Search

Purpose: Black men in the United States suffer significantly higher incidence of and mortality from prostate cancer (PCa) than non-Black men. The cause of this disparity is multifactorial, though inequitable access to curative radiation modalities, including low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy, may contribute. Despite this, there are few analyses evaluating the potential of different radiation therapies to mitigate outcome disparities. Therefore, we examined the clinical outcomes of Black and non-Black patients treated with definitive LDR brachytherapy for prostate cancer.Methods: Data were collected for all patients treated with definitive LDR brachytherapy between 2005 and 2018 on a retrospective IRB-approved protocol. Pearson Chi-Squared analysis was used to assess demographic and cancer differences between Black and non-Black cohorts. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify factors predictive of biochemical failure.Results: One hundred and sixty-seven patients were included in the analysis (Black: n=81 [48.5%]) with a median follow-up of 88.4 months. Black patients were from lower income communities (P <0.01), had greater social vulnerability (P <0.01), and had a longer interval between diagnosis and treatment (P = 0.011). Overall cumulative FFBF was 92.3% (95% CI: 87.8% - 96.8%) at 5 years and 87.7% (95% CI: 82.0% - 93.4%) at 7 years. There was no significant difference in FFBF in Black and non-Black patients (P = 0.114) and Black race was not independently predictive of failure (HR 1.51 [95% CI: 0.56 - 4.01]; P = 0.42). Overall survival was comparable between racial groups (P = 0.972). Only nadir PSA was significantly associated with biochemical failure on MVA (HR = 3.57 [95% CI: 02.44 - 5.22]; P <0.001).Conclusions: Black men treated with LDR brachytherapy achieved similar FFBF to their non-Black counterparts despite poorer socioeconomic status. This suggests that PCa treatment with brachytherapy may eliminate some disparities clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) is commonly used for pediatric brain tumors with a propensity for spread in craniospinal fluid, principally medulloblastoma. Evolving technology has led to the use of highly conformal radiation therapy (RT) techniques for CSI, including proton therapy. Target delineation and plan coverage are critical for CSI, but there is ongoing controversy and variability in these realms, with little available data on practice patterns. We sought to characterize proton CSI practice patterns in the United States by examining CSI plans in the Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry (PPCR).Materials and Methods: PPCR was queried for data on proton CSI patients from 2015 to early 2020. Each plan was manually reviewed, determining patient position; prescription dose; and coverage of optic nerves, vertebral bodies, spinal nerve roots, sacral nerves, and cranial foramina, among other variables. Two radiation oncologists blinded to clinical data and treating institution assessed coverage at the 95% prescription isodose line and per published European Society for Paediatric Oncology guidelines. Variability in coverage was assessed with nonparametric tests and univariate and multivariate logistic regression.Results: PPCR supplied data for 450 patients, 384 of whom had an evaluable portion of a CSI plan. Most patients (90.3%) were supine. Optic nerves were fully covered in 48.2%; sacral nerves in 87.7%; cranial foramina in 69.3%; and spinal nerves in 95.6%. Vertebral body (VB) sparing was used in 18.6% of skeletally immature cases, increasing over time (P < .001). Coverage in all categories was significantly different among treating institutions, on univariate and multivariate analyses. Cribriform plate deficits were rare, with marginal misses of the foramen ovale (17.4%) and frontal lobe (12%) most common.Conclusion: We found consistent variation based on treating institution in proton CSI practices including optic nerve, VB, sacral nerve, cranial, and spinal nerve coverage. These data may serve as a baseline quantification of current proton CSI practices in the United States as they continue to evolve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • In 2016, 1860 pediatric patients were treated with protons in 40 centers. • The median number of pediatric patients per center is 29, but it widely varies. • CNS tumors were the cancer types most commonly treated in all continents. • The proportion of extra-cranial tumors is growing worldwide. • About half of the patients were treated with pencil beam scanning. Abstract Purpose To facilitate the initiation of observational studies on late effects of proton therapy in pediatric patients, we report on current patterns of proton therapy use worldwide in patients aged less than 22 years. Materials & methods Fifty-four proton centers treating pediatric patients in 2016 in 11 countries were invited to respond to a survey about the number of patients treated during that year by age group, intent of treatment, delivery technique and tumor types. Results Among the 40 participating centers (participation rate: 74%), a total of 1,860 patients were treated in 2016 (North America: 1205, Europe: 432, Asia: 223). The numbers of patients per center ranged from 1 to 206 (median: 29). Twenty-four percent of the patients were <5 years of age, and 50% <10 years. More than 30 pediatric tumor types were identified, mainly treated with curative intent: 48% were CNS, 25% extra-cranial sarcomas, 7% neuroblastoma, and 5% hematopoietic tumors. About half of the patients were treated with pencil beam scanning. Treatment patterns were broadly similar across the three continents. Conclusion To our knowledge, this survey provides the first worldwide assessment of proton therapy use for pediatric cancer management. Since previous estimates in the United States and Europe, CNS tumors remain the cancer types most commonly treated with protons in 2016. However, the proportion of extra-cranial tumors is growing worldwide. The typically low numbers of patients treated in each center indicate the need for international research collaborations to assess long-term outcomes of proton therapy in pediatric patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment.Methods: The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial.Findings: Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07-13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18-17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3-33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7-28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9-24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0-35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group.Interpretation: In this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT.Funding: National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Skeletal related events (SREs) are common in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). Various methods have been used to identify SREs from claims data. The objective of this study was to provide a framework for measuring SREs from claims and compare SRE prevalence and cumulative incidence estimates based on alternative approaches in men with mPC., Methods: Several claims-based approaches for identifying SREs were developed and applied to data for men aged [greater than or equal to] 66 years newly diagnosed with mPC between 2000 and 2009 in the SEER-Medicare datasets and followed through 2010 or until censoring. Post-diagnosis SREs were identified using claims that indicated spinal cord compression (SCC), pathologic fracture (PF), surgery to bone (BS), or radiation (suggestive of bone palliative radiation, RAD). To measure SRE prevalence, two SRE definitions were created: 'base case' (most commonly used in the literature) and 'alternative' in which different claims were used to identify each type of SRE. To measure cumulative incidence, we used the 'base case' definition and applied three periods in which claims were clustered to episodes: 14-, 21-, and 28-day windows., Results: Among 8997 mPC patients, 46 % experienced an SRE according to the 'base case' definition and 43 % patients experienced an SRE according to the 'alternative' definition. Varying the code definition from 'base case' to 'alternative' resulted in an 8 % increase in the overall SRE prevalence. Using the 21-day window, a total of 12,930 SRE episodes were observed during follow up. Varying the window length from 21 to 28 days resulted in an 8 % decrease in SRE cumulative incidence (RAD: 10 %, PF: 8 %, SCC: 6 %, BS: 0.2 %)., Conclusions: SRE prevalence was affected by the codes used, with PF being most impacted. The overall SRE cumulative incidence was affected by the window length used, with RAD being most affected. These results underscore the importance of the baseline definitions used to study claims data when attempting to understand relevant clinical events such as SREs in the real world setting.

The benefit of postoperative adjuvant chemoradiation in the treatment of resected pancreatic cancers was first established by a randomized trial conducted by the Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group in 1974. During the past 3 decades, treatment has evolved toward more dose-intensive regimens of chemoradiation. Historical split-course conventional radiation therapy has been replaced by continuous-course radiotherapy to higher doses, and gemcitabine is being actively investigated as a potentially more effective agent than 5-fluorouracil. This article critically examines the results of important randomized multi-institutional trials and reviews the evolution toward dose-intensive adjuvant treatment regimens. Implications of the recently completed intergroup study are discussed, modern radiation therapy delivery techniques are reviewed, and suggestions for future trials are made.