratification in prospective clinical trials. Currently, molecular markers relevant to breast, lung, and head and neck cancers have been integrated into clinical practice and serve as predictive tools to guide systemic therapy. In the future, the use of predictive models based on genomic determinants may become standard practice in radiation oncology, offering the potential to further personalize the delivery of RT and optimize the therapeutic ratio., Introduction Radiation therapy (RT) remains a mainstay of modern oncologic treatment, with more than half of all patients receiving RT during their treatment course. However, individual responses to RT vary [...]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background: While multiple randomized trials have evaluated the benefit of radiation therapy (RT) dose escalation and the use and prolongation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer, few studies have evaluated the relative benefit of either form of treatment intensification with each other. Many trials have included treatment strategies that incorporate either high or low dose RT, or short-term or long-term ADT (STADT or LTADT), in one or more trial arms. We sought to compare different forms of treatment intensification of RT in the context of localized prostate cancer. Methods: Using preferred reporting items for systemic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we collected over 40 phases III clinical trials comparing different forms of RT for localized prostate cancer. We performed a meta-regression of 40 individual trials with 21,429 total patients to allow a comparison of the rates and cumulative proportions of 5-year overall survival (OS), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and distant metastasis (DM) for each treatment arm of every trial. Results: Dose-escalation either in the absence or presence of STADT failed to significantly improve any 5-year outcome. In contrast, adding LTADT to low dose RT significantly improved 5-year PCSM (Odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22–0.54, p< 0.001) and DM (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20–0.63. p< 0.001) over low dose RT alone. Adding STADT also significantly improved 5-year PCSM over low dose RT alone (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0.75, p< 0.001). Conclusion: While limited by between-study heterogeneity and a lack of individual patient data, this meta-analysis suggests that adding ADT, versus increasing RT dose alone, offers a more consistent improvement in clinical endpoints.

IMPORTANCE: The oligometastatic paradigm postulates that patients with a limited number of metastases can be treated with ablative local therapy to each site of disease with curative intent. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a radiation technique that has become widely used in this setting. However, prospective data are limited and are mainly from single institutional studies. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis to characterize the safety and clinical benefit of SABR in oligometastatic cancer. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature on December 23, 2019, that included prospective clinical trials and review articles that were published within the past 15 years. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were single-arm or multiarm prospective trials including patients with oligometastatic cancer (ie, ≤5 sites of extracranial disease), and SABR was administered in less than or equal to 8 fractions with greater than or equal to 5 Gy/fraction. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes and Study Design; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses; and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology methods were used to identify eligible studies. Study eligibility and data extraction were reviewed by 3 authors independently. Random-effects meta-analyses using the Knapp-Hartung correction, arcsine transformation, and restricted maximum likelihood method were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Safety (acute and late grade 3-5 toxic effects) and clinical benefit (1-year local control, 1-year overall survival, and 1-year progression-free survival). RESULTS: Twenty-one studies comprising 943 patients and 1290 oligometastases were included. Median age was 63.8 years (interquartile range, 59.6-66.1 years) and median follow-up was 16.9 months (interquartile range, 13.7-24.5 months). The most common primary sites were prostate (22.9%), colorectal (16.6%), breast (13.1%), and lung (12.8%). The estimate for acute grade 3 to 5 toxic effect rates under the random-effects models was 1.2% (95% CI, 0%-3.8%; I2 = 50%; 95% CI, 3%-74%; and τ = 0.20%; 95% CI, 0.00%-1.43%), and the estimate for late grade 3 to 5 toxic effects was 1.7% (95% CI, 0.2%-4.6%; I2 = 54%; 95% CI, 11%-76%; and τ = 0.25%; 0.01%-1.00%). The random-effects estimate for 1-year local control was 94.7% (95% CI, 88.6%-98.6%; I2 = 90%; 95% CI, 86%-94%; and τ = 0.81%; 95% CI, 0.36%-2.38%]). The estimate for 1-year overall survival was 85.4% (95% CI, 77.1%-92.0%; I2 = 82%; 95% CI, 71%-88%; and τ = 0.72%; 95% CI, 0.30%-2.09%) and 51.4% (95% CI, 42.7%-60.1%; I2 = 58%; 95% CI, 17%-78%; and τ = 0.20%; 95% CI, 0.02%-1.21%) for 1-year progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this meta-analysis, SABR appears to be relatively safe in patients with oligometastatic cancer with clinically acceptable rates of acute and late grade 3 to 5 toxic effects less than 13% and with clinically acceptable rates of 1-year local control overall survival, and progression-free survival. These findings are hypothesis generating and require validation by ongoing and planned prospective clinical trials.

•This is the first systematic review of dietary recommendations for patients receiving radiation therapy.•High fiber diet may improve diarrhea in pelvic cancer patients.•Limited data to support safe and efficacious use of dietary interventions during radiotherapy.•No dietary intervention has been shown to improve survival.

IMPORTANCE: Cancer treatment delay has been reported to variably impact cancer-specific survival and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–specific mortality during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. During the pandemic, treatment delay is being recommended in a nonquantitative, nonobjective, and nonpersonalized manner, and this approach may be associated with suboptimal outcomes. Quantitative integration of cancer mortality estimates and data on the consequences of treatment delay is needed to aid treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To obtain quantitative integration of cancer-specific and COVID-19–specific mortality estimates that can be used to make optimal decisions for individual patients and optimize resource allocation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this decision analytical model, age-specific and stage-specific estimates of overall survival pre–COVID-19 were adjusted by the probability of COVID-19 (individualized by county, treatment-specific variables, hospital exposure frequency, and COVID-19 infectivity estimates), COVID-19 mortality (individualized by age-specific, comorbidity-specific, and treatment-specific variables), and delay of cancer treatment (impact and duration). These model estimates were integrated into a web application (OncCOVID) to calculate estimates of the cumulative overall survival and restricted mean survival time of patients who received immediate vs delayed cancer treatment. Using currently available information about COVID-19, a susceptible-infected-recovered model that accounted for the increased risk among patients at health care treatment centers was developed. This model integrated the data on cancer mortality and the consequences of treatment delay to aid treatment decisions. Age-specific and cancer stage–specific estimates of overall survival pre–COVID-19 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for 691 854 individuals with 25 cancer types who received cancer diagnoses in 2005 to 2006. Data from 5 436 896 individuals in the National Cancer Database were used to estimate the independent impact of treatment delay by cancer type and stage. In addition, data from 275 patients in a nested case-control study were used to estimate the COVID-19 mortality rate by age group and number of comorbidities. Data were analyzed from March 17 to May 21, 2020. EXPOSURES: COVID-19 and cancer. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimates of restricted mean survival time after the receipt of immediate vs delayed cancer treatment. RESULTS: At the time of the study, the OncCOVID web application allowed for the selection of up to 47 individualized variables to assess net survival for an individual patient with cancer. Substantial heterogeneity was found regarding the association between delayed cancer treatment and net survival among patients with a given cancer type and stage, and these 2 variables were insufficient to discriminate the net impact of immediate vs delayed treatment. Individualized overall survival estimates were associated with patient age, number of comorbidities, treatment received, and specific local community estimates of COVID-19 risk. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This decision analytical modeling study found that the OncCOVID web-based application can quantitatively aid in the resource allocation of individualized treatment for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 global pandemic.

IMPORTANCE: In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multinational cohort study included 7 centers from the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers collaborative (5 centers), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (43 centers) (the STAR-CAP cohort). Patients with cT1-4N0-1M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013 (follow-up completed December 31, 2017). The STAR-CAP cohort was randomly divided into training and validation data sets; statisticians were blinded to the validation data until the model was locked. A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort was used as a second validation set. Analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019. EXPOSURES: Curative intent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM). Based on a competing-risk regression model, a points-based Score staging system was developed. Model discrimination (C index), calibration, and overall performance were assessed in the validation cohorts. RESULTS: Of 19 684 patients included in the analysis (median age, 64.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-70.0] years), 12 421 were treated with RP and 7263 with radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 71.8 (IQR, 34.3-124.3) months; 4078 (20.7%) were followed up for at least 10 years. Age, T category, N category, Gleason grade, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level, and the percentage of positive core biopsy results among biopsies performed were included as variables. In the validation set, predicted 10-year PCSM for the 9 Score groups ranged from 0.3% to 40.0%. The 10-year C index (0.796; 95% CI, 0.760-0.828) exceeded that of the AJCC 8th edition (0.757; 95% CI, 0.719-0.792), which was improved across age, race, and treatment modality and within the SEER validation cohort. The Score system performed similarly to individualized random survival forest and interaction models and outperformed National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk grouping 3- and 4-tier classification systems (10-year C index for NCCN 3-tier, 0.729; for NCCN 4-tier, 0.746; for Score, 0.794) as well as CAPRA (10-year C index for CAPRA, 0.760; for Score, 0.782). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Using a large, diverse international cohort treated with standard curative treatment options, a proposed AJCC-compliant clinical prognostic stage group system for prostate cancer has been developed. This system may allow consistency of reporting and interpretation of results and clinical trial design.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

This evidence-based guideline for workup and management of radiorecurrent prostate cancer recommends biopsy before local salvage, prioritization of local salvage over noncurative hormonal manipulation alone in appropriate patients, and salvage reirradiation among many local salvage options to limit toxicity.

Genomic classifier (GC) testing is associated with greater usage of conservative management in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Additionally, GC testing at biopsy may provide greater prognostic value than tumor volume alone.

With long-term follow-up, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) yields moderate long-term renal function decline and low dialysis rates even in patients with a solitary kidney. SABR thus represents a promising noninvasive, nephron-sparing option for patients with localized renal cell carcinoma.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Combined immune checkpoint blockade has led to rare autoimmune complications, such as fatal myocarditis. Recent approvals of several anti–programmed death 1 (anti–PD-1) drugs for lung cancer treatment prompted ongoing clinical trials that directly combine PD-1 inhibitors with thoracic radiotherapy for locally advanced lung cancer. Overlapping toxicities from either modality have the potential to increase the risk for radiation-induced cardiotoxicity (RICT), which is well documented among patients with Hodgkin's disease and breast cancer.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Brachytherapy (BT), using low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent seed implantation or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary source implantation, is an acceptable treatment option for select patients with prostate cancer of any risk group. The benefits of HDR-BT over LDR-BT include the ability to use the same source for other cancers, lower operator dependence, and — typically — fewer acute irritative symptoms. By contrast, the benefits of LDR-BT include more favourable scheduling logistics, lower initial capital equipment costs, no need for a shielded room, completion in a single implant, and more robust data from clinical trials. Prospective reports comparing HDR-BT and LDR-BT to each other or to other treatment options (such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or surgery) suggest similar outcomes. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates for patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease are >85%, 69–97%, and 63–80%, respectively. Brachytherapy with EBRT (versus brachytherapy alone) is an appropriate approach in select patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. The 10-year rates of overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality are >85%, <10%, and <5%, respectively. Grade 3–4 toxicities associated with HDR-BT and LDR-BT are rare, at <4% in most series, and quality of life is improved in patients who receive brachytherapy compared with those who undergo surgery.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most rigorous way of determining whether a cause-effect relation exists between treatment and outcome and for assessing the cost-effectiveness of a treatment. For many patients, cancer is a chronic illness; RCTs evaluating treatments for indolent cancers must evolve to facilitate medical decision-making, as “concrete” patient outcomes (eg, survival) will likely be excellent independent of the intervention, and detecting a difference between trial arms may be impossible. In this commentary, we articulate 9 recommendations that we hope future clinical trialists and funding agencies (including those under the National Cancer Institute) will take into consideration when planning RCTs to help guide subsequent interpretation of results and clinical decision making, based on RCTs of external beam radiation therapy dose escalation for the most common indolent cancer in men, that is, prostate cancer. We recommend routinely reporting: (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics (eg, number of centers involved, type of facilities, yearly hospital volumes). We discuss how these factors independently affect patient outcomes and toxicities; future clinicians and governing organizations should consider this information to plan RCTs accordingly (to maximize patient accrual and total n), select appropriate endpoints (eg, toxicity, quality of life, sexual function), actively monitor RCTs, and report results so as to identify the optimal treatment among subpopulations.

The purpose of this study was to assess the trends in use of clinical diagnosis and its impact on treatment outcomes in patients receiving radiation therapy for early-stage lung cancer.

Clinical trials are essential for evaluating advanced technologies and treatment approaches involving radiation therapy to improve outcomes for cancer patients. Clinical trials at cancer centers with designation from the National Cancer Institute must undergo scientific review in additional to Institutional Review Board approval. Given the highly specialized nature and rapidly advancing technologies of radiation therapy, and the small number of radiation oncology investigators at some centers, a lack of radiation oncology expertise among reviewers may present challenges at some cancer centers. This commentary aims to provide an overview of radiation therapy and special considerations for radiation oncology research that will serve as a helpful resource in the scientific review of clinical trials involving cancer patients.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is defined as an assessment of all available options for a specific medical condition, with intent to estimate effectiveness in specific subpopulations. Medical professionals must receive training in CER, including its general goals, the ‘toolbox necessary to perform CER and its design. Oncologic training programs are currently not doing justice to CER: a rationale for conducting CER has been proposed, funding from the US government is available, but encouragement from oncologic residencies and fellowships is minimal. Encouragement to train oncologic physicians in CER is limited by a few factors, including inadequate emphasis on evidence weighing, and no explicit mention of factors key to CER in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education guidelines. As residency program requirements transition to milestone-based curricula and evaluations, explicit recommendations regarding CER and patient-centered outcomes research should be implemented for all programs. Upper level trainees who have reached milestones related to CER will be competitive applicants for research funding.

RTOG 0839 is a Phase II study of pre-operative chemoradiotherapy with or without panitumumab in potentially operable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The investigational agent, panitumumab, is an anti-epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody that improves progression-free survival in chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recently, both KRAS mutational status (i.e., mutated or not) and subtype (i.e., activating or inactivating) have been shown to be predictive of response to anti-EGFR therapy in mCRC. However, in NSCLC, it is unknown if KRAS mutational status or subtype predict benefit to anti-EGFR therapies because of unique genetic and epigenetic factors unique to each cancer. We present a patient with stage III NSCLC containing a KRAS G12D activating mutation who had a partial pathologic response, with disappearance of a minor KRAS mutant clone. This case suggests possible eradication of the G12D KRAS lung cancer clones by concurrent chemoradiation with panitumumab.

Conventional treatment options for clinically localized, low-risk prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and low-dose-rate brachytherapy. Advances in image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) since the 1980s, the development of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) during the 1990s and evidence from radiobiological models—which support the use of high doses per fraction—have developed alongside novel advanced radiotherapy modalities that include high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and proton beam therapy. The relationship between the outcomes of and toxicities experienced by patients with prostate cancer treated with HDR-BT, SBRT and particle-beam therapy should provide urologists and oncologists an understanding of the continually evolving technology in prostate radiotherapy. On the basis of published evidence, conventionally fractionated EBRT with IMRT is considered the standard of care over conventional 3D conformal radiotherapy, whereas HDR-BT boost is an acceptable treatment option for selected patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. SBRT and proton therapy should not be used for patients (regardless of disease risk group) outside the setting of a clinical trial. Finally, comparative effectiveness research should be conducted to provide a framework for evaluating advanced radiotherapy technologies by comparing the benefits and harms of available therapeutic options to optimize the risk:benefit ratio and improve cost effectiveness.

Prostate cancer is the most common solid tumor diagnosed in men in the United States and Western Europe. Primary treatment with radiation or surgery is largely successful at controlling localized disease. However, a significant number (up to one third of men) may develop biochemical recurrence (BR), defined as a rise in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. A general presumption is that BR will lead to overt progression in patients over subsequent years. There are a number of factors that a physician must consider when counseling and recommending treatment to a patient with a rising PSA. These include the following (1) various PSA-based definitions of BR; (2) source of PSA (ie, local or distant disease, residual benign prostate); (3) available modalities to treat the disease with the least morbidity; and (4) timing of therapy. In this article we review the current and future factors that clinicians should consider in the diagnosis and treatment of recurrent prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and second most common cause of cancer death in American men. Although high-risk disease accounts for less than 15% of diagnoses, high-risk prostate cancer patients have a cancer-specific mortality rate of 15% at 10 years. There is currently no consensus on the optimal management of high-risk disease because (1) there are different primary modalities available (ie, surgery, radiation), for which there are no randomized trials comparing efficacy; and (2) unstandardized timing of different therapies (ie, neoadjuvant vconcurrent vadjuvant), which makes comparisons of efficacy problematic. Increased understanding into the mechanisms leading to the formation of advanced metastatic disease has spurred the development of agents to target these pathways. However, new questions regarding optimal management of disease arise with regard to the role of these therapies in combination with “conventional” primary modalities for earlier stage, high-risk prostate cancer patients. In this article, we review the transforming world of multimodality therapy in high-risk prostate cancer.

In general, patients with prostate cancer are able to maintain a relatively high quality of life (QOL), commonly reporting improvements in physical, emotional, and social functioning within 1 year of treatment. However, certain subpopulations of patients are susceptible to significant reductions in QOL during the course of their treatment. Data suggest that ethnic background and sexual preference both have significant effects on QOL for patients with prostate cancer. These parameters are often poorly documented and addressed by medical practitioners. Greater attention is needed to identify patients who are at increased risk of QOL reduction as a result of these factors.

Our retrospective analysis focuses on improving prognostication. The National Cancer Database was queried from 2010-2015 for men diagnosed with castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer. We developed and validated several prognostic phenotypes that can aid in risk stratification to potentially personalize therapy. We also performed a literature review of related works. Our nomogram (https://tinyurl.com/prostate-met) may be used to predict survival.

No clear consensus exists for managing biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy. Interpretation of new data from the JCOG0401 trial warrants consideration of imaging techniques, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at time of salvage radiotherapy (SRT), use of SRT?±?salvage androgen deprivation therapy based on PSA levels, and the interval to biochemical failure.

IMPORTANCE: Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank. DATA SOURCES: Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used. STUDY SELECTION: A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary study outcome was the h-index. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 10?665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10?665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P?&lt;?.001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P?&lt;?.001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P?=?.002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.

We evaluated the effect of type 2 diabetes, and medications used in its management, on prostate cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. Men who were receiving insulin and those not receiving any medication had increased risk of death and toxicity than those without diabetes.