Search

Purpose: To investigate the influence of stereotactic radiosurgery on the risk of hemorrhage from brain metastases form malignant melanoma. Methods: A cohort of 110 patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for 358 melanoma brain metastases was identified. The incidence of hemorrhage before and after SRS was determined by review of serial MRI scans. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the influence of SRS on rate of hemorrhage. Overall survival and local control were assessed and prognostic factors, including hemorrhage pre- or post-SRS were analyzed. Results: At presentation 83 of 358 (23.2%) melanoma metastases had hemorrhaged. Following SRS 73 hemorrhages occurred in 358 treated tumors (20.4%). These rates were not significantly different; p=0.362, HR=0.846 (95% CI 0.591-1.211.) The risk of post-SRS hemorrhage in patients was statistically significantly linked to previous hemorrhage. Fourteen of 65 patients (21.5%) who presented without hemorrhage prior to SRS subsequently demonstrated hemorrhage. Twenty-four of 45 patients (53.3%) who presented with hemorrhage went on to demonstrate further hemorrhage following SRS; p=0.005, HR=2.47 (95% CI 1.24-11.3). Overall survival (OS) at 1 year was 30% and was not influenced by hemorrhage either pre- or post -SRS. OS at 1 year was better for patients presenting with a single metastasis (41.2%) compared to multiple metastases (20.3%, p=0.009.) Overall local control (LC) was 60.4% at 1 year following SRS. LC was significantly lower for metastases demonstrating hemorrhage either pre-SRS (51.7 vs 64.9%. p=0.03) or post-SRS 32.7 vs. 67.8%, p<0.001.) Conlcusion: Hemorrhage of brain metastases from melanoma is more frequent than for non-melanoma primaries. The current data show that stereotactic radiosurgery does not alter the risk of subsequent hemorrhage of treated metastases. However, hemorrhage may complicate follow-up assessment of response and local control following SRS. Careful assessment of imaging following SRS should include awareness that hemorrhage may mimic treatment failure in these patients. Disclosure: No significant relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loneliness may exacerbate poor health outcomes particularly among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the risk factors of loneliness among cancer survivors. We evaluated the risk factors of loneliness in the context of COVID-19 pandemic-related prevention behaviors and lifestyle/psychosocial factors among cancer survivors. Cancer survivors (n = 1471) seen at Huntsman Cancer Institute completed a survey between August-September 2020 evaluating health behaviors, medical care, and psychosocial factors including loneliness during COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were classified into two groups: 'lonely' (sometimes, usually, or always felt lonely in past month) and 'non-lonely' (never or rarely felt lonely in past month). 33% of cancer survivors reported feeling lonely in the past month. Multivariable logistic regression showed female sex, not living with a spouse/partner, poor health status, COVID-19 pandemic-associated lifestyle factors including increased alcohol consumption and marijuana/CBD oil use, and psychosocial stressors such as disruptions in daily life, less social interaction, and higher perceived stress and financial stress were associated with feeling lonely as compared to being non-lonely (all p < 0.05). A significant proportion of participants reported loneliness, which is a serious health risk among vulnerable populations, particularly cancer survivors. Modifiable risk factors such as unhealthy lifestyle behaviors and psychosocial stress were associated with loneliness. These results highlight the need to screen for unhealthy lifestyle factors and psychosocial stressors to identify cancer survivors at increased risk of loneliness and to develop effective management strategies., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Bladder cancer, the sixth most common cancer in the United States, is most commonly of the urothelial carcinoma histologic subtype. The clinical spectrum of bladder cancer is divided into 3 categories that differ in prognosis, management, and therapeutic aims: (1) non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); (2) muscle invasive, nonmetastatic disease; and (3) metastatic bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, including changes in the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours: Urinary and Male Genital Tumours and how the NCCN Guidelines aligned with these updates; new and emerging treatment options for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive NMIBC; and updates to systemic therapy recommendations for advanced or metastatic disease.

Background: Delays in initiating and completing brachytherapy may have adverse oncologic outcomes for patients with cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on brachytherapy in the United States has not been well-characterized., Objectives: We aim to evaluate how a positive COVID-19 test affected timeliness of treatment for patients undergoing brachytherapy for cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer in 2019 and 2020 who received brachytherapy in their treatment. Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 between cancer diagnosis and start of radiation were compared to those who did not test positive for COVID-19. Time in days from cancer diagnosis to initiation of radiation was compared using two-sample t-tests with p < 0.05 signifying significant differences., Results: We identified 38,341 patients with cervical (n = 6,925), uterine (n = 18,587), and prostate cancer (n = 12,829). Rates of COVID-19 positivity were cervical cancer (n = 135; 2%), uterine cancer (n = 236; 1.3%), and prostate cancer (n = 141; 1%). Of those, 35% of cervical, 49% of uterine, and 43% of prostate cancer patients tested positive between their cancer diagnosis and initiation of radiation. Median days to radiation was significantly longer in these patients: 78 versus 51 for cervical cancer (p < 0.01), 150 versus 104 for uterine cancer (p < 0.01), and 154 versus 124 for prostate cancer (p < 0.01)., Conclusions: For patients with cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer diagnosed between 2019-2020, testing positive for COVID-19 after their cancer diagnosis was associated with a delay to initiation of radiation by 4-7 weeks., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

Purpose: The aim of this work was to investigate the correlation between dose to pelvic bone marrow and anemia when treating prostate cancer (PC) with definitive radiation., Methods and Materials: Patients were selected from a prospective institutional database of patients with PC treated between 2008 and 2021. Pelvic bone (L3/L4 interface through ischial tuberosities) was contoured, and the dose to this structure was calculated. Doses were converted to 2-Gy equivalent doses using an α/β of 10. Exploratory analysis suggested dichotomizing into low-volume exposures of ≤1000 cc (LVE) and high-volume exposures of >1000 cc (HVE). Nonparametric kernel regressions were performed evaluating the effects of time, dose, and androgen deprivation therapy use on hemoglobin (Hgb) values. Reoptimization of plans was performed to evaluate the feasibility of adjusting significant dose levels., Results: A total of 203 patients were included in the final analysis. Median baseline Hgb was 14.9 g/dL (interquartile range, 14.1-15.6). Patients with bone marrow HVE ≥15 Gy were found to have significantly lower predicted Hgb levels compared with those with LVE at day 90: 12.8 g/dL (95% CI, 12.4-13.3) versus 14.5 g/dL (95% CI, 14.0-14.9), respectively (P < .05). When normalizing starting Hgb levels, HVE patients still had significantly lower predicted Hgb levels than LVE at day 90: 86.1% (95% CI, 83.2%-89.7%) versus 96.2% (95% CI, 92.4%-100%), respectively. Reoptimizing 20 plans with high volume of bone marrow receiving 15 Gy resulted in a mean reduction from 1422 cc to 997 cc without compromise of other organs at risk or target coverage., Conclusions: Patients with >1000 cc of bone marrow receiving ≥15 Gy had significantly lower predicted Hgb levels than those with ≤1000 cc. Reoptimization of plans demonstrated that this dose constraint is achievable without impairing plan quality. This dose constraint can be considered to limit acute marrow toxicity in patients with PC., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

Introduction: Maximum tumor diameter (MTD) on pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to further risk stratify for men with prostate cancer (PCa) prior to definitive local therapy. We aim to evaluate the prognostic impact of radiographic maximum tumor diameter (MTD) in men with localized prostate cancer., Patients and Methods: From a single-center retrospective cohort of men receiving definitive treatment for PCa (radical prostatectomy [RP] or radiotherapy [RT]) with available pretreatment MRI, we conducted univariable and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models for progression using clinical variables including age, NCCN risk group, radiographic extracapsular extension (ECE), radiographic seminal vesical invasion (SVI), and MTD. RP and RT cohorts were analyzed separately. Covariates were used in a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis and progression-free survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and groups were compared using log-rank tests., Results: The cohort included 631 patients (n = 428 RP, n = 203 RT). CART analysis identified 4 prognostic groups for patients treated with RP and 2 prognostic groups in those treated with RT. In the RP cohort, NCCN low/intermediate risk group patients with MTD>=15 mm had significantly worse PFS than those with MTD <= 14 mm, and NCCN high-risk patients with radiographic ECE had significantly worse PFS than those without ECE. In the RT cohort, PFS was significantly worse in the cohort with MTD >= 23 mm than those <= 22 mm., Conclusion: Radiographic MTD may be a useful prognostic factor for patients with locoregional prostate cancer. This is the first study to illustrate that the importance of pretreatment tumor size may vary based on treatment modality., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarizes much of the panel's discussions for the 4.2022 and 1.2023 updates to the guidelines regarding systemic therapy for metastatic prostate cancer.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted many facets of life. We evaluated pandemic-related health care experiences, COVID-19 prevention behaviors and measures, health behaviors, and psychosocial outcomes among rural and urban cancer patients., Methods: Among 1,472 adult cancer patients, who visited Huntsman Cancer Institute in the past 4 years and completed a COVID-19 survey (August-September 2020), we assessed the impact of the pandemic on medical appointments, prevention/health behaviors, and psychosocial factors, stratified by urbanicity., Findings: Mean age was 61 years, with 52% female, 97% non-Hispanic White, and 27% were residing in rural areas. Rural versus urban patients were more likely to be older, not employed, uninsured, former/current smokers, consume alcohol, and have pandemic-related changes/cancellations in surgery appointments (all P<.05). Changes/cancellations in other health care access (eg, doctor's visits) were also common, particularly among urban patients. Urban versus rural patients were more likely to socially distance, use masks and hand sanitizer, and experience changes in exercise habits and in their daily lives (all P<.05). Less social interaction and financial stress were common among cancer patients but did not differ by urbanicity., Conclusions: These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial impact on cancer patients, with several challenges specific to rural patients. This comprehensive study provides unique insights into the first 6 months of COVID-19 pandemic-related experiences and continuity of care among rural and urban cancer patients predominantly from Utah. Further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic's short- and long-term effects on rural and urban cancer patients and appropriate interventions., (© 2022 National Rural Health Association.)

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody-drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.

There are few data on the quality of cancer treatment information available on social media. Here, we quantify the accuracy of cancer treatment information on social media and its potential for harm. Two cancer experts reviewed 50 of the most popular social media articles on each of the 4 most common cancers. The proportion of misinformation and potential for harm were reported for all 200 articles and their association with the number of social media engagements using a 2-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Of 200 total articles, 32.5% (n = 65) contained misinformation and 30.5% (n = 61) contained harmful information. Among articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50 of 65) contained harmful information. The median number of engagements for articles with misinformation was greater than factual articles (median [interquartile range] = 2300 [1200-4700] vs 1600 [819-4700], P = .05). The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than safe articles (median [interquartile range] = 2300 [1400-4700] vs 1500 [810-4700], P = .007)., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: There is limited information on how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed health behaviors among cancer patients. We examined changes in exercise behaviors since the pandemic and identified characteristics associated with these changes among cancer patients., Methods: Cancer patients (n = 1,210) completed a survey from August to September 2020 to assess COVID-19 pandemic-related changes in health behaviors and psychosocial factors. Patients were categorized into three groups: exercising less, exercising did not change, and exercising more. Patient characteristics were compared by exercise groups., Results: One-third of the patients reported a decreased amount of regular exercise, while 10% reported exercising more during the pandemic. Patients who exercised less were more likely to be unemployed/retired and have poor health status and psychosocial stressors such as disruptions in daily life while less likely to be former smokers (all p < 0.05). In contrast, patients who exercised more were younger, had stage IV diagnosis, and also reported disruptions in daily life (all p < 0.05). Patients who were living in rural areas were also more likely not to experience changes in exercise habits (all p < 0.05), although rural-urban status was not identified as a strong predictor., Conclusion: A significant proportion of cancer patients experienced changes in exercise habits, especially exercising less, during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Age, employment status, tumor stage, health status, smoking status, and psychosocial factors were associated with changes in exercise behaviors. Our results highlight the importance of promoting physical activity guidelines for cancer survivorship during the COVID-19 pandemic and may help improve the identification of cancer patients susceptible to exercising less., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Purpose: The clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which combines the University of California, San Francisco's Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) and the cell cycle progression (CCP) molecular score, has been validated to be prognostic of disease progression for men with prostate cancer. This study evaluated the ability of the CCR score to prognosticate the risk of metastasis in men receiving dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)., Methods and Materials: This retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study included men with localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk prostate cancer (N = 741). Patients were treated with dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. The primary outcome was time to metastasis., Results: The CCR score prognosticated metastasis with a hazard ratio (HR) per unit score of 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.89; P < .001). The CCR score better prognosticated metastasis than NCCN risk group (CCR, P < .001; NCCN, P = .46), CAPRA score (CCR, P = .002; CAPRA, P = .59), or CCP score (CCR, P < .001; CCP, P = .59) alone. In bivariable analyses, CCR score remained highly prognostic when accounting for ADT versus no ADT (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.61-2.96; P < .001), ADT duration as a continuous variable (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.79; P < .001), or ADT given at or below the recommended duration for each NCCN risk group (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.69-2.86; P < .001). Men with CCR scores below or above the multimodality threshold (CCR score, 2.112) had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7% and 21.24%, respectively. Men with below-threshold scores receiving RT alone had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7%, and for men receiving RT plus ADT, the 10-year risk of metastasis was also 3.7%., Conclusions: The CCR score accurately and precisely prognosticates metastasis and adds clinically actionable information relative to guideline-recommended therapies based on NCCN risk in men undergoing dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. For men with scores below the multimodality threshold, adding ADT may not significantly reduce their 10-year risk of metastasis., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel's discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Introduction: Ultrasound (US) guidance of the prostate has long been conducted using a transabdominal (TA) approach. More recently, a transperineal (TP) approach has been made available for image guidance. Our aim was to determine if both methods produced similar alignments within the same patients., Materials and Methods: We utilized two clinical US image guidance (IG) systems (Elekta Clarity and Best BAT). The B-mode Acquisition and Targeting USIG system is a bi-planar, so-called 2.5D USIG system, that is acquired TA. Clarity is a 3D US system that generates a volumetric 3D US data set and US-derived IG contours that are coregistered to the planning CT images. The probe is oriented in the sagittal plane against the perineum (TP). After positioning the patient for treatment using the TP USIG, we maintained the position defined by Clarity tracking and then acquired a TA-based USIG. The two US-based methods of localizing the prostate (TA vs TP) were compared via Bland-Altman (BA) statistical analysis to determine if there was alignment agreement between methods., Results: The BA test for all 101 patients, 2093 fractions resulted in 95% confidence intervals (upper and lower limits of the BA test) of 0.6 mm in LR, 0.9 mm in AP and 1.0 mm in SI. The bias between the two systems was calculated as 0.03, 0.02, and 0.03 mm in LR, AP, and SI., Conclusions: Both systems resulted in statistically equivalent targeting positions for the prostate. Because of the unique intrafraction, real-time motion tracking capability of the TP system, this solution represents a unique extension to the previously reported clinical benefits of a TA approach by providing assurance of the prostate remaining in the treatment field during beam-on., (© 2020 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Background: Accurate risk stratification can help guide appropriate treatment decisions in men with localized prostate cancer. Here, we evaluated the independent ability of the molecular cell cycle progression (CCP) score and the combined cell-cycle clinical risk (CCR) score to predict 10-year risk of progression to metastatic disease in a large, pooled analysis of men with definitively treated prostate cancer., Methods: The pooled analysis included 1,062 patients from four institutions (Martini Clinic, Durham VA Medical Center, Intermountain Healthcare, Ochsner Clinic) treated definitively for localized prostate cancer by either radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy (brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy ± hormone therapy). The CCP score was determined using the RNA expression of 46 genes from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded biopsy tissue. The CCR score was calculated using a predefined linear combination of the CCP score and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. The scores were evaluated for association with 10-year risk of metastatic disease following definitive therapy after adjusting for other clinical variables., Results: The CCP score was strongly associated with 10-year risk of metastatic disease in multivariable analysis [Hazard Ratio per unit score = 2.21; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64, 2.98; p = 1.9 × 10 -6 ] after adjusting for CAPRA, treatment type, and cohort. CCR was also highly prognostic (Hazard Ratio per unit score = 4.00; 95% CI 2.95, 5.42; p = 6.3 × 10 -21 ). There was no evidence of interaction between CCP or CCR and cohort (p = 0.79 and p = 0.86, respectively) or treatment type (p = 0.55 and p = 0.78, respectively). Observed patient CCR-based predicted risks for metastatic disease by 10 years ranged from 0.1 to 99.4%, (IQR 0.7%, 4.6%)., Conclusions: Both CCP and CCR scores provided independent prognostic information for predicting progression to metastatic disease after both surgery and radiation. These results further demonstrate their potential use as a risk stratification tool in patients with newly-diagnosed prostate cancer.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on the clinical presentation and workup of suspected bladder cancer, treatment of non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer because important updates have recently been made to these sections. Some important updates include recommendations for optimal treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage and details about biomarker testing for advanced or metastatic disease. The systemic therapy recommendations for second-line or subsequent therapies have also been revised. Treatment and management of muscle-invasive, nonmetastatic disease is covered in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include treatment of nonurothelial histologies and recommendations for nonbladder urinary tract cancers such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, and primary carcinoma of the urethra.

Purpose: In this study we calculate composite dose delivered to the prostate by using the Calypso tracking -data- stream acquired during patient treatment in our clinic. We evaluate the composite distributions under multiple simulated Calypso tolerance level schemes and then recommend a tolerance level., Materials and Methods: Seven Calypso-localized prostate cancer patients treated in our clinic were selected for retrospective analysis. Two different IMRT treatment plans, with prostate PTV margins of 5 and 3 mm respectively, were computed for each patient. A delivered composite dose distribution was computed from Calypso tracking data for each plan. Additionally, we explored the dosimetric implications for "worst case" scenarios by assuming that the prostate position was located at one of the eight extreme corners of a 3 or 5 mm "box." To characterize plan quality under each of the studied scenarios, we recorded the maximum, mean, and minimum doses and volumetric coverage for prostate, PTV, bladder, and rectum., Results and Discussions: Calculated composite dose distributions were very similar to the original plan for all patients. The difference in maximum, mean, and minimum doses as well as volumetric coverage for the prostate, PTV, bladder, and rectum were all < 4.0% of prescription dose. Even for worst scenario cases, the results show acceptable isodose distribution, with the exception for the combination of a 3 mm PTV margin with a 5 mm position tolerance scheme., Conclusions: Calculated composite dose distributions show that the vast majority of dosimetric metrics agreed well with the planned dose (within 2%). With significant/detrimental deviations from the planned dose only occurring with the combination of a 3 mm PTV margin and 5 mm position tolerance, the 3 mm position tolerance strategy appears reasonable, confirming that further reducing prostate PTV margins to 3 mm is possible when using Calypso with a position tolerance of 3 mm., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments of pancreatic cancer typically employ relatively small margins. This study characterizes the motion of high visibility structures in close proximity to the pancreas to determine how much the motion envelope of such a structure changes due to respiratory variation between fractions., Methods: Fanbeam, four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) studies acquired initially for planning and again prior to each treatment for 6 patients were used to fully characterize the change in motion of high-contrast structures in close proximity to the pancreas., Results: Three of the six patients investigated had structures that showed a change in motion over the course of treatment that would not have been covered when using the typical 3 mm planning target volume (PTV) margins. For most of these large changes in motion envelope, a 4 mm uniform PTV margin would have allowed for coverage of the tumor., Conclusions: Half of the patients showed a change in motion envelope greater than would be covered by the commonly used PTV margins in pancreas SBRT. This shows that the impact of small margins must be very carefully considered during the planning process., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss important updates to the 2018 version of the guidelines, including implications of the 8th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual on treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and incorporating newly approved immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies into treatment options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease., (Copyright © 2018 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)

Invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis is almost always treated with surgical therapy at the primary site. However, almost all other SCC primary sites, such as anal, vulvar, uterine cervix, head and neck, and oesophagus, and their involved nodal basins, can be successfully treated with radiotherapy or combined chemotherapy and radiation, reserving surgery as a salvage option. Review of the penile cancer literature and examination of data from more common SCC primary sites make a case for complete organ preservation of the penis using definitive combined chemotherapy and radiation, reserving surgical therapies as salvage options.

Background: A combined clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score that incorporates prognostic molecular and clinical information has been recently developed and validated to improve prostate cancer mortality (PCM) risk stratification over clinical features alone. As clinical features are currently used to select men for active surveillance (AS), we developed and validated a CCR score threshold to improve the identification of men with low-risk disease who are appropriate for AS., Methods: The score threshold was selected based on the 90th percentile of CCR scores among men who might typically be considered for AS based on NCCN low/favorable-intermediate risk criteria (CCR = 0.8). The threshold was validated using 10-year PCM in an unselected, conservatively managed cohort and in the subset of the same cohort after excluding men with high-risk features. The clinical effect was evaluated in a contemporary clinical cohort., Results: In the unselected validation cohort, men with CCR scores below the threshold had a predicted mean 10-year PCM of 2.7%, and the threshold significantly dichotomized low- and high-risk disease (P = 1.2 × 10 -5 ). After excluding high-risk men from the validation cohort, men with CCR scores below the threshold had a predicted mean 10-year PCM of 2.3%, and the threshold significantly dichotomized low- and high-risk disease (P = 0.020). There were no prostate cancer-specific deaths in men with CCR scores below the threshold in either analysis. The proportion of men in the clinical testing cohort identified as candidates for AS was substantially higher using the threshold (68.8%) compared to clinicopathologic features alone (42.6%), while mean 10-year predicted PCM risks remained essentially identical (1.9% vs. 2.0%, respectively)., Conclusions: The CCR score threshold appropriately dichotomized patients into low- and high-risk groups for 10-year PCM, and may enable more appropriate selection of patients for AS., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

OBJECTIVE The authors compared presenting characteristics and survival for patients with gliosarcoma (GS) and glioblastoma (GBM). Additionally, they performed a survival analysis for patients who underwent GS treatments with the hypothesis that trimodality therapy (surgery followed by radiation and chemotherapy) would be superior to nontrimodality therapy (surgery alone or surgery followed by chemotherapy or radiation). METHODS Adults diagnosed with GS and GBM between the years 2004 and 2013 were queried from the National Cancer Database. Chi-square analysis was used to compare presenting characteristics. Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression, and propensity score analyses were employed for survival analyses. RESULTS In total, data from 1102 patients with GS and 36,658 patients with GBM were analyzed. Gliosarcoma had an increased rate of gross-total resection (GTR) compared with GBM (19% vs 15%, p < 0.001). Survival was not different for patients with GBM (p = 0.068) compared with those with GS. After propensity score analysis for GS, patients receiving trimodality therapy (surgery followed by radiation and chemotherapy) had improved survival (12.9 months) compared with those not receiving trimodality therapy (5.5 months). In multivariate analysis, GTR, female sex, fewer comorbidities, trimodality therapy, and age < 65 years were associated with improved survival. There was a trend toward improved survival with MGMT promoter methylation (p = 0.117). CONCLUSIONS In this large registry study, there was no difference in survival in patients with GBM compared with GS. Among GS patients, trimodality therapy significantly improved survival compared with nontrimodality therapy. Gross-total resection also improved survival, and there was a trend toward increased survival with MGMT promoter methylation in GS. The major potential confounder in this study is that patients with poor functional status may not have received aggressive radiation or chemotherapy treatments, leading to the observed outcome. This study should be considered hypothesis-generating; however, due to its rarity, conducting a clinical trial with GS patients alone may prove difficult.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on systemic therapy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, as substantial revisions were made in the 2017 updates, such as new recommendations for nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer addresses additional aspects of the management of bladder cancer, including non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer and nonurothelial histologies, as well as staging, evaluation, and follow-up., (Copyright © 2017 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)