Search

BackgroundHealth-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with localized prostate cancer (PC) on active surveillance (AS) and whether it may be improved through lifestyle-focused interventions remain underdefined.ObjectiveTo assess longitudinal changes in HRQoL in patients who received and those who did not receive a behavioral intervention that increased vegetable intake.Design, setting, and participantsA secondary analysis of participants in the Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) study (Cancer and Leukemia Group 70807 [Alliance]), a randomized trial of vegetable consumption in patients on AS, was conducted.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) included the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC), the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26 (EPIC-26), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale-Prostate (FACT-P). Areas under the curves (AUCs) were used to summarize serial HRQoL.Results and limitationsPROs were completed in 87% (n = 387) of the intention-to-collect population. Baseline characteristics of patients completing HRQoL measures did not differ significantly from the entire study population or between groups. Baseline scores were high for all PROs and remained stable over 24 mo, with no significant differences from baseline at any time point. In adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in summary AUC measures comparing control with intervention for the total MAX-PC score (p = 0.173); EPIC-26 domains of urinary incontinence (p = 0.210), urinary obstruction (p = 0.062), bowel health (p = 0.607), sexual health (p = 0.398), and vitality (p = 0.363); and total FACT-P scores (p = 0.471).ConclusionsAmong men with localized PC on AS enrolled in a randomized trial, HRQoL was high across multiple domains at baseline, remained high during follow-up, and did not change in response to a behavioral intervention that increased vegetable intake.Patient summaryPatients with localized prostate cancer enrolled on active surveillance experience minimal cancer-associated anxiety, suffer low levels of cancer-associated symptoms, and perceive high physical and emotional well-being.

PurposeAs prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) becomes increasingly available in the United States, the greater sensitivity of the technology in comparison to conventional imaging poses challenges for clinical trials. The NCI Clinical Imaging Steering Committee (CISC) PSMA PET Working Group was convened to coordinate the identification of these challenges in various clinical scenarios and to develop consensus recommendations on how best to integrate PSMA PET into ongoing and upcoming National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) trials.MethodsNCI CISC and NCI Genitourinary Steering Committee members and leadership nominated clinicians, biostatisticians, patient advocates, and other imaging experts for inclusion in the PSMA PET Working Group. From April to July 2021, the working group met independently and in conjunction with the CISC to frame challenges, including stage migration, response assessment, trial logistics, and statistical challenges, and to discuss proposed solutions. An anonymous, open-ended survey was distributed to members to collect feedback on challenges faced. Representatives from each NCTN group were invited to present an overview of affected trials. From these discussions, the consensus document was developed and circulated for the inclusion of multiple rounds of feedback from both the Working Group and CISC.ResultsThe current consensus document outlines the key challenges for clinical prostate cancer trials resulting from the increasing availability of PSMA PET. We discuss implications for patient selection and definition of end points and provide guidance and potential solutions for different clinical scenarios, particularly with regard to best practices in defining eligibility criteria and outcome measures.RecommendationsThis article provides guidance regarding clinical trial design and conduct, and the interpretation of trial results.

BackgroundAlthough the Decipher genomic classifier has been validated as a prognostic tool for several prostate cancer endpoints, little is known about its role in assessing the risk of biopsy reclassification for patients on active surveillance, a key event that often triggers treatment.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between Decipher genomic classifier scores and biopsy Gleason upgrading among patients on active surveillance.Design setting and participantsThis was a retrospective cohort study among patients with low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent biopsy-based Decipher testing as part of their clinical care.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisWe evaluated the association between the Decipher score and any increase in biopsy Gleason grade group (GG) using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for models comprising baseline clinical variables with or without the Decipher score.Results and limitationsWe identified 133 patients for inclusion with a median age of 67.7 yr and median prostate-specific of 5.6 ng/ml. At enrollment, 75.9% had GG1 and 24.1% had GG2 disease. Forty-three patients experienced biopsy upgrading. On multivariable logistic regression, the Decipher score was significantly associated with biopsy upgrading (odds ratio 1.37 per 0.10 unit increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.79; p = 0.02). The Decipher score was associated with upgrading among patients with biopsy GG 1 disease, but not GG2 disease. The discriminative ability of a clinical model (AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.74) was improved by integration of the Decipher score (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.80).ConclusionsThe Decipher genomic classifier score was associated with short-term biopsy Gleason upgrading among patients on active surveillance.Patient summaryThe results from this study indicate that among patients with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance, those with higher Decipher scores were more likely to have higher-grade disease found over time. These findings indicate that the Decipher test might be useful for guiding the intensity of monitoring during active surveillance, such as more frequent biopsy for patients with higher scores.

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.

Background: Although the FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH) can improve the sparing of organs‐at‐risk (OAR) via the FLASH effect, it is generally a tradeoff between the physical dose coverage and the biological FLASH coverage, for which the concept of FLASH effective dose (FED) is needed to quantify the net improvement of FLASH, compared to the conventional radiotherapy (CONV). Purpose: This work will develop the first‐of‐its‐kind treatment planning method called simultaneous dose and dose rate optimization via dose modifying factor modeling (SDDRO‐DMF) for proton FLASH that directly optimizes FED. Methods: SDDRO‐DMF models and optimizes FED using FLASH dose modifying factor (DMF) models, which can be classified into two categories: (1) the phenomenological model of the FLASH effect, such as the FLASH effectiveness model (FEM); (2) the mechanistic model of the FLASH radiobiology, such as the radiolytic oxygen depletion (ROD) model. The general framework of SDDRO‐DMF will be developed, with specific DMF models using FEM and ROD, as a demonstration of general applicability of SDDRO‐DMF for proton FLASH via transmission beams (TB) or Bragg peaks (BP) with single‐field or multi‐field irradiation. The FLASH dose rate is modeled as pencil beam scanning dose rate. The solution algorithm for solving the inverse optimization problem of SDDRO‐DMF is based on iterative convex relaxation method. Results: SDDRO‐DMF is validated in comparison with IMPT and a state‐of‐the‐art method called SDDRO, with demonstrated efficacy and improvement for reducing the high dose and the high‐dose volume for OAR in terms of FED. For example, in a SBRT lung case of the dose‐limiting factor that the max dose of brachial plexus should be no more than 26 Gy, only SDDRO‐DMF met this max dose constraint; moreover, SDDRO‐DMF completely eliminated the high‐dose (V70%) volume to zero for CTV10mm (a high‐dose region as a 10 mm ring expansion of CTV). Conclusion: We have proposed a new proton FLASH optimization method called SDDRO‐DMF that directly optimizes FED using phenomenological or mechanistic models of DMF, and have demonstrated the efficacy of SDDO‐DMF in reducing the high‐dose volume or/and the high‐dose value for OAR, compared to IMPT and a state‐of‐the‐art method SDDRO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to describe the prevalence and predictors of symptom and function clusters related to physical, emotional, and social components of general health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a population-based sample of prostate cancer (PCa) survivors. METHODS: Participants (N = 1,162) completed a baseline survey at a median of 9 months after diagnosis to ascertain the co-occurrence of eight symptom and functional domains that are common across all cancers and not treatment-specific. We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify subgroup profiles of survivors with low, moderate, or high HRQOL levels. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to identify clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with survivors' membership in the low versus moderate or high HRQOL profile. RESULTS: The LPA identified 16% of survivors who were categorized in the low HRQOL profile at baseline, indicative of the highest symptom burden and lowest functioning. Factors related to survivors' membership in the low versus higher HRQOL profile groups included less than age 65 years at diagnosis, identifying as non-Hispanic Black race, not working, being a former versus never smoker, systemic therapy, less companionship, more comorbidities, lower health care financial well-being, or less spirituality. Several factors remained associated with remaining in the low versus higher HRQOL profiles on the follow-up survey (n = 699), including younger age, Black race, comorbidity, and lower financial and spiritual well-being. CONCLUSION: About one of six PCa survivors experienced elevated physical and psychosocial symptoms that were independent of local curative therapy, but with younger age, race, comorbidity, and lower financial and spiritual well-being as stable risk factors for poor HRQOL over time. About 16% of prostate cancer survivors experience concurrent physical and mental health symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeTo endorse Cancer Care Ontario's guideline on Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations.MethodsThe Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The ASCO Endorsement Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations.ResultsThe ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 2015, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifying statements. The Cancer Care Ontario recommendation regarding 5-alpha reductase inhibitors was not endorsed by the ASCO panel.RecommendationsFor most patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤ 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the recommended disease management strategy. Factors including younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into account when making management decisions. Select patients with low-volume, intermediate-risk (Gleason 3 + 4 = 7) prostate cancer may be offered active surveillance. Active surveillance protocols should include prostate-specific antigen testing, digital rectal examinations, and serial prostate biopsies. Ancillary radiologic and genomic tests are investigational but may have a role in patients with discordant clinical and/or pathologic findings. Patients who are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score ≥ 7) or who have significant increases in tumor volume on subsequent biopsies should be offered active therapy.

Background Clinical studies are often limited by resources available, which results in constraints on sample size. We use simulated data to illustrate study implications when the sample size is too small. Methods and Results Using 2 theoretical populations each with N  = 1000, we randomly sample 10 from each population and conduct a statistical comparison, to help make a conclusion about whether the 2 populations are different. This exercise is repeated for a total of 4 studies: 2 concluded that the 2 populations are statistically significantly different, while 2 showed no statistically significant difference. Conclusions Our simulated examples demonstrate that sample sizes play important roles in clinical research. The results and conclusions, in terms of estimates of means, medians, Pearson correlations, chi-square test, and P values, are unreliable with small samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]