Search

Introduction Xerostomia, the subjective feeling of dry mouth typically accompanied by hyposalivation (1-3), is a common but often overlooked condition that can profoundly impair an individual's quality of life. Xerostomia [...], Salivary gland dysfunction is a common side effect of cancer treatments. Salivary function plays key roles in critical daily activities. Consequently, changes in salivary function can profoundly impair quality of life for cancer patients. We discuss salivary gland anatomy and physiology to understand how anticancer therapies such as chemotherapy, bone marrow transplantation, immunotherapy, and radiation therapy impair salivary function. We discuss approaches to quantify xerostomia in the clinic, including the advantages and limitations of validated quality-of-life instruments and approaches to directly measuring salivary function. Current and emerging approaches to treat cancer therapy-induced dry mouth are presented using radiation-induced salivary dysfunction as a model. Limitations of current sialagogues and salivary analogues are presented. Emerging approaches, including cellular and gene therapy and novel pharmacologic approaches, are described.

PurposeThe sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT).Materials and methodsIndividual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality.ResultsOverall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT.ConclusionADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.

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 .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.

BackgroundWhile 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsDose-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

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

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

Background and purposeThe optimal dose for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is still unknown. This study evaluated the dose-response relationships for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decay and biochemical recurrence (BCR) among 4 SBRT dose regimens.Materials and methodsIn 1908 men with low-risk (50.0%), favorable intermediate-risk (30.9%), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (19.1%) prostate cancer treated with prostate SBRT across 8 institutions from 2003 to 2018, we examined 4 regimens (35 Gy/5 fractions [35/5, n = 265, 13.4%], 36.25 Gy/5 fractions [36.25/5, n = 711, 37.3%], 40 Gy/5 fractions [40/5, n = 684, 35.8%], and 38 Gy/4 fractions [38/4, n = 257, 13.5%]). Between dose groups, we compared PSA decay slope, nadir PSA (nPSA), achievement of nPSA ≤0.2 and ≤0.5 ng/mL, and BCR-free survival (BCRFS).ResultsMedian follow-up was 72.3 months. Median nPSA was 0.01 ng/mL for 38/4, and 0.17-0.20 ng/mL for 5-fraction regimens (p

Background In this study, we provide the largest analysis to date of a US-based cancer cohort to characterize death from COVID-19. Methods A total of 4 020 669 patients across 15 subtypes living with cancer in 2020 and included in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were abstracted. We investigated prognostic factors for death due to COVID-19 using a Cox proportional hazards model and calculated hazard ratios (HRs). Standardized mortality ratios were calculated using observed mortality counts from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and expected mortality based on US mortality rates. Results A total of 291 323 patients died, with 14 821 (5.1%) deaths attributed to COVID-19 infection. The COVID-19 disease-specific mortality rate was 11.81 / 10 000-persons years, and the standardized mortality ratio of COVID-19 was 2.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.26 to 2.34; P < .0001). COVID-19 ranked as the second leading cause of death following ischemic heart disease (5.2%) among 26 noncancer causes of death. Patients who are older (80 years and older vs 49 years and younger: HR = 21.47, 95% CI = 19.34 to 23.83), male (vs female: HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.40 to 1.51), unmarried (vs married: HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.42 to 1.53), and Hispanic or non-Hispanic African American (vs non-Hispanic White: HR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.94 to 2.14 and HR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.94 to 2.14, respectively) were at greatest risk of COVID-19 mortality. Conclusions We observed that people living with cancer are at 2 times greater risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with the general US population. This work may be used by physicians and public health officials in the creation of survivorship programs that mitigate the risk of COVID-19 mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]