Does Chemo-Radiotherapy Improve Survival Outcomes vs. Radiotherapy Alone for High-Grade cT1 Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder?

BACKGROUND: Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (non-MIBC) that is high-grade and confined to the lamina propria (HGT1) often has an aggressive clinical course. Currently, there is limited data on the comparative effectiveness of RT vs. CRT for HGT1 non-MIBC. We hypothesized that CRT would be associated with improved overall survival (OS) vs. RT in HGT1 bladder cancer. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with HGT1 non-MIBC, and treated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor followed by either treatment with RT alone or CRT, were identified in the National Cancer Database. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was employed and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) hazard ratios. OS was the primary endpoint, and was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients with HGT1 UC were treated with: (i) RT alone (n = 123) or (ii) CRT (n = 136). Propensity-weighted MVA showed that combined modality treatment with CRT was associated with improved OS relative to radiation alone (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.62, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI): 0.44-0.88, P = .007). Four-year OS for the CRT vs. RT alone was 36% and 19%, respectively (log-rank P <.008). CONCLUSION: For patients with HGT1 bladder cancer, concurrent CRT was associated with improved OS compared with radiation alone in a retrospective cohort. These results are hypothesis-generating. The NRG is currently developing a phase II randomized clinical trial comparing CRT to other novel, bladder preservation strategies.

Radiation Facility Volume and Survival for Men With Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

Importance: Very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer is an aggressive substratum of high-risk prostate cancer, characterized by high prostate-specific antigen levels, high Gleason score, and/or advanced T category. Contemporary management paradigms involve advanced molecular imaging and multimodal treatment with intensified prostate-directed or systemic treatment-resources more readily available at high-volume centers. Objective: To examine radiation facility case volume and overall survival (OS) in men with VHR prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was performed from November 11, 2022, to March 4, 2023, analyzing data from US facilities reporting to the National Cancer Database. Patients included men diagnosed with nonmetastatic VHR prostate cancer by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (clinical T3b-T4 category, primary Gleason pattern 5, >4 cores with grade group 4-5, and/or 2-3 high-risk features) and treated with curative-intent radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy between January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2016. Exposures: Treatment at high- vs low-average cumulative facility volume (ACFV), defined as the total number of prostate radiotherapy cases at an individual patient's treatment facility from 2004 until the year of their diagnosis. The nonlinear association between a continuous ACFV and OS was examined through a Martingale residual plot; an optimal ACFV cutoff was identified that maximized the separation between high vs low ACFV via a bias-adjusted log rank test. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival was assessed between high vs low ACFV using Kaplan-Meier analysis with and without inverse probability score weighted adjustment and multivariable Cox proportional hazards. Results: A total of 25 219 men (median age, 71 [IQR, 64-76] years; 78.7% White) with VHR prostate cancer were identified, 6438 (25.5%) of whom were treated at high ACFV facilities. Median follow-up was 57.4 (95% CI, 56.7-58.1) months. Median OS for patients treated at high ACFV centers was 123.4 (95% CI, 116.6-127.4) months vs 109.0 (95% CI, 106.5-111.2) months at low ACFV centers (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, treatment at a high ACFV center was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95; P < .001). These results were also significant after inverse probability score weighted-based adjustment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with VHR prostate cancer who underwent definitive radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, facility case volume was independently associated with longer OS. Further studies are needed to identify which factors unique to high-volume centers may be responsible for this benefit.

Benchmarking the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model: Changes in Medicare Reimbursement for 16 Common Radiation Therapy Treatment Courses.

Radiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR) in the past decade under the current fee-for-service model. Although studies have explored decline in reimbursement at a per-code level, to our knowledge there are no recent studies analyzing changes in MCR over time for common RO treatment courses. By analyzing changes in MCR for common treatment courses, our study had 3 objectives: (1) to provide practitioners and policymakers with estimates of recent reimbursement changes for common treatment courses; (2) to provide an estimate of how reimbursement will change in the future under the current fee-for-service model if current trends continue; and (3) to provide a baseline for treatment episodes in the event that the episode-based Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model is eventually implemented. Specifically, we quantified inflation- and utilization-adjusted changes in reimbursement for 16 common radiation therapy (RT) treatment courses from 2010 to 2020. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary databases were used to obtain reimbursement for all RO procedures in 2010, 2015, and 2020 for free-standing facilities. Inflation-adjusted average reimbursement (AR) per billing instance was calculated for each Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code using 2020 dollars. For each year, the billing frequency of each code was multiplied by the AR per code. Results were summed per RT course per year, and AR for RT courses were compared. Sixteen common RO courses for head and neck, breast, prostate, lung, and palliative RT were analyzed. AR decreased for all 16 courses from 2010 to 2020. From 2015 to 2020, the only course that increased in AR was palliative 2-dimensional 10-fraction 30 Gy, which increased by 0.4%. Courses using intensity modulated RT saw the largest AR decline from 2010 to 2020, ranging from 38% to 39%. We report significant declines in reimbursement from 2010 to 2020 for common RO courses, with the largest declines for intensity modulated RT. Policymakers should consider the significant cuts to reimbursement that have already occurred when considering future reimbursement adjustment under the current fee-for-service model or when considering mandatory adoption of a new payment system with further cuts and the negative effect of such cuts on quality and access to care.

The Association of Radiation Dose With Overall Survival for Patients Treated With Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

Introduction Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa) has demonstrated excellent biochemical recurrence-free survival, with studies showing improved BRFS with higher-dose SBRT. However, current studies have been underpowered to evaluate the relationship of SBRT dose to overall survival (OS). In this retrospective study using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we hypothesize that, given the low alpha/beta ratio of PCa, a relatively small increase in the dose-per-fraction would be associated with improved survival outcomes for intermediate-risk PCa (IR-PCa) comparing 36.25 Gy/5 fx [biologically equivalent dose (BEDα/ß = 1.5 = 211.46 Gy vs. 35 Gy (BED1.5 = 198.33 Gy)]. Materials and methods We queried records from the NCDB from 2005 to 2015 for men receiving prostate SBRT for IR-PCa (n=2673). 82% were treated using either 35 Gy/5 fx or 36.25 Gy/5 fx. We compared OS in men receiving 35 Gy versus 36.25 Gy. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for covariable imbalances. Unweighted- and weighted-multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression was used to compare OS hazard ratios, accounting for age, race, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, treatment facility type, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), clinical T-stage, Gleason Score, and use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed. Results Seven hundred and eighty men (35%) were treated with 35 Gy/5 fx and 1434 men (65%) were treated with 36.25 Gy/5 fx (n=2214). Compared to 35 Gy, treatment with 36.25 Gy was associated with significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.43-0.89], P=0.009) on MVA. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, 36.25 Gy was associated with improved survival (p=0.034), with a five-year OS of 92% and 88%, respectively. Conclusions In a multi-institutional retrospective database of 2,214 IR patients treated with prostate SBRT, a prescription dose of 36.25 Gy/5 fx was associated with improved OS vs. 35 Gy/5 fx. Results are hypothesis-generating but do lend support to the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines that the minimum recommended dose for prostate SBRT is 36.25 Gy/5 fx.

Bladder only versus bladder plus pelvic lymph node chemoradiation for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bladder-sparing chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is a definitive first-line treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The optimal radiotherapy target volume, either bladder-only (BO) or bladder plus pelvic lymph nodes (BPN), remains unclear. METHODS: We identified 2,104 patients in the National Cancer Database with cT2-4N0M0 urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder treated with CRT following maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumor from 2004 to 2016. The exposure of interest was BO vs. BPN treatment volume. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), compared between groups using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards. Sensitivity analysis tested an interaction term for clinical T stage (T2 vs. T3-4) and radiation modality (3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy vs. intensity modulated radiotherapy or proton therapy). Annual use of BO vs. BPN from 2004 to 2016 was compared using Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: A total of 578 patients were treated with BO and 1,526 patients treated with BPN CRT. There was a significant increase in BPN use from 2004 to 2016 (66.9%-76.8%, P < 0.0001). With a median follow-up of 6.2 years, there was no survival difference between groups: 5- and 10-year OS 27.4% (95% CI 23.4%-31.4%) in the BO group vs. 31.9% (95% CI 29.3%-34.6%) in the BPN group, and 13.1% (95% CI 9.7%-17.1%) in the BO group vs. 13.2% (95% CI 10.6%-16.0%) in the BPN group, respectively (log-rank P = 0.10). On multivariable analysis, there was no significant association between BPN and OS (adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.02, P = 0.09). On sensitivity analysis, we found no differential effect by T stage or radiation modality. CONCLUSION: Use of pelvic lymph node radiation has risen in the US but may not impact long-term survival outcomes for patients with node-negative muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Optimizing radiation treatment volumes for CRT for MIBC will be important to study under prospective trials, such as the SWOG/NRG 1806.

Association of Brachytherapy Boost with Overall Survival for Gleason 9-10 Prostate Cancer: The Impact of Primary versus Secondary Pattern 5.

PURPOSE: The addition of a brachytherapy (BT) boost to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) reduces recurrence risk in men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and may reduce PCa-mortality for Gleason grade group 5 (GG5). Whether the extent of pattern five, a risk factor for distant metastases, impacts the benefit of a BT boost is unclear. METHODS: Men with localized GG5 PCa treated with (1) EBRT or (2) EBRT+BT between 2010 and 2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database. EBRT monotherapy group received conventionally fractionated (1.8-2.0 Gy per fraction) ≥74 Gy or moderately hypofractionated (2.5-3.0 Gy per fraction) ≥60 Gy. EBRT + BT group received conventionally fractionated ≥45 Gy or moderately hypofractionated ≥37.5 Gy, and either LDR or HDR BT. All patients received concomitant ADT; none received chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or surgery. OS was compared using Kaplan-Meier, log-rank test, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards in the overall cohort, followed by subgroups based on primary versus secondary pattern 5. Propensity score- and exact-matching was used to corroborate results. RESULTS: A total of 8260 men were eligible: EBRT alone (89%) versus EBRT + BT (11%). 5-year OS for EBRT versus EBRT + BT was 76.3% and 85.0%, respectively (p = 0.002; multivariable adjusted HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65-0.98; p = 0.04). These results remained consistent after propensity score and exact matching. The OS advantage of a BT boost was more prominent in men with Gleason 4 + 5 PCa (p = 0.001) and not observed in men with Gleason 5 + 5 or 5 + 4 PCa. CONCLUSIONS: Extent of pattern five may be useful in appropriately selecting men for EBRT+BT and should be considered as a pre-randomization stratification variable for future clinical trial design.

Prospective imaging comparison of anatomic delineation with rapid kV cone beam CT on a novel ring gantry radiotherapy device.

INTRODUCTION: A kV imager coupled to a novel, ring-gantry radiotherapy system offers improved on-board kV-cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) acquisition time (17-40 seconds) and image quality, which may improve CT radiotherapy image-guidance and enable online adaptive radiotherapy. We evaluated whether inter-observer contour variability over various anatomic structures was non-inferior using a novel ring gantry kV-CBCT (RG-CBCT) imager as compared to diagnostic-quality simulation CT (simCT). MATERIALS/METHODS: Seven patients undergoing radiotherapy were imaged with the RG-CBCT system at breath hold (BH) and/or free breathing (FB) for various disease sites on a prospective imaging study. Anatomy was independently contoured by seven radiation oncologists on: 1. SimCT 2. Standard C-arm kV-CBCT (CA-CBCT), and 3. Novel RG-CBCT at FB and BH. Inter-observer contour variability was evaluated by computing simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) consensus contours, then computing average symmetric surface distance (ASSD) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) between individual raters and consensus contours for comparison across image types. RESULTS: Across 7 patients, 18 organs-at-risk (OARs) were evaluated on 27 image sets. Both BH and FB RG-CBCT were non-inferior to simCT for inter-observer delineation variability across all OARs and patients by ASSD analysis (p < 0.001), whereas CA-CBCT was not (p = 0.923). RG-CBCT (FB and BH) also remained non-inferior for abdomen and breast subsites compared to simCT on ASSD analysis (p < 0.025). On DSC comparison, neither RG-CBCT nor CA-CBCT were non-inferior to simCT for all sites (p > 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Inter-observer ability to delineate OARs using novel RG-CBCT images was non-inferior to simCT by the ASSD criterion but not DSC criterion.

Decreases in Radiation Oncology Medicare Reimbursement Over Time: Analysis by Billing Code.

PURPOSE: Radiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR). However, there are no recent studies analyzing the contributions of specific billing codes to overall RO reimbursement. We compared total MCR for specific Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes in 2019 with MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015, corrected for inflation, to see how the same basket of RO services in 2019 would have been reimbursed in 2010 and 2015 (adjusted MCR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary database was used to obtain MCR data for RO HCPCS codes in 2010, 2015, and 2019. For each code, the total allowed charge was divided by the number of submitted claims to calculate the average MCR per claim in 2010, 2015, and 2019. The 2019 billing frequency for each code was then multiplied by the inflation-adjusted average MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015 to determine what the MCR would have been in 2010 and 2015 using 2019 dollars and utilization rates. Results were compared with actual 2019 MCR to calculate the projected difference. RESULTS: Total inflation-adjusted RO MCR was $2281 million (M), $1991 M, and $1848 M in 2010, 2015, and 2019 respectively. This represents a cut of $433 M (19%) and $143 M (7%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. After utilization adjustment, total reimbursement was $2534 M, $2034 M, and $1848 M for 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively, representing a cut of $686 M (27%) and $186 M (9%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivery and planning accounted for $917 M (36%), $670 M (33%), and $573 M (31%) of the adjusted MCR in 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare reimbursement decreased substantially from 2010 to 2019. A decline in IMRT treatment reimbursement was the primary driver of MCR decline. When considering further cuts, policymakers should consider these trends and their consequences for health care quality and access.

Assessing the impact of brachytherapy boost and androgen deprivation therapy on survival outcomes for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations regarding radiotherapy treatment for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa) include external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) ± brachytherapy boost (BT) ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The ideal radiotherapy treatment approach for UIR-PCa has not been well-defined. We hypothesized that EBRT+BT±ADT is associated with improved overall survival (OS) relative to EBRT±ADT in men with UIR-PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to retrospectively identify 32,246 men diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with UIR-PCa who received EBRT (n = 13,265), EBRT+ADT (n = 13,123), EBRT+BT (n = 3440), or EBRT+BT+ADT (n = 2418). OS was the primary outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for covariable imbalances and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis using Cox regression modeling was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 60 months (range: 3-168 months). EBRT+ADT correlated with improved OS relative to EBRT alone on multivariable analysis (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.92, [95% Confidence Interval: 0.87-0.98], p = 0.005). Compared to EBRT+ADT, EBRT+BT (HR: 0.77 [0.69-0.85], p = 3 × 10-7) and EBRT+BT+ADT (HR: 0.75 [0.67-0.83], p = 6 × 10-8) were associated with improved OS. Eight-years OS for the EBRT+ADT versus EBRT+BT+ADT was 70% and 78% (p < 0.0001), which is similar to historical clinical trials (ASCENDE-RT 9-year OS: 74% vs. 78%, p = 0.29). Relative to EBRT+BT, EBRT+BT+ADT was not associated with improved OS (HR: 0.99 [0.87-1.11], p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In a large retrospective cohort, the addition of brachytherapy to EBRT correlated with improved survival in men with UIR-PCa. Men receiving EBRT+ADT+BT had improved OS relative to EBRT+ADT. The addition of ADT to EBRT, but not to EBRT+BT, correlated with improved OS.

Treatment Patterns and Overall Survival Outcomes Among Patients Aged 80 yr or Older with High-risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) present a therapeutic dilemma of balancing treatment of a potentially lethal malignancy with overtreatment of a cancer that may not threaten life expectancy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate treatment patterns and overall survival outcomes in this group of patients. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. We queried the National Cancer Database for high-risk PCa in patients aged 80 yr or older diagnosed during 2004-2016. INTERVENTION: Eligible patients underwent no treatment following biopsy (ie, observation), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, radiation therapy (RT) alone, RT + ADT, or surgery. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Kaplan-Meier, log rank, and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression was performed to compare overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 19 920 men were eligible for analysis, and the most common treatment approach was RT + ADT (7401 patients; 37.2%). Observation and ADT alone declined over time (59.3% in 2004 vs 47.5% in 2016). There was no observed difference in OS between observation and ADT alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.09; p = 0.105). Definitive local treatment was associated with improved OS compared with ADT alone (RT alone, HR 0.54, 95% CI, 0.50-0.59, p < 0.0001; ADT + RT, HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.46-0.50, p < 0.0001; surgery, HR 0.50, 95% CI, 0.42-0.59, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that the use of definitive local therapy, including surgery or RT ± ADT, is increasing and is associated with a 50% reduction in overall mortality compared with observation or ADT alone. While prospective validation is warranted, elderly men with high-risk disease eligible for definitive management should be counseled on the risks, including a possible compromise in OS, with deferring definitive management. PATIENT SUMMARY: Elderly men are more often diagnosed with higher-risk prostate cancer but are less likely to receive curative treatment options than younger men. Our analysis demonstrates that for men ≥80 yr of age with high-risk prostate cancer, definitive local therapy, including surgery or radiation therapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy, is associated with a 50% reduction in overall mortality compared with observation or androgen deprivation therapy alone. We therefore recommend that life expectancy (ie, physiologic age) be taken into account, over chronologic age, and that elderly men with good life expectancy (eg, >5 yr; minimal comorbidity) should be offered definitive, life-prolonging therapy.

Association Between Local Radiation Therapy to the Primary Bladder Tumor and Overall Survival for Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Receiving Systemic Chemotherapy.

There are limited data on the role of local therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (mUC). In this retrospective cohort analysis, we queried the National Cancer Data Base for patients with newly diagnosed mUC (cT1-4 N0-3 M1). Overall survival (OS) was compared between treatment with chemotherapy (CT) alone (n = 4122) and CT plus bladder-directed radiation therapy (CT + RT; n = 337). Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analyses and matching and landmark analyses were performed. CT + RT was independently associated with better OS (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.79; p < 0.0001) and this result persisted in matched and landmark analyses. These findings are hypothesis-generating and limited by inherent confounding factors; however, a prospective trial evaluating the impact of bladder RT in mUC is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with bladder cancer that has already spread to other parts of the body, it is unclear if radiation therapy directed at the primary bladder tumor would provide any improvement in survival. In this study, we found that aggressive radiation therapy directed at the bladder combined with chemotherapy may provide a survival benefit in some patients with metastatic bladder cancer compared to chemotherapy alone.

Assessing the role of external beam radiation therapy in combination with brachytherapy versus brachytherapy alone for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Definitive treatment options for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa) include external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) ± brachytherapy boost ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The role of brachytherapy ± ADT in the absence of EBRT is not well defined. We hypothesized that EBRT+BT±ADT is associated with improved overall survival (OS) relative to BT±ADT for UIR-PCa. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men with UIR-PCa diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Inverse propensity of treatment weighting was used to balance covariables that influenced treatment allocation and outcomes, and propensity-weighted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: A total of 11,721 men were stratified into four treatment groups: (1) BT without ADT (n = 4,535), (2) BT+ADT (n = 1,303), (3) EBRT+BT (n = 3,446), or (4) EBRT+BT+ADT (n = 2,437). Relative to patients treated with BT alone, BT+ADT (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.86 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.76-0.99], p = 0.03), EBRT+BT (HR: 0.79 [0.70-0.88], p = 0.00002), and EBRT+BT+ADT (HR: 0.76 [0.67-0.85], p = 0.000003) were associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to BT alone, EBRT+BT correlated with improved OS on weight-adjusted MVA (HR: 0.82 [0.75-0.89], p = 0.000005). 10-year OS for BT vs. EBRT+BT was 62.4% [60.1-64.7] vs. 69.3% [67.5-71.2], respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: EBRT+BT correlated with improved OS relative to BT alone in men with UIR-PCa, reaffirming current NCCN recommendations recommending EBRT+BT over BT alone. While prior studies reported no benefit to adding EBRT to BT with optimal implant dosimetry, this study suggests men benefit from EBRT in a population of variable implant quality.

Outcomes of Patients With Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With External-Beam Radiotherapy Versus Brachytherapy Alone.

BACKGROUND: The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer currently recommend several definitive radiotherapy (RT) options for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) prostate cancer: external-beam RT (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost with or without ADT. However, brachytherapy alone with or without ADT is not well defined and is currently not recommended for UIR prostate cancer. We hypothesized that men treated with brachytherapy with or without ADT have comparable survival rates to men treated with EBRT with or without ADT. METHODS: A total of 31,783 men diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with UIR prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed from the National Cancer Database. Men were stratified into 4 groups: EBRT (n=12,985), EBRT plus ADT (n=12,960), brachytherapy (n=4,535), or brachytherapy plus ADT (n=1,303). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for covariable imbalances, and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Relative to EBRT alone, the following treatments were associated with improved OS: EBRT plus ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; P=.002), brachytherapy alone (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98; P=.01), and brachytherapy plus ADT (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P=.00006). Brachytherapy correlated with improved OS relative to EBRT in men who were not treated with ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P=.03) and in those receiving ADT (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95; P=.004). At 10-year follow-up, 56% and 63% of men receiving EBRT and brachytherapy, respectively, were alive (P<.0001). IPTW was used to determine the average treatment effect of definitive brachytherapy. Relative to EBRT, definitive brachytherapy correlated with improved OS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P=.009) on weight-adjusted MVA. CONCLUSIONS: Definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS compared with EBRT. The addition of ADT to both EBRT and definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS. These results suggest that definitive brachytherapy should be considered as an option for men with UIR prostate cancer.

Survival Outcomes in Men with Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk and High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Prostate-Only versus Whole Pelvic Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR-PCa) or high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa) are often treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy. Treatment is frequently intensified by electively treating the pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) with whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT), but practice patterns and the benefits of WPRT are not well defined. We hypothesized that men treated with WPRT would have improved overall survival (OS) relative to men treated with prostate-only radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: National Cancer Database records of men diagnosed between 2008-2015 with UIR-PCa or HR-PCa and treated with prostate EBRT±androgen deprivation therapy (72-86.4 Gy) with (15,175) or without (13,549) WPRT were reviewed. Risk of LN involvement was calculated using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram. Measured confounders were balanced with inverse probability of treatment weighting and OS hazard ratios (HRs) were generated using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Of the men, 53% received WPRT. Every 1% increase in risk of LN involvement correlated with a 1% increase in risk of death (p <0.001). WPRT trended toward improved OS in all men with UIR-PCa and HR-PCa (HR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.90-1.006], p=0.055). WPRT correlated with improved OS in men with Gleason 9 and 10 disease (HR: 0.87 [0.78-0.98], p=0.02) or risk of LN involvement ≥10% (HR: 0.93 [0.87-0.99], p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Men with higher LN risk scores and Gleason grade benefited from WPRT. These results complement the recent POP-RT randomized trial in mostly positron emission tomography/computerized tomography-staged patients, demonstrating that a more heterogeneous population of men staged without functional imaging benefits from WPRT.

Propensity-Weighted Survival Analysis of SBRT vs. Conventional Radiotherapy in Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), which delivers high-dose precision treatment in ≤5 fractions, is a shorter, more convenient, and less expensive alternative to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRFT; ∼44 fractions) or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MFRT; 20-28 fractions). SBRT has not been widely adopted but may have radiobiologic advantages over CFRT/MFRT. We hypothesized that SBRT would be associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus CFRT or MFRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for unfavorable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa). METHODS: Men with UIR-PCa treated with SBRT (35-40Gy in ≤5 fractions) or biologically equivalent doses of CFRT (72-86.4Gy in 1.8-2.0Gy/fraction) or MRFT (≥60Gy in 2.4-3.2Gy/fraction; biologically effective doses ≥120) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Unweighted and propensity-weighted multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: Of 28,028 men with UIR-PCa who received CFRT with (n = 12,872) or without ADT (n = 12,984); MFRT with (n = 251) or without ADT (n = 281); and SBRT with (n = 212) or without ADT (n = 1,428) were identified. Relative to CFRT without ADT, CFRT+ ADT (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97, P = .002) and SBRT without ADT (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.89, P = .002) were both associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to CFRT+ADT, SBRT without ADT correlated with improved OS on MVA (HR:0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = .04). Propensity-weighted MVA demonstrated that SBRT (HR:0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = .036) and ADT (HR:0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97, P = .002) correlated with improved OS. SBRT was not associated with improved OS versus MFRT. CONCLUSION: SBRT, which offers a cheaper and shorter treatment course that mitigates COVID-19 exposure, was associated with improved OS versus CFRT for UIR-PCa. These results confirm guideline-based recommendations that SBRT is a viable option for UIR prostate cancer. The results from this large retrospective study require further validation in clinical trials.

Feasibility of Same-Day Prostate Fiducial Markers, Perirectal Hydrogel Spacer Placement, and Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Simulation for External Beam Radiation Therapy for Low-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The use of prostate fiducial markers and perirectal hydrogel spacers can reduce the acute and late toxic effects associated with prostate radiation therapy. These procedures are usually performed days to weeks before simulation during a separate clinic visit to ensure resolution of procedure-related inflammation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether same-day intraprostatic fiducial marker placement, perirectal hydrogel injection, and computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation were feasible without adversely affecting hydrogel volume, perirectal spacing, or rectal dose. If feasible, performing these procedures on the same day as simulation would expedite the start of radiation therapy, improve patient convenience, and reduce costs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were enrolled on a prospective clinical trial (NCT01617161) underwent same-day marker placement, hydrogel injection, and CT and MRI simulation, then underwent T2 MRI verification scans 3 to 4 weeks later. The MRI scans were fused to the CT planning scans by clinical target volumes (CTVs) to generate comparison treatment plans (70 Gy in 28 fractions). Hydrogel volume and symmetry, perirectal spacing, CTV dose, and organ-at-risk dose were evaluated. RESULTS: Verification scans occurred a mean of 24.9 ± 4.6 days after simulation and 9.3 ± 4.9 days after treatment start. Prostate volume did not change between scans (median, 67.3 ± 22.1 cm3 vs 64.1 ± 21.8 cm3; P = .64). The median hydrogel change between simulation and verification was -1.8% ± 4.5% (P = .27). No significant differences in perirectal spacing (midgland: 1.33 ± 0.45 cm vs 1.3 ± 0.7 cm; 1 cm superior: 1.25 ± 0.95 cm vs 1.43 ± 0.91 cm; 1 cm inferior: 1.16 ± 0.28 cm vs 1.41 ± 0.49 cm) were identified. No significant differences in rectal V66 (median 2.3 ± 2.18% vs 2.3 ± 2.28%; P = .99), V35 (median 14.79 ± 7.61 vs 14.67 ± 8.4; P = .73), or D1cc (65.7 ± 9.2 Gy vs 68.2 ± 9.0 Gy; P = .80) were found. All plans met CTV and organ-at-risk constraints. CONCLUSION: Same-day placement of intraprostatic fiducial markers, perirectal hydrogel, and simulation scans was feasible and did not significantly affect hydrogel volume, position, CTV coverage, or rectal dose.

Association of race with receipt of definitive therapy for high risk prostate cancer in older men.

OBJECTIVES: Black men are more likely to die of prostate cancer (PCa) than White men. Whether this difference is driven by biological versus sociodemographic and access to care differences is actively investigated. However, studies that have highlighted racial disparities in PCa outcomes have been poorly represented by elderly men, a notoriously undertreated group. Herein, we evaluated use of curative treatment between Black and White elderly men with aggressive PCa in a large US database. METHODS: Men ≥80 years diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined high risk PCa between 2004 and 2016 were analyzed from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the effect of race and sociodemographic factors on receipt of definitive therapy (surgery or radiation +/- androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) versus non-definitive therapy (ADT alone or observation) in inverse probability weighted groups matched for stage, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2016, utilization of definitive therapy with either surgery or radiation therapy increased in both White and Black men in the United States. However, we found that Black men compared with White men were significantly less likely to receive definitive therapy (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.79, p < .001). Using multivariable modeling, effect size diminished after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Notably, there is evidence of the racial disparity narrowing over time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight striking but improving racial disparities in elderly men with high risk PCa in the US, an overall undertreated population.

Influence of Timing Between Androgen Deprivation Therapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy in Patients With Localized, High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT) is the nonsurgical standard-of-care for patients with high- or very high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PC), but the optimal timing between ADT and RT initiation is unknown. We evaluate the influence of timing between ADT and RT on outcomes in patients with HR-PC using a large national cancer database. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data for patients with clinical T1-T4 N0, M0, National Cancer Comprehensive Network HR-PC who were treated with definitive external RT (≥60 Gy) and ADT starting either before or within 14 days after RT start were extracted from the National Cancer Database (2004-2015). Patients were grouped on the basis of ADT initiation: (1) >11 weeks before RT, (2) 8 to 11weeks before RT, and (3) <8 weeks before RT. Kaplan-Meier, propensity score matching, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards were performed to evaluate overall survival (OS). RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 68.9 months, 37,606 patients with HR-PC were eligible for analysis: 13,346 (35.5%) with >11 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT, 11,456 (30.5%) with 8 to 11 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT; and 12,804 (34%) patients with <8 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT. The unadjusted 10-year OS rates for >11 weeks, 8 to 11 weeks, and <8 weeks neoadjuvant ADT groups were 49.9%, 51.2%, and 46.9%, respectively (P = .002). On multivariable and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses, there was a significant OS advantage for patients in the 8 to 11 weeks neoadjuvant ADT group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.95; P < .001) but not the >11 weeks group. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant ADT initiation 8 to 11 weeks before RT is associated with significantly improved OS compared with shorter neoadjuvant ADT duration. Although prospective validation is warranted, this analysis is the largest retrospective study suggesting an influence of timing between ADT and RT initiation in HR-PC.

Patient-reported outcomes after Low-dose-rate versus High-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in combination with external beam radiation for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Addition of a brachytherapy boost to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) reduces prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence at the expense of genitourinary (GU) toxicity. Whether brachytherapy boost technique, specifically low-dose-rate (LDR-BT) versus high-dose-rate (HDR-BT), impacts treatment-related toxicity is unclear. METHODS: Between 2012-2018, 106 men with intermediate/high risk PCa underwent EBRT (37.5-45 Gy in 1.8-2.5 Gy/fraction) plus brachytherapy boost, either with LDR-BT (110 Gy I-125 or 100 Gy Pd-103; n = 51) or HDR-BT (15 Gy x1 Ir-192; n = 55). Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-CP) surveys at 3-6-month intervals for up to three years following treatment, with higher scores indicating more severe toxicity. Provider-reported GU and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was graded per CTCAE v5.0 at each follow-up. Linear mixed models comparing PROs between LDR-BT versus HDR-BT were fitted. Stepwise multivariable analysis (MVA) was performed to account for age, gland size, androgen deprivation therapy use, and alpha-blocker medication use. Incidence rates of grade 2+ GU/GI toxicity was compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Use of LDR-BT was associated with greater change in IPSS (p=0.003) and EPIC-CP urinary irritative score (p = 0.002) compared with HDR-BT, but effect size diminished over time (LDR-BT versus HDR-BT: baseline to 6-/24-month mean IPSS change, +6.4/+1.4 versus +2.7/-3.0, respectively; mean EPIC-CP irritative/obstructive change, +2.5/+0.1 versus +0.9/+0.1, respectively). Results remained significant on MVA. Post-treatment grade 2+ GU toxicity was significantly higher in the LDR-BT group (67.5% versus 42.9% for LDR-BT and HDR-BT, respectively; p <0.001). There were no differences between groups in incontinence, bowel function, and erectile function, or grade 2+ GI toxicity. CONCLUSION: Compared with LDR-BT, HDR-BT was associated with lower acute patient- and provider-reported GU toxicity.