Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Impacts the Prognostic Effect of Surgical Margin Status in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Many studies show significantly improved survival after R0 resection compared with R1 resection in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC); however, the effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACRT) on this association is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic significance of positive surgical margins (SMs) after NACRT compared with upfront surgery + adjuvant therapy in PAC. METHODS: All cases of surgically resected PAC at a single institution were reviewed from 1996 to 2014; patients treated with palliative intent, metastatic disease, and biliary/ampullary tumors were excluded. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 300 patients were included; 134 patients received NACRT with concurrent 5-fluorouracil or gemcitabine followed by surgery, and 166 patients received upfront surgery (+ adjuvant chemotherapy in 72% of patients and RT in 65%); 31% of both groups had a positive SM (+SM). The median OS for patients with a +SM or negative SM (-SM) was 26.6 and 31.6 months, respectively for NACRT, and 12.0 and 24.5 months, respectively, for upfront surgery. OS was significantly improved with -SM compared with +SM in both groups (p = 0.006). When resection yielded +SM, NACRT patients had improved OS compared with upfront surgery patients (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, +SM in the upfront surgery group (hazard ratio [HR] 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.04-4.24; p < 0.001) and older age (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.03, per year; p = 0.007) predicted worse OS. +SM in the NACRT group was not associated with worse OS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72-1.65; p = 0.70). CONCLUSION: Patients with a positive margin after NACRT and surgery had longer survival compared with patients with a positive margin after upfront surgery. NACRT should be strongly considered for patients at high risk of R1 resections.

The role of complement in the tumor microenvironment.

Tumorigenesis has long been linked to the evasion of the immune system and the uncontrolled proliferation of transformed cells. The complement system, a major arm of innate immunity, is a key factor in the progression of cancer because many of its components have critical regulatory roles in the tumor microenvironment. For example, complement anaphylatoxins directly and indirectly inhibit antitumor T-cell responses in primary and metastatic sites, enhance proliferation of tumor cells, and promote metastasis and tumor angiogenesis. Many recent studies have provided evidence that cancer is able to hijack the immunoregulatory components of the complement system which fundamentally are tasked with protecting the body against abnormal cells and pathogens. Indeed, recent evidence shows that many types of cancer use C1q receptors (C1qRs) to promote tumor growth and progression. More importantly, most cancer cells express both C1q and its major receptors (gC1qR and cC1qR) on their surface which are essential for cell proliferation and survival. In this review, we discuss the ability of cancer to control and manipulate the complement system in the tumor microenvironment and identify possible therapeutic targets, including C1q and gC1qR.

Impact of Clinical Markers of Nutritional Status and Feeding Jejunostomy Use on Outcomes in Esophageal Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with esophageal cancer (EC) have high rates of malnutrition due to tumor location and treatment-related toxicity. Various strategies are used to improve nutritional status in patients with EC including oral and enteral support. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis to determine the impact of malnutrition and prophylactic feeding jejunostomy tube (FJT) placement on toxicity and outcomes in patients with localized EC who were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy. RESULTS: We identified 125 patients who were treated with nCRT between 2002 and 2014. Weight loss and hypoalbuminemia occurred frequently during nCRT and were associated with multiple adverse toxicity outcomes including hematologic toxicity, nonhematologic toxicity, grade ≥3 toxicity, and hospitalizations. After adjusting for relevant covariates including the specific nCRT chemotherapy regimen received and the onset of toxicity, there were no significant associations between hypoalbuminemia, weight loss, or FJT placement and relapse-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS). FJT placement was associated with less weight loss during nCRT (p = 0.003) but was not associated with reduced toxicity or improved survival. CONCLUSIONS: Weight and albumin loss during nCRT for EC are important factors relating to treatment toxicity but not RFS or OS. While pretreatment FJT placement may reduce weight loss, it may not impact treatment tolerance or survival.

Predictors of Distant Recurrence Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize patients at an increased risk of distant metastasis (DM) following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients undergoing SBRT for stage I NSCLC between 2005 and 2016. Patients with a prior lung cancer diagnosis, receiving a biological effective dose <100 Gy, or receiving chemotherapy were excluded. Patients underwent pretreatment staging and were classified according to the American Joint Committee for Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition staging. The primary endpoint was DM. The Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival analysis and to identify predictors of DM. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients were included, with a median age 75 years (range, 49 to 96 y) and a median follow-up of 24 months (range, 3 to 123 mo). The 2- and 4-year cumulative incidences of DM were 14.2% and 19.1%, respectively. Patients who developed DM had worse overall survival versus patients developing a locoregional recurrence (P=0.023). On multivariable analysis, having stage IB disease (hazard ratio: 2.95; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-8.23; P=0.039) or a lower/middle lobe tumor (hazard ratio: 2.67; 95% confidence interval: 1.07-6.69; P=0.036) was associated with increased risk of DM. The 2-year cumulative incidences of DM were 10.9% and 35.7% (P=0.002) for patients with stage IA versus IB tumors, respectively, and 11.3% and 19.7% (P=0.049) for patients with upper lobe versus lower/middle lobe tumors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage IB disease or lower/middle lobe tumors may have an increased risk of DM following SBRT. Randomized controlled trials are needed to further identify patients who may benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy after SBRT for stage I NSCLC.

Treatment-related toxicity and outcomes in older versus younger patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy is the standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Older patients are often felt to be poor candidates for nCRT. Limited data is available to guide the use of nCRT in this population. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients treated at a tertiary cancer center between 2002 and 2014 was conducted grouping patients by age (≥ 65 or < 65) for evaluation of differences in toxicity and outcomes. Evaluation of pre-treatment platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was also performed. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate analyses (MVA) determined associations between age, toxicities and outcomes. The Kaplan-Meier method (KM) assessed overall survival (OS) and relapse free survival (RFS). RESULTS: 125 patients were identified for this study (67 aging <65, and 58 ≥ 65). In the UVA, advanced age was only associated with increased hematologic toxicity (p = .04). After adjusting for covariates in the MVA, there were no significant differences in toxicity between older and younger patients. There were also no differences between overall survival and relapse free survival between age groups. Increased pre-treatment NLR was strongly correlated with advanced age (p = .01), increased hospitalizations (p = .04), and decreased RFS (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients who underwent nCRT followed by esophagectomy had similar toxicities and outcomes as younger patients suggesting that nCRT before esophagectomy is safe in select older adults with esophageal cancer. PLR and NLR may serve as prognostic markers of aging, toxicity, and outcomes. Further research is warranted to optimize the therapy of older patients with this disease.

Prostate-only Versus Whole-pelvis Radiation with or Without a Brachytherapy Boost for Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of elective whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) remains controversial. Few studies have investigated it in Gleason grade group (GG) 5 prostate cancer (PCa), known to have a high risk of nodal metastases. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of WPRT on patients with GG 5 PCa treated with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 1170 patients with biopsy-proven GG 5 PCa from 11 centers in the United States and one in Norway treated between 2000 and 2013 (734 with EBRT and 436 with EBRT+BT). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were compared using Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score adjustment. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 299 EBRT patients (41%) and 320 EBRT+BT patients (73%) received WPRT. The adjusted 5-yr bRFS rates with WPRT in the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 66% and 88%, respectively. Without WPRT, these rates for the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 58% and 78%, respectively. The median follow-up was 5.6yr. WPRT was associated with improved bRFS among patients treated with EBRT+BT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.9, p=0.02), but no evidence for improvement was found in those treated with EBRT (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.2, p=0.4). WPRT was not significantly associated with improved DMFS or PCSS in the EBRT group (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.7, p=0.8 for DMFS and HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p=0.1 for PCSS), or in the EBRT+BT group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.4, p=0.2 for DMFS and HR 0.5 95% CI 0.2-1.2, p=0.1 for PCSS). CONCLUSIONS: WPRT was not associated with improved PCSS or DMFS in patients with GG 5 PCa who received either EBRT or EBRT+BT. However, WPRT was associated with a significant improvement in bRFS among patients receiving EBRT+BT. Strategies to optimize WPRT, potentially with the use of advanced imaging techniques to identify occult nodal disease, are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: When men with a high Gleason grade prostate cancer receive radiation with external radiation and brachytherapy, the addition of radiation to the pelvis results in a longer duration of prostate-specific antigen control. However, we did not find a difference in their survival from prostate cancer or in their survival without metastatic disease. We also did not find a benefit for radiation to the pelvis in men who received radiation without brachytherapy.

Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Gleason Score 10 Prostate Adenocarcinoma: Results From a Multi-institutional Consortium Study.

PURPOSE: Gleason score (GS) 10 disease is the most aggressive form of clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa). The long-term clinical outcomes and overall prognosis of patients presenting with GS 10 PCa are largely unknown because of its rarity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study included 112 patients with biopsy-determined GS 10 PCa who received treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP, n = 26), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT, n = 48), or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-BT, n = 38) between 2000 and 2013. Propensity scores were included as covariates for comparative analysis. Overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method with inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for confounding. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 4.9 years overall (3.9 years for RP, 4.8 years for EBRT, and 5.7 years for EBRT-BT). Significantly more EBRT patients than EBRT-BT patients received upfront androgen deprivation therapy (98% vs 79%, P < .01 by χ2 test), though the durations were similar (median, 24 months vs 22.5 months). Of the RP patients, 34% received postoperative EBRT, and 35% received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. The propensity score-adjusted 5-year overall survival rate was 80% for the RP group, 73% for the EBRT group, and 83% for the EBRT-BT group. The corresponding adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific survival rates were 87%, 75%, and 94%, respectively. The EBRT-BT group trended toward superior DMFS when compared with the RP group (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval 0.1-1.06; P = .06) and had superior DMFS when compared with the EBRT group (hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval 0.1-0.99; P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest series ever reported on the clinical outcomes of patients with biopsy-determined GS 10 PCa. These data provide useful prognostic benchmark information for physicians and patients. Aggressive therapy with curative intent is warranted, as >50% of patients remain free of systemic disease 5 years after treatment.

Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, or External Beam Radiotherapy With Brachytherapy Boost and Disease Progression and Mortality in Patients With Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer.

Importance: The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes. Results: Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.68] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.71]). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 [95% CI, 0.17-0.43] for RP and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19-0.47] for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96] for RP and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84] for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67-1.26], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.80-1.44], and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.85-2.11]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.

Impact of Radiation Therapy Dose Escalation on Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Toxicities.

OBJECTIVES: Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) is a common primary outcome of randomized-controlled trials of prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to determine how increasing the PCa biologically equivalent dose (BED) of external radiation therapy (RT) is correlated with FFBF and overall patient outcomes: overall survival (OS), distant metastasis (DM), and cancer-specific mortality (CSM); as well as genitourinary (GU), and gastrointestinal toxicities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of 6884 PCa patients from 12 randomized-controlled trials of external beam RT. Mixed effects regression models were used to estimate weighted linear relationships between BED and observed percentages of 5- and 10-year outcomes. For toxicities, a subset analysis of using 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) versus intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) was performed. RESULTS: Increasing BED correlated with improved FFBF: 10-year absolute improvement of 9.6% and 7.2% for low-risk and intermediate-risk patients, respectively (P<0.05); but not with improvement of OS, DM, or CSM at either time point. BED escalation was not correlated with increased acute toxicities; it was correlated with increased late gastrointestinal toxicities in patients treated with 3D-CRT (1.5% increase over BED range, P<0.01). IMRT patients had significantly fewer late toxicities, despite being treated at higher BED. CONCLUSIONS: RT BED escalation has resulted in significantly improved PCa FFBF at up to 10 years; but not with improvement in OS, DM, or CSM. Thus, FFBF is a poor surrogate of overall patient outcomes for trials of RT. Late toxicities were less frequent with IMRT than with 3D-CRT, even at higher BED.

Predictors of Hematologic Toxicity and Chemotherapy Dose Intensity in Patients Undergoing Chemoradiation for Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been shown to decrease abdominal toxicity in patients undergoing chemoradiation (CRT) for pancreatic cancer. We evaluated whether IMRT impacts the rates of hematologic toxicity and chemotherapy dose intensity in patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer undergoing CRT between 2006 and 2012. Exclusion criteria included receipt of non-gemcitabine therapy, chemotherapy before CRT, or abnormal baseline hematologic indices. Endpoints included total gemcitabine dose received, dose intensity, unplanned dose reductions, and hematologic toxicity (WBC, ANC, platelet, and hemoglobin). Patient/treatment factors were evaluated for their relationship to the above endpoints during CRT and within the first 3 months post-CRT. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher exact test and regression models. Because of the multiple comparisons in the presented analysis, a false discovery rate adjustment was performed at the 5% false discovery rate level. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-eight (68.2%) patients received treatment with IMRT, and 27 (31.8%) patients were treated with 3D-conformal radiation. During CRT, there was no relationship between radiation technique and gemcitabine dose received, dose intensity, or hematologic grade 3+ toxicity. Post-CRT, there was no relationship between radiation technique and total gemcitabine dose received, dose intensity, or dose reduction. Patients receiving IMRT were more likely to have ANC grade 3+ toxicity (P=0.007) post-CRT, although this was no longer statistically significant after correction. There were no other relationships between treatment technique and hematologic toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT technique may be associated with higher hematologic toxicity in patients undergoing CRT for pancreatic cancer. Given the expanding use of CRT, additional study is needed to identify the impact of IMRT on myelosuppression in these patients.

Mismatch Repair Deficiency Testing in Patients With Colorectal Cancer and Nonadherence to Testing Guidelines in Young Adults.

IMPORTANCE: Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency of DNA has been observed in up to 15% of sporadic colorectal cancers (CRCs) and is a characteristic feature of Lynch syndrome, which has a higher incidence in young adults (age, <50 years) with CRC. Mismatch repair deficiency can be due to germline mutations or epigenetic inactivation, affects prognosis and response to systemic therapy, and results in unrepaired repetitive DNA sequences, which increases the risk of multiple malignant tumors. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utilization of MMR deficiency testing in adults with CRC and analyze nonadherence to long-standing testing guidelines in younger adults using a contemporary national data set to help identify potential risk factors for nonadherence to newly implemented universal testing guidelines. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult (age, <30 to ≥70 years) and, of these, younger adult (<30 to 49 years) patients with invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2010 and 2012 and known MMR deficiency testing status were identified using the National Cancer Database. The study was conducted from March 16, 2016, to March 1, 2017. EXPOSURES: Patient sociodemographic, facility, tumor, and treatment characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was receipt of MMR deficiency testing. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of testing in adult and/or young adult patients. RESULTS: A total of 152 993 adults with CRC were included in the study (78 579 [51.4%] men; mean [SD] age, 66.9 [13.9] years). Of these patients, only 43 143 (28.2%) underwent MMR deficiency testing; the proportion of patients tested increased between 2010 and 2012 (22.3% vs 33.1%; P<.001). Among 17 218 younger adult patients with CRC, only 7422 (43.1%) underwent MMR deficiency testing; the proportion tested increased between 2010 and 2012 (36.1% vs 48.0%; P < .001). Irrespective of age, higher educational level (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.15-1.66), later diagnosis year (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.65-1.98), early stage disease (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18-1.30), and number of regional lymph nodes examined (≥12) (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.34-1.55) were independently associated with MMR deficiency testing, whereas older age (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.26-0.37); Medicare (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95), Medicaid (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93), or uninsured (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.92) status; nonacademic vs academic/research facility type (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.56); rectosigmoid or rectal tumor location (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.86); unknown grade (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69); and nonreceipt of definitive surgery (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.30-0.37) were associated with underuse of MMR deficiency testing. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite recent endorsement of universal use of MMR deficiency testing in patients with CRC and well-established guidelines aimed at high-risk populations, overall utilization of testing is poor and significant underuse of testing among young adults persists. Interventions tailored to groups at risk for nonadherence to guidelines may be warranted in the current era of universal testing.

Impact of rheumatoid arthritis on radiation-related toxicity and cosmesis in breast cancer patients: a contemporary matched-pair analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on toxicity and cosmesis in women undergoing radiotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: We queried an institutional database for women with RA treated with external beam radiotherapy for breast cancer between 1981 and 2016. Matching each patient to three controls without RA was attempted. Radiation toxicity was graded using CTCAE 4.0. Cosmesis was graded using the Global Harris Scoring System of Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. Grade 2+ (G2+) acute and late toxicities were compared between women with RA and their matched pairs using a generalized estimating equation (GEE). Wilcoxon test and mixed effects model were used to compare the cosmesis between two groups. RESULTS: Forty women with RA at time of radiation were matched to 117 controls. The median radiation dose was 60 Gy (50-66 Gy) and the median follow-up was 94 months (1-354 months). When comparing the women with RA to their matched pairs, there was no significant difference in the rates of G2+ acute toxicity (25.0 vs. 13.7%, O 2.1, CI 0.91-4.9) or G2+ late toxicity (7.5 vs. 4.3%, OR 1.8, CI 0.48-6.8). Mean cosmesis was between Good and Excellent for both groups of patients, although women with RA were less likely to get Excellent cosmesis compared to their matched pairs (OR 0.35, CI 0.15-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with RA, radiation for breast cancer was well tolerated without significantly increased toxicity. Their cosmesis was generally Good to Excellent, although they might be less likely to get Excellent cosmesis compared to their matched pairs.

Optimal Use of Combined Modality Therapy in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer.

Esophageal cancer is associated with a poor prognosis with 5-year survival rates of approximately 15% to 20%. Although patients with early stage disease may adequately be treated with a single modality, combined therapy typically consisting of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy is being adopted increasingly in patients with locally advanced disease. In patients who are not surgical candidates, definitive chemoradiation is the preferred treatment approach. All patients with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer should be evaluated in the multidisciplinary setting by a surgeon, radiation oncologist, and medical oncologist owing to the importance of each specialty in the management of these patients.

Therapeutic management options for stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Majority of newly diagnosed lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), of which up to half are considered locally advanced at the time of diagnosis. Patients with locally advanced stage III NSCLC consists of a heterogeneous population, making management for these patients complex. Surgery has long been the preferred local treatment for patients with resectable disease. For select patients, multi-modality therapy involving systemic and radiation therapies in addition to surgery improves treatment outcomes compared to surgery alone. For patients with unresectable disease, concurrent chemoradiation is the preferred treatment. More recently, research into different chemotherapy agents, targeted therapies, radiation fractionation schedules, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton therapy have shown promise to improve treatment outcomes and quality of life. The array of treatment approaches for locally advanced NSCLC is large and constantly evolving. An updated review of past and current literature for the roles of surgery, chemotherapeutic agents, radiation therapy, and targeted therapy for stage III NSCLC patients are presented.

Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Phase 3 Randomized Prospective Trial of Conventional Versus Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the long-term quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a phase 3 trial comparing 2 modes of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): conventional IMRT (CIMRT) versus hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2002 and 2006, 303 men with low-risk to high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to 76 Gy in 38 fractions (CIMRT) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (HIMRT). QoL was compared by use of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and EuroQoL (EQ5D) questionnaires. The primary outcome of the QoL analysis was a minimum clinically important difference defined as a 0.5 standard deviation change from baseline for each respective QoL parameter. Treatment effects were evaluated with the use of logistic mixed effects regression models. RESULTS: A total of 286, 299, and 218 patients had baseline EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D data available and were included in the analysis. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment arms in terms of EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D scores over time, although there was a trend toward lower EPIC urinary incontinence scores in the HIMRT arm. More patients in the HIMRT arm had a lower EPIC urinary incontinence score relative to baseline versus patients in the CIMRT arm with long-term follow-up. On multivariable analysis, there was no association between radiation fractionation scheme and any QoL parameter. When other clinical factors were examined, lymph node radiation was associated with worse EPIC hormonal scores versus patients receiving no lymph node radiation. In general, QoL outcomes were generally stable over time, with the exception of EPIC hormonal and EQ5D scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized prospective study, there were stable QoL changes in patients receiving HIMRT or CIMRT. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that HIMRT may be an acceptable treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer.

Prostate Cancer Patients With Unmanaged Diabetes or Receiving Insulin Experience Inferior Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment With Radiation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on outcomes and toxicities among men with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 3217 patients, from 1998 to 2013, subdivided into 5 subgroups: (I) no T2DM; (II) T2DM receiving oral antihyperglycemic agent that contains metformin, no insulin; (III) T2DM receiving nonmetformin oral agent alone, no insulin; (IV) T2DM receiving any insulin; and (V) T2DM not receiving medication. Outcome measures were overall survival, freedom from biochemical failure (BF), freedom from distant metastasis, cancer-specific survival, and toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log rank tests, Fine and Gray competing risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), Cox models, and subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) were used. RESULTS: Of the 3217 patients, 1295 (40%) were low-risk, 1192 (37%) were intermediate-risk, and 652 (20%) were high risk. The group I to V distribution was 81%, 8%, 5%, 3%, and 4%. The median dose was 78 Gy, and the median follow-up time was 50 (range, 1-190) months. Group V had increased mortality (sHR, 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.54), BF (sHR, 2.14; 0.88-1.83), and cause-specific mortality (sHR, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.31-11). Acute toxicities were higher in group IV versus group I (genitourinary: 38% vs. 26%; P = .01; gastrointestinal: 21% vs. 5%; P = 001). Late toxicities were higher in groups IV and V versus group I (12%-14% vs. 2%-6%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Men with T2DM not receiving medication and men with T2DM receiving insulin had worse outcomes and toxicities compared to other patients.

Clinical Outcomes for Patients with Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Adenocarcinoma Treated With Radiotherapy or Radical Prostatectomy: A Multi-institutional Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The long natural history of prostate cancer (CaP) limits comparisons of efficacy between radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), since patients treated years ago received treatments considered suboptimal by modern standards (particularly with regards to androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] and radiotherapy dose-escalation]. Gleason score (GS) 9-10 CaP is particularly aggressive, and clinically-relevant endpoints occur early, facilitating meaningful comparisons. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of patients with GS 9-10 CaP following EBRT, extremely-dose escalated radiotherapy (as exemplified by EBRT+brachytherapy [EBRT+BT]), and RP. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of 487 patients with biopsy GS 9-10 CaP treated between 2000 and 2013 (230 with EBRT, 87 with EBRT+BT, and 170 with RP). Most radiotherapy patients received ADT and dose-escalated radiotherapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression estimated and compared 5-yr and 10-yr rates of distant metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up was 4.6 yr. Local salvage and systemic salvage were performed more frequently in RP patients (49.0% and 30.1%) when compared with either EBRT patients (0.9% and 19.7%) or EBRT+BT patients (1.2% and 16.1%, p<0.0001). Five-yr and 10-yr distant metastasis-free survival rates were significantly higher with EBRT+BT (94.6% and 89.8%) than with EBRT (78.7% and 66.7%, p=0.0005) or RP (79.1% and 61.5%, p<0.0001). The 5-yr and 10-yr CSS and OS rates were similar across all three cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy and RP provide equivalent CSS and OS. Extremely dose-escalated radiotherapy with ADT in particular offers improved systemic control when compared with either EBRT or RP. These data suggest that extremely dose-escalated radiotherapy with ADT might be the optimal upfront treatment for patients with biopsy GS 9-10 CaP. PATIENT SUMMARY: While some prostate cancers are slow-growing requiring many years, sometimes decades, of follow-up in order to compare between radiation and surgery, high-risk and very aggressive cancers follow a much shorter time course allowing such comparisons to be made and updated as treatments, especially radiation, rapidly evolve. We showed that radiation-based treatments and surgery, with contemporary standards, offer equivalent survival for patients with very aggressive cancers (defined as Gleason score 9-10). Extremely-dose escalated radiotherapy with short-course androgen deprivation therapy offered the least risk of developing metastases, and equivalent long term survival.

The Impact of Radiation Treatment Time on Survival in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of radiation treatment time (RTT) in head and neck cancers on overall survival (OS) in the era of chemoradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with diagnoses of tongue, hypopharynx, larynx, oropharynx, or tonsil cancer were identified by use of the National Cancer Database. RTT was defined as date of first radiation treatment to date of last radiation treatment. In the definitive setting, prolonged RTT was defined as >56 days, accelerated RTT was defined as <47 days, and standard RTT was defined as 47 to 56 days. In the postoperative setting, prolonged RTT was defined as >49 days, accelerated RTT was defined as <40 days, and standard RTT was defined as 40 to 49 days. We used χ2 tests to identify predictors of RTT. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare OS among groups. Cox proportional hazards model was used for OS analysis in patients with known comorbidity status. RESULTS: 19,531 patients were included; 12,987 (67%) had a standard RTT, 4,369 (34%) had an accelerated RTT, and 2,165 (11%) had a prolonged RTT. On multivariable analysis, accelerated RTT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.97) was associated with an improved OS, and prolonged RTT (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14-1.37) was associated with a worse OS relative to standard RTT. When the 9,200 (47%) patients receiving definitive concurrent chemoradiation were examined, prolonged RTT (HR 1.29; 95% CI 1.11-1.50) was associated with a worse OS relative to standard RTT, whereas there was no significant association between accelerated RTT and OS (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.57-1.01). CONCLUSION: Prolonged RTT is associated with worse OS in patients receiving radiation therapy for head and neck cancer, even in the setting of chemoradiation. Expeditious completion of radiation should continue to be a quality metric for the management of head and neck malignancies.

Comparison of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy treatment options for prostate cancer.

We review radiation therapy (RT) options available for prostate cancer, including external beam (EBRT; with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, stereotactic body RT [SBRT]) and brachytherapy (BT), with an emphasis on the outcomes, toxicities, and contraindications for therapies. PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015) that included men treated on prospective studies with a primary endpoint of patient outcomes, with ⩾70 patients, and ⩾5year median follow up. Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 16 used EBRT, and 10 used BT. Long-term freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were roughly equivalent between conventional and hypofractionated RT with intensity modulation (evidence level 1B), with 10-year FFBF rates of 45-90%, 40-60%, and 20-50% (for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively). SBRT had promising rates of BF, with shorter follow-up (5-year FFBF of >90% for low-risk patients). Similarly, BT (5-year FFBF for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients have generally been >85%, 69-97%, 63-80%, respectively) and BT+EBRT were appropriate in select patients (evidence level 1B). Differences in overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer specific mortality (5-year rates: 82-97%, 1-14%, 0-8%, respectively) have not been detected in randomized trials of dose escalation or in studies comparing RT modalities. Studies did not use patient-reported outcomes, through Grade 3-4 toxicities were rare (<5%) among all modalities. There was limited evidence available to compare proton therapy to other modalities. The treatment decision for a man is usually based on his risk group, ability to tolerate the procedure, convenience for the patient, and the anticipated impact on quality of life. To further personalize therapy, future trials should report (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education status; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics.

Dosimetric predictors of hematologic toxicity in patients undergoing concurrent gemcitabine-based chemoradiation for localized pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to identify parameters associated with hematologic toxicity or chemotherapy dose modification in patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with gemcitabine for localized pancreatic cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed patients with localized pancreatic cancer undergoing CRT between 2006 and 2012. Exclusion criteria included receipt of nongemcitabine therapy, chemotherapy before CRT, or abnormal baseline hematologic indices. The T11-L3 vertebrae were contoured as bone marrow region at risk. Linear and logistic regression models were used to test associations between dosimetric parameters and gemcitabine dose modification or hematologic toxicity during or within 3 months following CRT. Receiver operator curves were generated to identify threshold doses for hematologic toxicity. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were included. During CRT, the maximum thoracolumbar dose was associated with grade 2+ neutropenia during CRT (P = .017) and the volume receiving 5 Gy (V5) was associated with grade 2+ leukopenia (P = .041). Post-CRT, thoracolumbar mean dose (P = .015), V5 (P = .01), and V10 (P = .012) were associated with increased grade 2+ neutropenia. On multivariable analysis, the thoracolumbar maximum dose (P = .045) and V5 (P = .045) were associated with grade 2+ neutropenia and grade 2+ leukopenia during CRT, respectively. Post-CRT, the mean dose (P = .046), V5 (P = .019), and V10 (P = .037) were associated with increased grade 2+ neutropenia. A maximum dose of 48.02 Gy and V5 of 57.6% were identified as predictors of toxicity during CRT. A V5 of 56.6%, V10 of 47.05%, and mean dose of 11.67 Gy were identified as predictors of post-CRT hematologic toxicity. Post-CRT, there was a trend toward increased dose modifications with increased V5 (P = .065). CONCLUSIONS: In our dataset, the thoracolumbar mean dose, maximum dose, V5, and V10 correlated with hematologic toxicity during CRT and post-CRT in patients with localized pancreatic cancer. Because of the high rates of distant failure and importance of systemic therapy in these patients, this may be an important consideration during treatment planning.