Cardiovascular Mortality and Duration of Androgen Deprivation in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Long-term Update of NRG/RTOG 9202.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been associated with coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction (MI) in prostate cancer patients, but controversy persists regarding its effects on cardiovascular mortality (CVM). OBJECTIVE: We assessed the long-term relationship between ADT and CVM in a prostate cancer randomized trial (NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 1992 to 1995, 1554 men with locally advanced prostate cancer (T2c-T4, prostate-specific antigen <150 ng/ml) received radiotherapy with 4 mo (short-term [STADT]) versus 28 mo (longer-term [LTADT]) of ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Using the Fine-Gray and Cox regression models, the relationship between ADT and mortality was evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With a median follow-up of 19.6 yr, LTADT was associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus STADT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; p = 0.03) and prostate cancer survival (subdistribution HR [sHR] 0.70, p = 0.003). Comparing LTADT with STADT, prostate cancer mortality improved by 6.0% (15.6% [95% confidence interval 13.0-18.3%] vs 21.6% [18.6-24.7%]) at 15 yr, while CVM increased by 2.2% (14.9% [12.4-17.6%] vs 12.7% [10.4-15.3%]). In multivariable analyses, LTADT was not associated with increased CVM versus STADT (sHR 1.22 [0.93-1.59]; p = 0.15). An association between LTADT and MI death was detected (sHR 1.58 [1.00-2.50]; p = 0.05), particularly in patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD; sHR 2.54 [1.16-5.58]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: With 19.6 yr of follow-up, LTADT was not significantly associated with increased CVM in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients may have increased MI mortality with LTADT, particularly those with baseline CVD. Overall, there remained a prostate cancer mortality benefit and no OS detriment with LTADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a long-term analysis of a large randomized prostate cancer trial, radiation with 28 mo of hormone therapy did not increase the risk of cardiovascular death significantly versus 4 mo of hormone therapy. Future studies are needed for patients with pre-existing heart disease, who may have an increased risk of myocardial infarction death with longer hormone use.

Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Prostate Cancer Outcomes According to Competing Event Risk: Secondary Analysis of a Phase 3 Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that the benefit of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer depends on competing risks. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a quantitative method to stratify patients by risk for competing events (omega score) could identify subgroups that selectively benefit from ADT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An ancillary analysis of NRG/RTOG 9408 phase 3 trial (NCT00002597) involving 1945 prostate cancer patients was conducted. INTERVENTION: Short-term ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We applied generalised competing event regression models incorporating age, performance status, comorbidity, T category, Gleason score (GS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), to stratify patients according to relative hazards for primary cancer-related events (distant metastasis or prostate cancer death) versus competing noncancer mortality. We tested interactions between ADT and subgroups defined by standard risk criteria versus relative risk (RR) using the omega score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: T2b, higher GS, and higher PSA were associated with an increased RR for cancer-related versus competing mortality events (a higher omega score); increased age and comorbidity were associated with a decreased omega score. Of 996 patients with low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk (FIR) disease, 286 (28.7%) had a high omega score (≥0.314). Of 768 patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk disease, 175 (22.8%) had a low omega score. The overall discordance in risk classification was 26.1%. Both standard criteria and omega score identified significant interactions for the effect of ADT on cancer-related events and late mortality in low- versus high-risk subgroups. Within the low-risk/FIR subgroup, a higher omega score identified patients in whom ADT significantly reduced cancer events and improved event-free survival. Limitations are the need for external/prospective validation and lower RT doses than contemporary standards. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification based on competing event risk is useful for identifying prostate cancer patients who selectively benefit from ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analysed the effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for localised prostate cancer among patients, defined by the relative risk (RR) for cancer versus noncancer events. Among patients with traditional low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk disease, those with a higher RR benefitted from short-term ADT.

A pooled patient-reported outcomes analysis of moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy and photon-based intensity modulated radiation therapy for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize and compare late patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This multi-institutional analysis included low- or intermediate-risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient-reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction. RESULTS: 287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional analysis of low- or intermediate-risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.

Preference Elicitation and Treatment Decision-Making Among Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial Results of Healium.

BACKGROUND: Elicitation of patients' preferences is an integral part of shared decision-making, the recommended approach for prostate cancer decision-making. Existing decision aids for this population often do not specifically focus on patients' preferences. Healium is a brief interactive web-based decision aid that aims to elicit patients' treatment preferences and is designed for a low health literate population. OBJECTIVE: This study used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether Healium, designed to target preference elicitation, is as efficacious as Healing Choices, a comprehensive education and decision tool, in improving outcomes for decision-making and emotional quality of life. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had not yet made a treatment decision were randomly assigned to the brief Healium intervention or Healing Choices, a decision aid previously developed by our group that serves as a virtual information center on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Assessments were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post baseline, and included decisional outcomes (decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, and preparation for decision-making), and emotional quality of life (anxiety/tension and depression), along with demographics, comorbidities, and health literacy. RESULTS: A total of 327 individuals consented to participate in the study (171 were randomized to the Healium intervention arm and 156 were randomized to Healing Choices). The majority of the sample was non-Hispanic (272/282, 96%), White (239/314, 76%), married (251/320, 78.4%), and was on average 62.4 (SD 6.9) years old. Within both arms, there was a significant decrease in decisional conflict from baseline to 6 weeks postbaseline (Healium, P≤.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001), and a significant increase in satisfaction with one's decision from 6 weeks to 3 months (Healium, P=.04; Healing Choices, P=.01). Within both arms, anxiety/tension (Healium, P=.23; Healing Choices, P=.27) and depression (Healium, P=.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001) decreased from baseline to 6 weeks, but only in the case of depression was the decrease statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Healium, our brief decision aid focusing on treatment preference elicitation, is as successful in reducing decisional conflict as our previously tested comprehensive decision aid, Healing Choices, and has the added benefit of brevity, making it the ideal tool for integration into the physician consultation and electronic medical record. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05800483; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05800483.

A dosimetric analysis of rectal hydrogel spacer use in patients with recurrent prostate cancer undergoing salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: We hypothesize rectal hydrogel spacer (RHS) improves rectal dosimetry in patients undergoing salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) for intact, recurrent prostate cancer (PC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prospectively collected institutional database was queried for recurrent PC patients treated with salvage HDR-BT from September 2015 to November 2021. Patients were offered RHS beginning June 2019. Dosimetric variables were compared between RHS and no-RHS groups for the average of two fractions using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Primary outcomes were rectal volume receiving 75% of prescription dose (V75%) and prostate volume receiving 100% of prescription dose (V100%). Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to evaluate the association between other planning variables and rectal V75%. RESULTS: Forty-one PC patients received salvage HDR-BT, of whom 20 had RHS. All patients received 2400cGy in 2 fractions. Median RHS volume was 6.2cm3 (Standard deviation [SD]: ± 3.5cm3). Median follow-up was 4 months and 17 months in the RHS and no-RHS groups, respectively. Median rectal V75% with and without RHS were 0.0cm3 (IQR: 0.0-0.0cm3) and 0.06cm3 (IQR: 0.0-0.14cm3), respectively (p<0.001). Median prostate V100% with and without RHS were 98.55% (IQR: 97.86-99.22%) and 97.78% (IQR: 97.50-98.18%), respectively (p = 0.007). RHS, rectum, and prostate volumes did not significantly affect rectal V75% per GEE modeling. There was 10% G1-2 and 5% G3 rectal toxicity in RHS group. There was 9.5% G1-2 and no G3+ rectal toxicities in the no-RHS group. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute improvement in rectal V75% and prostate V100% was significant with RHS in PC patients undergoing salvage HDR-BT, but clinical benefit is marginal.

Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostate Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

Salvage prostate brachytherapy in radiorecurrent prostate cancer: An international Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Local recurrences after previous radiotherapy (RT) are increasingly being identified in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Salvage prostate brachytherapy (BT) is an effective and well tolerated treatment option. We sought to generate international consensus statements on the use and preferred technical considerations for salvage prostate BT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: International experts in salvage prostate BT were invited (n = 34) to participate. A three-round modified Delphi technique was utilized, with questions focused on patient- and cancer-specific criteria, type and technique of BT, and follow-up. An a priori threshold for consensus of ≥ 75% was set, with a majority opinion being ≥ 50%. RESULTS: Thirty international experts agreed to participate. Consensus was achieved for 56% (18/32) of statements. Consensus was achieved in several areas of patient selection: 1) A minimum of 2-3 years from initial RT to salvage BT; 2) MRI and PSMA PET should be obtained; and 3) Both targeted and systematic biopsies should be performed. Several areas did not reach consensus: 1) Maximum T stage/PSA at time of salvage; 2) Utilization/duration of ADT; 3) Appropriateness of combining local salvage with SABR for oligometastatic disease and 4) Repeating a second course of salvage BT. A majority opinion preferred High Dose-Rate salvage BT, and indicated that both focal and whole gland techniques could be appropriate. There was no single preferred dose/fractionation. CONCLUSION: Areas of consensus within our Delphi study may serve as practical advice for salvage prostate BT. Future research in salvage BT should address areas of controversy identified in our study.

Five-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes in NRG Oncology RTOG 0938, Evaluating Two Ultrahypofractionated Regimens for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: There is considerable interest in very short (ultrahypofractionated) radiation therapy regimens to treat prostate cancer based on potential radiobiological advantages, patient convenience, and resource allocation benefits. Our objective is to demonstrate that detectable changes in health-related quality of life measured by the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) were not substantially worse than baseline scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS: NRG Oncology's RTOG 0938 is a nonblinded randomized phase 2 study of National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer in which each arm is compared with a historical control. Patients were randomized to 5 fractions (7.25 Gy in 2 week and a day [twice a week]) or 12 fractions (4.3Gy in 2.5 weeks [5 times a week]). Secondary objectives assessed patient-reported toxicity at 5 years using the EPIC. Chi-square tests were used to assess the proportion of patients with a deterioration from baseline of >5 points for bowel, >2 points for urinary, and >11 points for sexual score. RESULTS: The study enrolled 127 patients to 5 fractions (121 eligible) and 128 patients to 12 fractions (125 eligible). The median follow-up for all patients at the time of analysis was 5.38 years. The 5-year frequency for >5 point change in bowel score were 38.4% (P = .27) and 23.4% (P = 0.98) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. The 5-year frequencies for >2 point change in urinary score were 46.6% (P = .15) and 36.4% (P = .70) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. For 5 fractions, 49.3% (P = .007) of patients had a drop in 5-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points; for 12 fractions, 54% (P < .001) of patients had a drop in 5-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points. Disease-free survival at 5 years is 89.6% (95% CI: 84.0-95.2) in the 5-fraction arm and 92.3% (95% CI: 87.4-97.1) in the 12-fraction arm. There was no late grade 4 or 5 treatment-related urinary or bowel toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that, based on long-term changes in bowel and urinary domains and toxicity, the 5- and 12-fraction regimens are well tolerated. These ultrahypofractionated approaches need to be compared with current standard radiation therapy regimens.

A Phase 1 Trial of Durvalumab in Combination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) or External Beam Radiation Therapy in Patients with BCG-unresponsive Non-muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: The Hoosier Cancer Research Network GU16-243 ADAPT-BLADDER Study.

BACKGROUND: Novel treatments and trial designs remain a high priority for bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of anti-PD-L1 directed therapy with durvalumab (D), durvalumab plus BCG (D + BCG), and durvalumab plus external beam radiation therapy (D + EBRT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter phase 1 trial was conducted at community and academic sites. INTERVENTION: Patients received 1120 mg of D intravenously every 3 wk for eight cycles. D + BCG patients also received full-dose intravesical BCG weekly for 6 wk with BCG maintenance recommended. D + EBRT patients received concurrent EBRT (6 Gy × 3 in cycle 1 only). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Post-treatment cystoscopy and urine cytology were performed at 3 and 6 -mo, with bladder biopsies required at the 6-mo evaluation. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each regimen was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included toxicity profiles and complete response (CR) rates. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty-eight patients were treated in the D (n = 3), D + BCG (n = 13), and D + EBRT (n = 12) cohorts. Full-dose D, full-dose BCG, and 6 Gy fractions × 3 were determined as the RP2Ds. One patient (4%) experienced a grade 3 dose limiting toxicity event of autoimmune hepatitis. The 3-mo CR occurred in 64% of all patients and in 33%, 85%, and 50% within the D, D + BCG, and D + EBRT cohorts, respectively. Twelve-month CRs were achieved in 46% of all patients and in 73% of D + BCG and 33% of D + EBRT patients. CONCLUSIONS: D combined with intravesical BCG or EBRT proved feasible and safe in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients. Encouraging preliminary efficacy justifies further study of combination therapy approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY: Durvalumab combination therapy can be safely administered to non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients with the goal of increasing durable response rates.

Long-Term Results of a Phase 3 Randomized Prospective Trial of Erectile Tissue-Sparing Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Men With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine whether limiting the doses delivered to the penile bulb (PB) and corporal bodies with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) preserves erectile function compared with standard IMRT in men with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 117 patients with low- to intermediate-risk, clinical T1a-T2c prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in a single-institution, prospective, single-blind, phase 3 randomized trial. All received definitive IMRT to 74 to 80 Gy in 37 to 40 fractions and standard IMRT (s-IMRT) or erectile tissue-sparing IMRT (ETS-IMRT), which placed additional planning constraints that limited the D90 to the penile bulb and corporal bodies to ≤15 Gy and ≤7 Gy, respectively. Erectile potency was assessed with components of the International Index of Erectile Function and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5) medication records. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients received ETS-IMRT, and 54 received s-IMRT; 1 patient did not receive radiation therapy. Before treatment, all patients reported erectile potency. No patients received androgen deprivation therapy. In the intention-to-treat analysis, treatment arms did not differ in potency preservation at 24 months (37.1% ETS-IMRT vs 31.5% s-IMRT, P = .53). Of 85 evaluable patients with International Index of Erectile Function and PDE5 medication follow-up, erectile potency was seen in 47.9% of patients in the ETS-IMRT arm and 46.0% of patients in the s-IMRT arm (P = .86). PDE5 inhibitors were initiated in 41.7% of ETS-IMRT patients and 35.1% of s-IMRT patients (P = .54). Among all patients enrolled, there was no difference in freedom from biochemical failure between those treated with ETS-IMRT and s-IMRT (5-year 91.8% vs 90.7%, respectively, P = .77), with a median follow-up of 7.4 years. There were no differences in acute or late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. An unplanned per-protocol analysis demonstrated no differences in potency preservation or secondary endpoints between patients who exceeded erectile tissue-sparing constraints and those who met constraints, although power was limited by attrition and unplanned dosimetric crossover. CONCLUSIONS: ETS-IMRT that strictly limits dose to the penile bulb and corporal bodies is safe and feasible. Use of this planning technique did not show an effect on potency preservation outcomes at 2 years, though power to detect a difference was limited.

External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis.

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Methodological Comparison of Mapping the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite to EuroQoL-5D-3L Using Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data: Secondary Analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: To compare the predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data. METHODS: This methodological assessment used data from a randomized controlled noninferiority trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer, conducted by NRG Oncology (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773), which examined the efficacy of conventional schedule versus hypofractionated radiation therapy (three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy/IMRT). Health-related quality-of-life data were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ-5D) at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postintervention. Mapping algorithms were estimated using ordinary least squares regression models through five-fold cross-validation in baseline cross-sectional data and combined longitudinal data from all assessment periods; random effects specifications were also estimated in longitudinal data. Predictive performance was compared using root mean square error. Longitudinal predictive ability of models obtained using baseline data was examined using mean absolute differences in the reported and predicted utilities. RESULTS: A total of 267 (and 199) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ-5D and EPIC domain (and subdomain) data at baseline and at all subsequent assessments. Ordinary least squares models using combined data showed better predictive ability (lowest root mean square error) in the validation phase for algorithms with EPIC domain/subdomain data alone, whereas models using baseline data outperformed other specifications in the validation phase when patient covariates were also modeled. The mean absolute differences were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared with EPIC domain data and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased. CONCLUSION: Overall, mapping algorithms obtained using baseline cross-sectional data showed the best predictive performance. Furthermore, these models demonstrated satisfactory longitudinal predictive ability.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. Part III: Principles of Radiation and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part III of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of radiation and offering several future directions of further relevant study in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts I and II for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of active surveillance and surgery and follow-up (Part II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding management of patients using radiation therapy as well as important future directions of research are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of active surveillance and surgery as well as follow-up for patients after primary treatment. Please refer to Parts I and III for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding active surveillance, surgical management, and patient follow-up are detailed. CONCLUSION: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Adverse Events Reported by Patients With Cancer After Administration of a 2-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.

Early Prostate-Specific Antigen Kinetics for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With Definitive Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: This study used a patient-specific model to characterize and compare ideal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer after definitive radiation treatment with conventionally fractionated, hypofractionated, stereotactic body radiation therapy, or brachytherapy, both high-dose and low-dose rate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective analysis includes low- and intermediate-risk patients with prostate cancer treated between 1998 and 2018 at an National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Demographics and treatment characteristics were prospectively collected. Patients had at least 2 PSA measurements within 24 months of treatment and were free from biochemical recurrence. The incidence of, time to, and risk factors for PSA nadir (nPSA) and bounce (bPSA) were analyzed at 24 months after radiation therapy. Ideal PSA kinetics were characterized for each modality and compared. RESULTS: Of 1042 patients, 45% had low-risk cancer, 37% favorable intermediate risk, and 19% unfavorable intermediate risk. nPSAs were higher for ablative modalities, both as absolute nPSA and relative to initial PSA. Median time to nPSA ranged from 14.8 to 17.1 months. Over 50% treated with nonablative therapy (conventionally fractionated, hypofractionated, and low-dose rate) reached an nPSA threshold of ≤0.5 ng/mL compared with 23% of stereotactic body radiation therapy and 33% of high-dose rate cohorts. The incidence of bPSA was 13.3% and not affected by treatment modality, Gleason score, or prostate volume. PSA decay rate was faster for ablative therapies in the 6- to 24-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of PSA within 24 months after radiation therapy revealed ablative therapies are associated with a latent PSA response and higher nPSA. Multivariable logistics modeling revealed younger age, initial PSA above the median, presence of bPSA, and ablative therapy as predictors for not achieving nPSA ≤0.5 ng/mL. PSA decay rate appears to be faster in ablative therapies after a latent period. Understanding the different PSA kinetic profiles is necessary to assess treatment response and survey for disease recurrence.

Salvage Low-Dose-Rate Prostate Brachytherapy: Clinical Outcomes of a Phase 2 Trial for Local Recurrence after External Beam Radiation Therapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG 0526).

PURPOSE: We report efficacy of a prospective phase 2 trial (NCT00450411) of salvage low-dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy (BT) for local failure (LF) after prior external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with minimum 5-years' follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had low/intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) before EBRT and biopsy-proven LF >30 months after EBRT, with prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL and no regional/distant disease. The primary endpoint, late gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0) grade ≥3 were 14%. With minimum 5-year follow-up after salvage BT, secondary clinical outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS; includes death from any cause), disease-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and modelled using Cox proportional hazards regression. Local tumor progression (ie, LF), distant failure (DF), and biochemical failure (BF) were estimated using cumulative incidence. Time to LF, DF, and BF were modeled by cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: From May 2007 to January 2014, 20 centers registered 100 patients (92 analyzable). Median follow-up is 6.7 years (range, 0.3-11.2); median age 70 years (range, 55-82); median prior EBRT dose 74 Gy [interquartile range (IQR):70 - 76] at a median of 85 months prior (IQR 60-119 months). Androgen deprivation was combined with salvage BT in 16%. Ten-year OS is 70% [95% confidence interval (CI) 58% - 83%]. Nineteen patients died (5 PCa, 10 other, 4 unknown). Ten-year failure rates are local 5% (95% CI, 1-11), distant 19% (95% CI, 10-29), and biochemical 46% (95% CI, 34-57). DFS is 61% at 5 years and 33% at 10 years. No baseline characteristic was significantly associated with any clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective multicenter trial reporting outcomes of salvage LDR BT for LF after EBRT. Five-year freedom from BF is 68%, comparable to other salvage modalities. Although further LF is rare (5%), BF climbs to 46% by 10 years.

Clinical Validation of an Alternative Specimen Collection Kit for SARS-CoV-2 Testing at Fox Chase Cancer Center.

Background: Supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic have affected the availability of components for specimen collection kits to detect SARS-CoV-2. Plastic injection molding offers a rapid and cheap method for mass production of swabs for upper respiratory tract sampling. Local production of virus transport medium increases flexibility to assemble sample collection kits if the medium provides appropriate stability for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Methods: A locally produced virus transport medium and a novel injection molded plastic swab were validated for SARS-CoV-2 detection by reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Both components were compared to standard counterparts using viral reference material and representative patient samples. Results: Clinical testing showed no significant differences between molded and flocked swabs. Commercial and in-house virus transport media provided stable test results for over 40 days of specimen storage and showed no differences in test results using patient samples. Conclusions: This collection kit provides new supply chain options for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Patterns of Clinical Progression in Radiorecurrent High-risk Prostate Cancer.

The natural history of radiorecurrent high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) is not well-described. To better understand its clinical course, we evaluated rates of distant metastases (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in a cohort of 978 men with radiorecurrent HRPCa who previously received either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT, n = 654, 67%) or EBRT + brachytherapy (EBRT + BT, n = 324, 33%) across 15 institutions from 1997 to 2015. In men who did not die, median follow-up after treatment was 8.9 yr and median follow-up after biochemical recurrence (BCR) was 3.7 yr. Local and systemic therapy salvage, respectively, were delivered to 21 and 390 men after EBRT, and eight and 103 men after EBRT + BT. Overall, 435 men developed DM, and 248 were detected within 1 yr of BCR. Measured from time of recurrence, 5-yr DM rates were 50% and 34% after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. Measured from BCR, 5-yr PCSM rates were 27% and 29%, respectively. Interval to BCR was independently associated with DM (p < 0.001) and PCSM (p < 0.001). These data suggest that radiorecurrent HRPCa has an aggressive natural history and that DM is clinically evident early after BCR. These findings underscore the importance of further investigations into upfront risk assessment and prompt systemic evaluation upon recurrence in HRPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: High-risk prostate cancer that recurs after radiation therapy is an aggressive disease entity and spreads to other parts of the body (metastases). Some 60% of metastases occur within 1 yr. Approximately 30% of these patients die from their prostate cancer.