Search

Purpose: We assessed characteristics of patients at a pediatric gender clinic and investigated if reports of mental health concerns provided by transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth patients differed from reports provided by a parent informant on their behalf. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 259 TGD patients 8 to 22 years of age attending a pediatric gender clinic in the southeast United States from 2015 to 2020. Pearson correlations and paired sample t -tests compared patient-reported mental health concerns at patient intake with those provided by a parent informant. Clinical symptom severity was assessed with standardized T-scores. Level 2 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Emotional Distress-Depression Scale and Level 2 PROMIS Emotional Distress-Anxiety Scale assessed depression and anxiety symptoms of patients. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition Parent/Guardian-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure was used with parents. Results: Patients had a mean age of 14.9 at first visit, with most identifying as White (85.5%), non-Hispanic (91.1%), and as a boy or man (63.6%). Half had moderate-to-severe depression (51.2%) or anxiety (47.9%) symptoms. There was a moderate, positive correlation between patient-reported and parent-reported depression symptoms, with no correlation for anxiety symptoms. Informant type differences were statistically significant (patients reporting greater depression and anxiety symptoms). Conclusions: TGD youth patients reported more severe depression and anxiety symptoms compared with parent informants. Despite moderate agreement on depression symptoms, parents did not accurately detect their child's anxiety symptoms. These discrepancies highlight a need for interventions which increase parental recognition of child mental health status.

Purpose: Our purpose was to compare dosimetric parameters and late gastrointestinal outcomes between patients treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer with rectal balloon immobilization versus a hydrogel rectal spacer., Methods and Materials: Patients with localized, clinical stage T1-4 prostate adenocarcinoma were treated at a single institution using conventionally fractionated, dose-escalated PBT from 2013 to 2018. Patient-reported gastrointestinal toxicity was prospectively collected, and the incidence of rectal bleeding was retrospectively reviewed from patient records., Results: One hundred ninety-two patients were treated with rectal balloon immobilization, and 75 were treated with a rectal spacer. Rectal hydrogel spacer significantly improved rectal dosimetry while maintaining excellent target coverage. The 2-year actuarial rate of grade 2+ late rectal bleeding was 19% and 3% in the rectal balloon and hydrogel spacer groups, respectively (P = .003). In univariable analysis, the probability of grade 2+ rectal bleeding was significantly correlated with increasing rectal dose. In multivariable analysis, only receipt of spacer hydrogel (hazard ratio, 0.145; P = .010) and anticoagulation use (hazard ratio, 5.019; P < .001) were significantly associated with grade 2+ bleeding. At 2-year follow-up, patient-reported Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite bowel quality of life composite scores were less diminished in the hydrogel spacer group (absolute mean difference, 5.5; P = .030)., Conclusions: Use of rectal hydrogel spacer for prostate PBT is associated with a significantly lower incidence of clinically relevant, late rectal bleeding and lower decrement in long-term, patient-reported bowel quality of life compared with rectal balloon immobilization. Our results suggest that hydrogel spacer may improve rectal sparing compared with rectal balloon immobilization during PBT for prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We report prospectively captured clinical toxicity and patient reported outcomes in a single institutional cohort of patients treated for prostate cancer with proton beam therapy (PBT). This is the largest reported series of patients treated mostly with pencil beam scanning PBT., Methods: We reviewed 231 patients treated on an IRB approved institutional registry from 2013 to 2016; final analysis included 192 patients with > 1-year of follow-up. Toxicity incidence was prospectively captured and scored using CTCAE v4.0. International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) bowel domain questionnaires were collected at each visit. Univariate Cox regression was used to explore associations of grade 2+ toxicity with clinical, treatment, and dosimetric variables., Results: Median follow-up was 1.7 years. Grade 3 toxicity was seen in 5/192 patients. No grade 4 or 5 toxicity was seen. Patient reported quality-of-life showed no change in urinary function post-radiation by IPSS scores. Median SHIM scores declined by 3.7 points at 1-year post-treatment without further decrease beyond year 1. On univariate analysis, only younger age (HR = 0.61, p = 0.022) was associated with decreased sexual toxicity. EPIC bowel domain scores declined from 96 at baseline (median) by an average of 5.4 points at 1-year post-treatment (95% CI: 2.5-8.2 points, p < 0.001), with no further decrease over time. Bowel toxicity was mostly in the form of transient rectal bleeding and was associated with anticoagulation use (HR = 3.45, p = 0.002)., Conclusions: Grade 3 or higher toxicity was rare at 2-years after treatment with PBT for localized prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to further characterize late toxicity and biochemical control., Trial Registration: NCT, NCT01255748 . Registered 1 January 2013.

Purpose: We characterized both physician- and patient-reported rates of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) at our institution for prostate adenocarcinoma and identified factors associated with toxicity., Methods and Materials: We treated 192 patients with PBT between July 2013 and July 2016. Included patients had ≥1 year of follow-up. Potential preexisting clinical and treatment-related risk factors for GI toxicity were recorded. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 was used to score toxicity. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) bowel domain questionnaires assessed patient-reported quality of life. Associations between grade (GR) 2+ toxicity and clinical, treatment, and dosimetric factors were assessed using Cox models and corresponding hazard ratios., Results: The median follow-up was 1.7 years. Most of the observed GI toxicity (>90%) was in the form of rectal bleeding (RB). GR2+ GI toxicity and RB actuarial rates specifically at 2 years were 21.3% and 20.4%, respectively. GR3 toxicity was rare, with only 1 observed RB event. No GR4/5 toxicity was seen. The EPIC bowel domain median score was 96 (range, 61-100) pretreatment, 93 (range, 41-100) at 1 year, 89 (range, 57-100) at 1.5 years, and 89 (range, 50-100) at 2 years. Anticoagulation use was the only factor selected during multivariate analysis for predicting GR2+ RB, with a resulting concordance index of 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.68; P = .088). Type of proton technology (pencil beam scanning vs uniform scanning) and number of fields treated per day (1 vs 2) showed no significant difference in toxicity rate., Conclusions: PBT was associated with acceptable rates of GR2+ transient GI toxicity, mostly in the form of RB, which correlated with anticoagulation use. High EPIC bowel domain quality of life was maintained in the 2 years after treatment.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric and practical effects of the Monaco treatment planning system "max arcs-per-beam" optimization parameter in pelvic radiotherapy treatments. We selected for this study a total of 17 previously treated patients with a range of pelvic disease sites including prostate (9), bladder (1), uterus (3), rectum (3), and cervix (1). For each patient, 2 plans were generated, one using an arc-per-beam setting of "1" and another with an arc-per-beam setting of "2" using the volumes and constraints established from the initial clinical treatments. All constraints and dose coverage objects were kept the same between plans, and all plans were normalized to 99.7% to ensure 100% of the planning target volume (PTV) received 95% of the prescription dose. Plans were evaluated for PTV conformity, homogeneity, number of monitor units, number of control points, and overall plan acceptability. Treatment delivery time, patient-specific quality assurance procedures, and the impact on clinical workflow were also assessed. We found that for complex-shaped target volumes (small central volumes with extending arms to cover nodal regions), the use of 2 arc-per-beam (2APB) parameter setting achieved significantly lower average dose-volume histogram values for the rectum V 20 (p = 0.0012) and bladder V 30 (p = 0.0036) while meeting the high dose target constraints. For simple PTV shapes, we found reduced monitor units (13.47%, p = 0.0009) and control points (8.77%, p = 0.0004) using 2APB planning. In addition, we found a beam delivery time reduction of approximately 25%. In summary, the dosimetric benefit, although moderate, was improved over a 1APB setting for complex PTV, and equivalent in other cases. The overall reduced delivery time suggests that the use of mulitple arcs per beam could lead to reduced patient-on-table time, increased clinical throughput, and reduced medical physics quality assurance effort., (Copyright © 2017 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this study was to describe how patient information needs change over the course of receiving radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Convenience sampling was utilized to recruit men with stage I-III prostate cancer. A longitudinal repeated measures design was implemented for this pilot study. Patients were presented with 36 paired comparisons, each asking the participant to choose the most important information topic(s) for today. Following completion of the survey instruments, the clinic nurse delivered the four top-ranked information topic handouts to each patient with brief instruction on how to use the handouts. Over the course of 6 months, we were able to recruit 35 men. The four highest priority topics across all four sessions were prognosis, stage of disease, treatment options, and side effects. Our results suggest trends in the information priorities that men hold over the course of radiation treatment. The information priorities do appear to shift over time, notably prognosis concerns and risk for family members continued to rise over time, while side effect information declined. These findings will extend an already strong foundation of evidence for preparatory information in radiation therapy. Furthermore, these findings will strengthen current evidence that computerized assessment of patient self-report information is feasible and an important adjunct to clinical practice.

Purpose: Optimizing androgen suppression may provide better control of localized prostate cancer (PCa). Numerous trials have supported the benefit of combining androgen deprivation therapy with definitive radiation therapy in men with locally advanced or high-grade disease. Addition of abiraterone to luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRHa) with radiation has not been reported. We examined the safety of this combination as well as its impact on androgen suppression., Methods and Materials: A prospective, phase 2 study was conducted in men with localized PCa treated with 6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent abiraterone with LHRHa and radiation. Duration of adjuvant LHRHa was at the discretion of the treating clinician. Prostate biopsy assays were obtained prior to the start of therapy and prior to radiation. Sera and tissue androgen levels were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry., Results: A total of 22 men with intermediate- (n=3) and high-risk PCa (n=19) received study therapy. Sixteen men completed the intended course of abiraterone, and 19 men completed planned radiation to 77.4 to 81 Gy. Radiation to pelvic nodes was administered in 20 men. The following grade 3 toxicities were reported: lymphopenia (14 patients), fatigue (1 patient), transaminitis (2 patients), hypertension (2 patients), and hypokalemia (1 patient). There were no grade 4 toxicities. All 21 men who complied with at least 3 months of abiraterone therapy had a preradiation prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration nadir of <0.3 ng/mL. Median levels of tissue androgen downstream of CYP17A were significantly suppressed after treatment with abiraterone, and upstream steroids were increased. At median follow-up of 21 months (range: 3-37 months), only 1 patient (who had discontinued abiraterone at 3 months) had biochemical relapse., Conclusions: Addition of abiraterone to LHRHa with radiation is safe and achieves effective prostatic androgen suppression. Preliminary analysis of the clinical data is also promising, with excellent PSA nadir and no relapse to date in this high-risk population., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)