Search

In medicine, retrospective cohort studies are used to compare treatments to one another. We hypothesize that the outcomes of retrospective comparative effectiveness research studies can be heavily influenced by biostatistical analytic choices, thereby leading to inconsistent conclusions. We selected a clinical scenario currently under investigation: survival in metastatic prostate, breast or lung cancer after systemic vs systemic + definitive local therapy. We ran >300 000 regression models (each representing a publishable study). Each model had various forms of analytic choices (to account for bias): propensity score matching, left truncation adjustment, landmark analysis and covariate combinations. There were 72 549 lung, 14 904 prostate and 13 857 breast cancer patients included. In the most basic analysis, which omitted propensity score matching, left truncation adjustment and landmark analysis, all of the HRs were <1 (generally, 0.60‐0.95, favoring addition of local therapy), with all P‐values <.001. Left truncation adjustment landmark analysis produced results with nonsignificant P‐values. The combination of propensity score matching, left truncation adjustment, landmark analysis and covariate combinations generally produced P‐values that were >.05 and/or HRs that were >1 (favoring systemic therapy alone). The use of more statistical methods to reduce the selection bias caused reported HR ranges to approach 1.0. By varying analytic choices in comparative effectiveness research, we generated contrary outcomes. Our results suggest that some retrospective observational studies may find a treatment improves outcomes for patients, while another similar study may find it does not, simply based on analytical choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although rare, the rate of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is rising globally. Most patients present with nonmetastatic disease and are curable with appropriate treatment, which has evolved significantly over the last several decades. Before the 1970s, SCCA was managed with radical surgery, resulting in a permanent colostomy. Researchers found that preoperative treatment with chemotherapy and concurrent radiation could achieve a pathologic complete response. After this observation, definitive therapy shifted from radical surgery to sphincter‐preserving chemoradiation. Investigations into the necessity of chemotherapy and the optimal regimen found that chemotherapy with mitomycin‐C and 5‐fluorouracil is required for cure. Further studies evaluating the addition of induction or maintenance chemotherapy, monoclonal antibody therapy, or higher radiation doses have demonstrated no significant benefit to disease control. Advanced radiation delivery with intensity‐modulated radiotherapy techniques is now considered the standard of care because of its prospectively determined, favorable acute toxicity profile compared with 3‐dimensional conformal radiation. It is important to note that chemoradiation treatment response may be slow (up to 26 weeks) and should be assessed through serial clinical examinations. Today, surgical management of SCCA is reserved only for the lowest risk, early stage tumors or for recurrent/persistent disease. Current studies are evaluating radiation dose de‐escalation in early stage disease and radiation dose escalation and the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors in locally advanced cancers. In reviewing how and why modern‐day treatment of SCCA was established, the objective of this report is to reenforce adherence to current treatment paradigms to assure the best possible outcomes for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although cancer is highly heterogeneous, all metastatic cancer is considered American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Stage IV disease. The purpose of this project was to redefine staging of metastatic cancer. Internal validation of nationally representative patient data from the National Cancer Database (n = 461 357; 2010‐2013), and external validation using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (n = 106 595; 2014‐2015) were assessed using the concordance index for evaluation of survival prediction. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for overall survival by considering identified phenotypes (latent classes) and other confounding variables. Latent class analysis was performed for phenotype identification, where Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and sample‐size‐adjusted BIC were used to select the optimal number of distinct clusters. Kappa coefficients assessed external cluster validation. Latent class analysis identified five metastatic phenotypes with differences in overall survival (P <.0001): (Stage IVA) nearly exclusive bone‐only metastases (n = 59 049, 12.8%; median survival 12.7 months; common in lung, breast and prostate cancers); (IVB) predominant lung metastases (n = 62 491, 13.5%; 11.4 months; common in breast, stomach, kidney, ovary, uterus, thyroid, cervix and soft tissue cancers); (IVC) predominant liver/lung metastases (n = 130 014, 28.2%; 7.0 months; common in colorectum, pancreatic, lung, esophagus and stomach cancers); (IVD) bone/liver/lung metastases predominant over brain (n = 61 004, 13.2%; 5.9 months; common in lung and breast cancers); and (IVE) brain/lung metastases predominant over bone/liver (n = 148 799, 32.3%; 5.7 months; lung cancer and melanoma). Long‐term survivors were identified, particularly in Stages IVA‐B. A pan‐cancer nomogram model to predict survival (STARS: site, tumor, age, race, sex) was created, validated and provides 13% better prognostication than AJCC: 1‐month concordance index of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66‐0.67) vs 0.61 (95% CI: 0.60‐0.61). STARS is simple, uses easily accessible variables, better prognosticates survival outcomes and provides a platform to develop novel metastasis‐directed clinical trials. What's new? Metastatic cancer is typically fatal, but survival can range from weeks to years. Currently, however, there is only one category of stage IV cancer; thus, prognostication is unreliable. To better reflect the heterogeneity of stage IV cancers, these authors created STARS, a pan‐cancer staging system. STARS stands for "Site, Tumor, Age, Race, Sex," and for prognosis, STARS was more accurate than AJCC staging. STARS is relatively inexpensive, as it relies on readily available clinical data, making it accessible to communities worldwide. It also provides a platform for developing clinical trials for therapies against metastatic disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study examined whether radiation therapy facility volumes correlate with survival after curative intent treatment of solid tumors. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with solid tumors treated with curative‐intent radiation therapy from 2004‐2013. Facilities were stratified into 4 volume categories: low, intermediate, high, and very high. Primary cancer sites were divided into neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or definitive radiation subgroups. Kaplan‐Meier curves of 5‐year postradiation survival probability, stratified by facility volume, were generated with log‐rank tests for group comparisons. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the effect of facility volume on survival, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: There were 253,422 patients treated at 1289 facilities: 6231 received neoadjuvant radiation, 147,980 received adjuvant radiation, and 99,211 received definitive radiation without surgery. Among patients receiving neoadjuvant radiation, survival correlated with facility volume for patients with rectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.6‐0.94; P =.01). For cancers of the breast and uterus, patients receiving adjuvant radiation at very high‐volume facilities (vs low volume) had improved survival (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77‐0.90; P <.001 and HR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.62‐0.97; P =.03, respectively). For patients receiving definitive radiation for prostate, non–small cell lung, pancreas, and head and neck cancer, there was an improvement in survival for patients treated at very high‐volume centers (P <.05). Conclusions: For select cancer patients, treatment with curative radiation at higher volume facilities is associated with improved survival. In particular, patients receiving radiation therapy in the definitive setting without surgery may benefit most from treatment at high‐volume centers. For select cancer patients, treatment with curative radiation at higher volume facilities is associated with improved survival. Metrics to ensure radiation therapy quality, such as centralized quality‐assurance checks or the integration of small‐volume facilities into larger health networks with mandated peer review, may be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of prehabilitation exercise intervention with respect to (1) acceptability, feasibility, and safety; and (2) physical function, measured by 6‐minute‐walk test (6MWT). Data sources: PRISMA guidelines were used to systematically search PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases evaluating prehabilitation exercise interventions. Study selection: The inclusion criteria were studies investigating patients who underwent surgery for their cancer and underwent prehabilitation exercise. Data extraction and synthesis: Guidelines were applied by independent extraction by multiple observers. Data were pooled using a random‐effects model. Main outcome(s) and measure(s): Acceptability, feasibility, and safety rates were calculated. 6MWT (maximum distance a person can walk at their own pace on a hard, flat surface, measured in meters, with longer distance indicative of better performance status) was compared using two arms using the DerSimonian and Laird method. Results: Objective 1. Across 21 studies included in this review, 1564 patients were enrolled, 1371 (87.7%) accepted the trial; of 1371, 1230 (89.7% feasibility) completed the intervention. There was no grade 3+ toxicities. Objective 2. Meta‐analysis of five studies demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in 6MWT distance postoperatively in the control group (mean difference = +27.9 m; 95% confidence interval (CI): 9.3; 46.6) and a significant improvement postoperatively in the prehabilitation group (mean difference = −24.1 m; 95% CI: −45.7; −2.6). Meta‐analysis demonstrated improvements in 6MWT distance 4–8 weeks postoperatively in the prehabilitation group compared to the control group (mean difference = −58.0 m, 95% CI: −92.8; −23.3). Conclusions and relevance: Prehabilitation exercise for cancer patients undergoing surgery was found to be safe, acceptable, and feasible with a statistically significant improvement in the 6MWT, indicating that prehabilitation can improve postoperative functional capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objectives of this study were to characterize the risk of death (1) from the primary cancer vs competing cause of death; and (2) from various causes of death vs the general poplation. The relative risk of death after a pediatric cancer diagnosis versus the general population and the risk of death from a primary cancer diagnosis versus competing causes of death.Methods: This retrospective, population-based study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1980-2015) and included patients aged 0 to 19 years at the time of diagnosis. Observed deaths were calculated; the risk of death versus the general population was assessed with standardized mortality ratios (SMRs). Competing risk models for the cause of death were performed.Results: There were 58,356 patients who were diagnosed, and the mortality rate was 22.8%. To assess causes of death, 6996 patients who died during the study period were included (45,580 total person-years at risk): 5128 (73%) died of their primary cancer, and 1868 (27%) died of a competing cause. Among all patients, the rate of death from the index cancer was higher than the rate of death from another cause within the first 5 years after diagnosis. The risk of death from a nonprimary cancer began to supersede the rate of death from the primary cancer 10 years after diagnosis for patients with germ cell tumors, lymphomas, and sarcomas. SMRs for the primary cancer were highest within the first 5 years after diagnosis for all cancers (SMRs, 100-50,000; P < .0001). The risk of death from competing causes (heart disease, suicide, and sepsis) was elevated (SMR, >100; P < .001). The risk of dying of heart disease was high, especially for patients with astrocytomas (SMR, 47.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.87-76.59) and neuroblastomas (SMR, 98.59; 95% CI, 47.28-181.32). The risk of dying of suicide was high in most patients, particularly for those with osteosarcomas (SMR, 111.40; 95% CI, 2.82-620.69), Hodgkin lymphomas (SMR, 62.35; 95% CI, 34.89-102.83), and gonadal germ cell tumors (SMR, 28.97; 95% CI, 12.51-57.09).Conclusions: The cause of death for patients with gonadal germ cell tumors, lymphomas, and sarcomas is more commonly a secondary cancer or noncancerous cause than the primary disease; their risk of death from competing causes (heart disease, suicide, and sepsis) rises throughout life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The goal of this study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (CFRT) for the definitive treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was efficacy, defined by 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were incidence of any grade 3/4 toxicity and 1-year OS.Methods: A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were: 1) patients diagnosed with locally advanced N0-1 M0 pancreatic cancer; 2) CFRT 1.8 to 2.0 Gy/fraction with chemotherapy per protocol or SBRT ≥5 Gy/fraction in ≤5 fractions; 3) either no control group or another definitive chemotherapy or radiation therapy arm; 4) at least 1 of the outcome measures reported; and 5) single or multi-arm phase 2/3 prospective study for CFRT and/or phase 1/2 or retrospective study for SBRT. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was prescribed per protocol specifications. Weighted random effects meta-analyses were conducted using the DerSimonian and Laird method to characterize summary effect sizes for each outcome.Results: A total of 470 studies were initially screened; of these, 9 studies assessed SBRT and 11 studies assessed CFRT. For SBRT, the median dose was 30 Gy, and the most common regimen was 30 Gy/5 fractions. For CFRT, doses ranged from 45 to 54 Gy in 1.8- to 2.0-Gy fractions, with the majority of studies delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent gemcitabine. The random effects estimate for 2-year OS was 26.9% (95% CI, 20.6%-33.6%) for SBRT versus 13.7% (95% CI, 8.9%-19.3%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for 1-year OS was 53.7% (95% CI, 39.3%-67.9%) for SBRT versus 49.3% (95% CI, 39.3%-59.4%) for CFRT, and was not statistically significant. The random effects estimate for acute grade 3/4 toxicity was 5.6% (95% CI, 0.0%-20.0%) for SBRT versus 37.7% (95% CI, 24.0%-52.5%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for late grade 3/4 toxicity was 9.0% for SBRT (95% CI, 3.3%-17.1%) versus 10.1% (95% CI, 1.8%-23.8%) for CFRT, which was not statistically significant.Conclusion: These results suggest that SBRT for LAPC may result in a modest improvement in 2-year OS with decreased rates of acute grade 3/4 toxicity and no change in 1-year-OS or late toxicity. Further study into the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for these patients is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To assess: (a) cancer treatment in prostate cancer survivors (PCS) by age at diagnosis (ADx) and prostate cancer (PC) aggressiveness; (b) potential impact on PC mortality; and (c) these results in the context of environmental/behavioral risk factors on PCS in Pennsylvania. Methods: Prostate cancer survivors ages ≥40 years were identified from the 2004‐2014 Pennsylvania Cancer Registry (PCR). Demographic/clinical descriptors and PC treatment were extracted from PCR. Prostate cancer aggressiveness was defined by clinical/pathologic Gleason score and tumor stage. Logistic and Cox regression analyses tested associations between treatment received and PC‐specific mortality. County‐level data from the Pennsylvania BRFSS were used to estimate cancer‐related behavioral risk factors (eg, smoking, physical inactivity, fruit/vegetable consumption [FV], alcohol use) and used as covariates. Results: There were 90 694 PCS ages 40‐105 years (mean age = 66.19 years, SD = 9.25) included. Most were non‐Hispanic white men (83%). Prostate cancer survivors ≥75 years were least likely to receive any treatment but men ages 65‐74 were more likely to receive combined therapies (OR = 1.47; 95% CI 1.28, 1.69) vs PCS ages 40‐54 years, controlling for covariates. Prostate cancer survivors 55‐75+ with aggressive PC who received any treatment vs no definitive treatment had significantly reduced mortality. Men from counties with high obesity and smoking rates were significantly less likely to receive any treatment than men living in counties with lower rates of these risk factors. Prostate cancer survivors who lived in counties with high rates of physical inactivity and had high rates of sufficient FV consumption were slightly more likely to receive cancer treatment vs no definitive treatment compared to men who lived in counties with high rates of physical activity and lower FV consumption. Conclusions: We observed a general age‐related decline in receipt of treatment. Prostate cancer survivors ages ≥75 years were significantly less likely to get any cancer treatment compared to younger PCS. However, most men with more aggressive disease who received any treatment had greatly reduced PC mortality, regardless of age. Considering environmental/behavioral risk factors may attenuate PC risk and inform treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of chemotherapy in extremity/trunk soft-tissue sarcoma (ET-STS) is controversial, even for patients at high risk for distant recurrence and death (those with high-grade tumors ≥5 cm in size). This study examines the impact of integrating chemotherapy with neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) on overall survival (OS) for patients with high-risk ET-STS.Methods: The National Cancer Data Base was queried for adult patients with high-risk ET-STS who received neoadjuvant RT and limb salvage surgery between 2006 and 2014. Patients were stratified into RT and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) cohorts. OS for the RT and CRT cohorts was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to account for a potential treatment selection bias between the cohorts.Results: A total of 884 patients were identified: 639 (72.3%) in the RT cohort and 245 (27.7%) in the CRT cohort. The unadjusted 5-year Kaplan-Meier OS rate was significantly higher in the CRT cohort: 72.0% versus 56.1% (P < .001). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS in univariate and multivariable analyses (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.78; P < .001). PSM identified 2 evenly matched cohorts of 212 patients each. The 5-year matched Kaplan-Meier OS rates were 69.8% and 55.4% for the CRT and RT cohorts, respectively (P = .002). The addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy remained prognostic for OS on PSM (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.83; P = .003).Conclusions: The addition of chemotherapy to neoadjuvant RT was associated with improved OS for patients with high-risk ET-STS. In the absence of randomized data evaluating CRT versus RT, these findings warrant further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine the therapeutic efficacy and safety of risk‐adapted stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) schedules for patients with early‐stage central and ultra‐central inoperable non‐small cell lung cancer. From 2006 to 2015, 80 inoperable T1‐2N0M0 NSCLC patients were treated with two median dose levels: 60 Gy in six fractions (range, 48‐60 Gy in 4‐8 fractions) prescribed to the 74% isodose line (range, 58%‐79%) for central lesions (ie within 2 cm of, but not abutting, the proximal bronchial tree; n = 43), and 56 Gy in seven fractions (range, 48‐60 Gy in 5‐10 fractions) prescribed to the 74% isodose line (range, 60%‐80%) for ultra‐central lesions (ie abutting the proximal bronchial tree; n = 37) on consecutive days. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression‐free survival (PFS), tumor local control rate (LC), and toxicity. Median OS and PFS were 64.47 and 32.10 months (respectively) for ultra‐central patients, and not reached for central patients. Median time to local failure, regional failure, and any distant failures for central versus ultra‐central lesions were: 27.37 versus 26.07 months, 20.90 versus 12.53 months, and 20.85 versus 15.53 months, respectively, all P < .05. Multivariate analyses showed that tumor categorization (ultra‐central) and planning target volume ≥52.76 mL were poor prognostic factors of OS, PFS, and LC, respectively (all P < .05). There was one grade 5 toxicity; all other toxicities were grade 1‐2. Our results showed that ultra‐central tumors have a poor OS, PFS, and LC compared with central patients because of the use of risk‐adapted SBRT schedules that allow for equal and favorable toxicity profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this study was to compare the cosmesis and recurrence rates of conventional excision (CE), Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), or brachytherapy (BT), for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin.Methods: Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) methods were used to identify studies on PubMed (from 1985 to 2018), including patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T1-T2N0 basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas and ≥10 months follow-up who received CE, MMS, EBRT, or BT. The primary endpoint was cosmesis, classified as "good," "fair," or "poor." The secondary endpoint was 1-year recurrence. Fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses were performed to evaluate primary and secondary outcomes with respect to treatment modality.Results: In total, 18,095 studies met initial search criteria. There were 24 CE, 13 MMS, 19 EBRT, and 7 BT studies included with a total of 21,371 patients. The summary effect size for "good" cosmesis was 81% (95% CI, 70.6%-89.6%), 74.6% (95% CI, 63%-84.6%), and 97.6% (95% CI, 91.3%-100%) for CE, EBRT, and BT, respectively. Good cosmesis was 96.0% in the only MMS study that reported cosmesis. BT had improved "good" cosmesis over EBRT (P = .0025) and was similar to CE and MMS. No significant differences were seen for "fair" or "poor" cosmesis. One-year recurrence rates were low throughout at 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.6%), 0.2% (95% CI, 0%-0.6%), 2% (95% CI, 1.3%-2.7%), and 0% (95% CI, 0%-0.5%) for CE, MMS, EBRT, and BT, respectively.Conclusions: For T1-T2N0 skin cancers, BT and MMS have improved cosmesis over EBRT and CE. It is unclear whether this is because of treatment superiority or selection and reporting bias. Local control is similar among all modalities at 1 year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Early‐stage nodular lymphocyte‐predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) is associated with a favorable prognosis. Our aim was to evaluate the patterns of care of radiotherapy utilization in this disease and to define the relationship between treatment modality and survival. The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with stages I‐II NLPHL diagnosed from 2004 to 2012. Patients were compared based on primary therapy into four categories: radiotherapy, chemotherapy, both, or neither. Covariate‐adjusted and propensity score‐weighted (PS) Cox proportional hazards models were used, adjusting for potential factors confounding survival. After exclusions, 1420 patients were evaluated, 571 (40%) received radiotherapy alone, 318 (22%) received chemotherapy alone, 351 (25%) received both, and 180 (13%) received neither. Younger patient age (P = 0.001), female gender (P = 0.019), and chemotherapy use (P < 0.001) were associated with decreased radiotherapy utilization. On PS, radiation alone (HR = 0.298, P < 0.001) and chemoradiotherapy (HR = 0.258, P < 0.001) were associated with improved survival compared to no upfront therapy, but the use of chemotherapy alone did not statistically differ compared to no initial therapy (HR = 0.784, P = 0.078). In this large database analysis, over one‐third of patients with early‐stage NLPHL did not receive radiotherapy as a component of initial therapy. The omission of upfront radiotherapy was associated with inferior survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To evaluate if interruptions of external beam radiation therapy impact outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer (PCa).Methods: We included men with localized PCa treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of escalated dose (≥74 Gy in 1.8 or 2 Gy fractions) between 1992 and 2013 at an NCI-designated cancer centre. Men receiving androgen deprivation therapy were excluded. The non-treatment day ratio (NTDR) was defined as the number of non-treatment days divided by the total elapsed days of therapy. NTDR was analysed for each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group.Results: There were 1728 men included (839 low-risk, 776 intermediate-risk and 113 high-risk), with a median follow up of 53.5 months (range 12-185.8). The median NTDR was 31% (range 23-71%), translating to approximately 2 breaks (each break represents a missed treatment that will be made up) for 8 weeks of RT with 5 treatments per week. The 75 percentile of NTDR was 33%, translating to approximately 4 breaks, which was used as the cutoff for analysis. There were no significant differences in freedom from biochemical failure, freedom from distant metastasis, cancer specific survival, or overall survival for men with NTDR ≥33% compared to NTDR<33% for each risk group. Multivariable analyses including NTDR, age, race, Gleason score, T stage, and PSA were performed using the proportional hazards regression procedure. NTDR≥33% was not significantly associated with increased hazard ratio for outcomes in each risk group compared to NTDR<33%.Conclusion: Unintentional treatment breaks during dose escalated external beam radiation therapy for PCa did not cause a significant difference in outcomes, although duration of follow up limits the strength of this conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Up to 80% of patients with Parkinson disease and 30% of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) suffer from sialorrhea. Patients who fail medical and surgical therapy should be considered for external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). In this study, we conduct a systematic review to determine the dose and techniques used that result in greatest efficacy and lowest toxicity for the administration of EBRT in patients with Parkinson disease or ALS-associated sialorrhea.Methods and Materials: This review included 216 patients from four prospective and six retrospective studies published from 1998 to 2014, with ALS or Parkinson disease who were treated with electron or photon EBRT for sialorrhea.Results: A total of 216 patients were treated with EBRT from 10 studies. The indication for EBRT was failure of alternative medical treatment in all ALS patients. For patients with Parkinson disease, EBRT was the primary mode of treatment in 68% of cases. Overall, 176 (81%) of 216 patients treated with EBRT for sialorrhea reported symptomatic improvement from baseline. The most common target was the inferior two-thirds of the bilateral parotid glands and the entire bilateral submandibular glands. The total number of patients who experienced short-term toxicity was 86 of 216 patients (40%). The total number of patients who experienced long-term toxicity was 24 of 207 (12%).Conclusions: EBRT is an effective treatment for sialorrhea in patients suffering from ALS or Parkinson disease. Treatment to the bilateral submandibular glands and caudal parotid glands is the most common field arrangement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Previous publications have demonstrated conflicting results regarding body mass index (BMI) and prostate cancer (CaP) outcomes after definitive radiotherapy (RT) before the dose escalation era. The goal of the current study was to determine whether increasing BMI was associated with outcomes in men with localized CaP who were treated with dose-escalated RT. METHODS The authors identified patients with localized (T1b-T4N0M0) CaP who were treated with definitive intensity-modulated RT and image-guided RT from 2001 through 2010. BMI was analyzed as a continuous variable. Adjusting for confounders, multivariable competing risk and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association between BMI and the risk of biochemical failure (BF), distant metastases (DM), cause-specific mortality (CSM), and overall mortality. RESULTS Of the 1442 patients identified, approximately 20% had a BMI <25 kg/m2, 48% had a BMI of 25 to 29.9 kg/m2, 23% had a BMI of 30 to 34.9 kg/m2, 6% had a BMI of 35 to 39.9 kg/m2, and 4% had a BMI of ≥40 kg/m2. The median follow-up was 47.6 months (range, 1-145 months), with a median age of 68 years (range, 36-89 years). The median dose was 78 grays (range, 76-80 grays) and 30% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy. Increasing BMI was found to be inversely associated with age ( P<.001) and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level ( P = .018). On multivariable analysis, increasing BMI was associated with an increased risk of BF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.00-1.07 [ P = .042]), DM (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11 [ P = .004]), CSM (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.07-1.23 [ P<.001]), and overall mortality (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08 [ P = .004]). CONCLUSIONS For patients with CaP receiving dose-escalated intensity-modulated RT with daily image-guidance, increasing BMI appears to be associated with an increased risk of BF, DM, CSM, and overall mortality. Cancer 2015;121:3010-3017. © 2015 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Background We describe a 53-year-old man who presented with a painless neck mass and underwent a resection that identified the tumor as a low-grade chondrosarcoma of the hyoid bone. We reviewed the literature for diagnosis and management options of this exceptionally rare diagnosis. Methods We conducted a search of the published medical literature before September 2012 in MEDLINE and PubMed using the terms 'chondrosarcoma' and 'hyoid.' The search led to 19 case reports. We then searched for recent advances in diagnosis and treatment. Results Chondrosarcomas of the hyoid bone present as slow-growing, painless masses of the neck. CT and MRI are useful for imaging, but definitive diagnosis is made by biopsy. Conclusion The preferred treatment is complete surgical removal, whereas radiation is used as adjuvant therapy. Positive surgical margin is a significant risk factor for recurrence. Long-term follow-up is recommended because of recurrences many years later. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 36: E65-E72, 2014 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the prognostic value of the sixth and seventh editions of the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual and the risk-stratification model of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). METHODS: Two-thousand four hundred twenty-nine men who received definitive radiotherapy with or without androgen-deprivation therapy (median follow-up, 74 months) were analyzed. RESULTS: There was a migration of stage II patients to stage I with AJCC seventh edition (stage I increased from 1% to 38%, and stage II decreased from 91% to 55%). One pair-wise comparison (4%) of Kaplan-Meier estimates of biochemical failure, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival between stages was statistically significant for the AJCC sixth edition. Conversely, 16 of 24 comparisons (67%) were significant for the AJCC seventh edition. With the NCCN risk-stratification model, 9 of 12 comparisons (75%) were significant. Concordance probability estimate (CPE) and standard error (SE) analysis indicated uniform and significant improvement in the predictive power of the AJCC seventh edition versus the sixth edition for all outcomes. CPE ± SE values for the AJCC seventh edition versus the sixth edition were 0.51 ± 0.009 versus 0.59 ± 0.02, respectively, for biochemical failure; 0.54 ± 0.02 versus 0.70 ± 0.05, respectively, for distant metastasis; 0.57 ± 0.009 versus 0.76 ± 0.007, respectively, for prostate cancer-specific survival; and 0.52 ± 0.006 versus 0.57 ± 0.01, respectively, for overall survival. CPE ± SE values for the NCCN model were 0.59 ± 0.02 for biochemical failure, 0.72 ± 0.05 for distant metastasis, 0.80 ± 0.01 for prostate cancer-specific survival, and 0.57 ± 0.01 for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that the seventh edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual is a major improvement over the sixth edition, because it distributes patients better among the stages and is more prognostic. However, the NCCN model was superior to the AJCC seventh edition and remains the preferred method for risk-based clinical management of prostate cancer with radiotherapy. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]