The Role of Axillary Lymph Node Dissection versus Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection in Breast Cancer Patients with Clinical N2b-N3c Disease Who Receive Adjuvant Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: For breast cancer with advanced regional lymph node involvement, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) remains the standard of care for staging and treating the axilla despite the presence of undissected lymph nodes. The benefit of ALND in this setting is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe national patterns of care of axillary surgery and its association with overall survival (OS) among women with cN2b-N3c breast cancer who receive adjuvant radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified female patients with cN2b-N3c breast cancer from 2012 to 2017 from the National Cancer Database. Clinical and demographic information were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sum and χ2 tests. Predictors of receipt of ALND and predictors of death were identified with multivariable logistic regression modeling. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was implemented to adjust for differences in treatment cohorts. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate OS. RESULTS: We identified 7167 patients. Of these, 922 (13%) received SLNB and 6254 (87%) received ALND; 7% were cN2b, 19% cN3a, 24% cN3b, 19% cN3c, and 31% cN3, not otherwise specified. Predictors of receipt of ALND were age 50-69 years [odds ratio (OR) 1.3, p < 0.01], cN3a (OR 7.6, p < 0.01), cN3b (OR 2.8, p < 0.01), and cN3c (OR 4.2, p < 0.01). Predictors of death included cN3c (OR 1.9, p < 0.01), age 70-90 years (OR 1.5, p = 0.01), and positive surgical margins (OR 1.5, p < 0.01). After cohort balancing, ALND was not associated with improved OS when compared with SLNB (HR 0.99, p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: ALND in patients with advanced nodal disease was not associated with improved survival compared with SLNB for women who receive adjuvant radiotherapy.

Pre-operative vs. post-operative stereotactic radiosurgery for operative metastatic brain tumors: study protocol for a phase III clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Almost one third of cancer patients in the United States will develop brain metastases on an annual basis. Surgical resection is indicated in the setting of brain metastases for reasons, such as maximizing local control in select patients, decompression of mass effect, and/or tissue diagnosis. The current standard of care following resection of a brain metastasis has shifted from whole brain radiation therapy to post-operative stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). However, there is a significant rate of local recurrence within one year of postoperative SRS. Emerging retrospective and prospective data suggest pre-operative SRS is a safe and potentially effective treatment paradigm for surgical brain metastases. This trial intends to determine, for patients with an indication for resection of a brain metastasis, whether there is an increase in the time to a composite endpoint of adverse outcomes; including the first occurrence of either: local recurrence, leptomeningeal disease, or symptomatic radiation brain necrosis - in patients who receive pre-operative SRS as compared to patients who receive post-operative SRS. METHODS: This randomized phase III clinical trial compares pre-operative with post-operative SRS for brain metastases. A dynamic random allocation procedure will allocate an equal number of patients to each arm: pre-operative SRS followed by surgery or surgery followed by post-operative SRS. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: If pre-operative SRS improves outcomes relative to post-operative SRS, this will establish pre-operative SRS as superior. If post-operative SRS proves superior to pre-operative SRS, it will remain a standard of care and halt the increasing utilization of pre-operative SRS. If there is no difference in pre- versus post-operative SRS, then pre-operative SRS may still be preferred, given patient convenience and the potential for a condensed timeline. DISCUSSION: Emerging retrospective and prospective data have demonstrated some benefits of pre-op SRS vs. post-op SRS. This study will show whether there is an increase in the time to the composite endpoint. Additionally, the study will compare overall survival; patient-reported outcomes; morbidity; completion of planned therapies; time to systemic therapy; time to regional progression; time to CNS progression; time to subsequent treatment; rate of radiation necrosis; rate of local recurrence; and rate of leptomeningeal disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03750227 (Registration date: 21/11/2018).

Management of Pathologic Node-Positive Prostate Cancer following Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Approximately 15% of prostate cancer patients have lymph node metastases at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP). However, there is no universally accepted standard of care for these men. The options for treatment in this subset of patients range from observation to a combination of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (aADT) and radiation therapy (RT). RECENT FINDINGS: A recent systematic review showed that there was no clear choice out of the options above to treat these patients. Studies have shown that patients treated with adjuvant radiation therapy have lower all-cause mortality when compared to patients treated with salvage radiation therapy. In this review, we summarize treatment options for pathologic node-positive (pN1) patients and discuss the urgent need for robust clinical trials that includes observation as the control group to help establish a standard of care for treating patients with node-positive prostate cancer after RP.

The outcome of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with high-risk T1 rectal cancer.

Introduction: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is considered the technique of choice for adenoma and low-risk T1 rectal cancer. The adequacy of such treatment for high-risk T1 tumours, however, is still controversial. The aim of the study is to evaluate our results with local excision of high-risk T1 cancers. and Methods: Demographic, clinical data pertaining to patients undergoing TEM for T1 rectal cancer between 1999 and 2015 was retrospectively collected. Long-term outcomes were assessed for the entire cohort. Patients were classified into two groups: favourable and high-risk cancer features. Results: Three hundred and fifty-five TEM procedures were recorded in the study period. Forty-three patients were included in the present study. There were 20 females and 23 males, the median age was 69 ± 9. The median tumour distance from the anal verge was 6 cm (range 1-13 cm). Post-operative histopathology showed well/moderately differentiated T1 adenocarcinoma in 30 patients and poorly differentiated in 13. The overall survival for patients with favourable and high-risk features groups were 93.5% and 77%, respectively, while the local recurrence (LR) was 3.5% and 23.1%, respectively. Nine patients with high-risk features received adjuvant radiotherapy; one (11.1%) of them experienced LR. Conclusions: Local excision by TEM augmented by adjuvant radiotherapy may be a feasible alternative for selected patients with high-risk T1 rectal cancer. The addition of radiotherapy seems to decrease the rates of LR.

Navigator-assisted hypofractionation (NAVAH) to address radiation therapy access disparities facing African-Americans with breast cancer.

Background: African-Americans have the highest overall cancer death rate and shortest survival time of any racial or ethnic group in the United States. The most common cancer studied in African-American radiation therapy (RT) access disparities research is breast cancer. The goal of this study is to evaluate the impact of patient navigation on RT access for African-American breast cancer patients. Material and methods: This study is a prospective survey-based evaluation of the impact of patient navigation on access to hypofractionated RT and financial toxicity in African-American breast cancer patients. The impact of patient navigation on RT access will be collated and analyzed from survey results pre-RT versus post-RT as well as for patients with versus without receipt of patient navigation. The validated COST-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy score will be used to compare hypofractionation versus standard fractionated RT financial toxicity for patients with early-stage breast cancer who have received lumpectomy. Conclusion: This is the first study to investigate the impact of patient navigation on reducing RT access disparities facing African-American breast cancer patients. The natural progression of this work will be to expand this model to include additional breast cancer populations most vulnerable to suffering RT access disparities (Native American, Hispanic American, Appalachian) within the United States.

Intraoperative radiotherapy boost as part of breast-conservation therapy for breast cancer: a single-institution retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no data from randomized controlled trials on the use of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) as a tumor bed boost as part of a breast-conservation approach for breast cancer. This study retrospectively reviewed the safety and efficacy of IORT as a boost treatment at a tertiary cancer center. METHODS: From 2015 to 2019, patients underwent breast-conserving surgery with axillary lymph node staging and a single dose of 20 Gy IORT with 50-kV photons, followed by whole-breast irradiation (WBI) and adjuvant systemic therapy (if applicable). Patients were followed for assessment of acute and late toxicities (using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0) at 3-6-month intervals. Outcomes included ipsilateral (IBTR) and contralateral breast progression-free survival (CBE), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Median follow-up for the 214 patients was 28 (range 2-59) months. Most patients had T1 disease (n = 124) and were clinically node negative. Only few patients had high-grade and/or triple-negative disease. The vast majority of patients underwent sentinel node biopsy, and 32 (15%) required re-resection for initially positive margins. Finally, all tumor bed margins were clear. Nine (4.2%) and 48 (22.4%) patients underwent neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, respectively. WBI was predominantly performed as conventionally fractionated WBI (n = 187, 87.4%), and the median time from BCS to WBI was 54.5 days. IORT was delivered with a single dose of 20 Gy. The median WBI dose was 50 Gy (range 29.4-50.4 Gy). No patients experienced grade 4 events; acute grade 3 toxicities were limited to 17 (8%) cases of radiation dermatitis. Postoperative toxicities were mild. After WBI only one case of late grade ≥ 2 events was reported. There were two recurrences in the tumor bed and one contralateral breast event. CONCLUSION: This investigation provides additional preliminary data supporting the using of IORT in the boost setting and corroborates the existing literature. These encouraging results should be prospectively validated by the eventual publication of randomized studies such as TARGIT­B.

Beyond Sedlis-A novel histology-specific nomogram for predicting cervical cancer recurrence risk: An NRG/GOG ancillary analysis.

PURPOSE: The Sedlis criteria define risk factors for recurrence warranting post-hysterectomy radiation for early-stage cervical cancer; however, these factors were defined for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) at an estimated recurrence risk of ≥30%. Our study evaluates and compares risk factors for recurrence for cervical SCC compared with adenocarcinoma (AC) and develops histology-specific nomograms to estimate risk of recurrence and guide adjuvant treatment. METHODS: We performed an ancillary analysis of GOG 49, 92, and 141, and included stage I patients who were surgically managed and received no neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate independent risk factors for recurrence by histology and to generate prognostic histology-specific nomograms for 3-year recurrence risk. RESULTS: We identified 715 patients with SCC and 105 with AC; 20% with SCC and 17% with AC recurred. For SCC, lymphvascular space invasion (LVSI: HR 1.58, CI 1.12-2.22), tumor size (TS ≥4 cm: HR 2.67, CI 1.67-4.29), and depth of invasion (DOI; middle 1/3, HR 4.31, CI 1.81-10.26; deep 1/3, HR 7.05, CI 2.99-16.64) were associated with recurrence. For AC, only TS ≥4 cm, was associated with recurrence (HR 4.69, CI 1.25-17.63). For both histologies, there was an interaction effect between TS and LVSI. For those with SCC, DOI was most associated with recurrence (16% risk); for AC, TS conferred a 15% risk with negative LVSI versus a 25% risk with positive LVSI. CONCLUSIONS: Current treatment standards are based on the Sedlis criteria, specifically derived from data on SCC. However, risk factors for recurrence differ for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Histology-specific nomograms accurately and linearly represent risk of recurrence for both SCC and AC tumors and may provide a more contemporary and tailored tool for clinicians to base adjuvant treatment recommendations to their patients with cervical cancer.

Socioeconomic inequality and omission of adjuvant radiation therapy in high-risk, early-stage endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Gaps in access to appropriate cancer care, and associated cancer mortality, have widened across socioeconomic groups. We examined whether demographic and socioeconomic factors influenced receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) in patients with high-risk, early-stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: A retrospective study cohort was selected from 349,404 endometrial carcinoma patients from the National Cancer Database in whom adjuvant RT would be recommended per national guidelines. The study included surgically treated patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer with one of the following criteria: 1) FIGO 2009 stage IB, grade 1/2 disease, age ≥ 60 years; 2) stage IB, grade 3 disease; or 3) stage II disease. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with omission of adjuvant RT. Association between adjuvant RT, covariables, and overall survival (OS) was assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 19,594 patients were eligible for analysis; 47% did not receive adjuvant RT. Omission of adjuvant RT was more prevalent among African-American, Hispanic, and Asian compared to non-Hispanic white patients (OR 0.79, 95%CI: 0.69-0.91; OR 0.75, 95%CI: 0.64-0.87; OR 0.75, 95%CI: 0.60-0.94, respectively). Lower median household income of patient's area of residence, lack of health insurance, treatment at non-academic hospitals, farther distance to treatment facilities, and residence in metropolitan counties were associated with omission of adjuvant RT. Such omission was independently associated with worse OS (HR1.43, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant RT is omitted in 47% of patients with early-stage, high-risk endometrial cancer, which is associated with poor access to appropriate, high-quality care and worse outcome.

Progress and controversies: Radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Radiation therapy remains a standard treatment option for men with localized prostate cancer. Alone or in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy, it represents a curative treatment and has been shown to prolong survival in selected populations. In this article, the authors review recent advances in prostate radiation-treatment techniques, photon versus proton radiation, modification of treatment fractionation, and brachytherapy-all focusing on disease control and the impact on morbidity. Also discussed are refinements in the risk stratification of men with prostate cancer and how these are better for matching patients to appropriate treatment, particularly around combined androgen-deprivation therapy. Many of these advances have cost and treatment burden implications, which have significant repercussions given the prevalence of prostate cancer. The discussion includes approaches to improve value and future directions for research.

Narrow excision margins are appropriate for Merkel cell carcinoma when combined with adjuvant radiation: Analysis of 188 cases of localized disease and proposed management algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) management typically includes surgery with or without adjuvant radiation therapy (aRT). Major challenges include determining surgical margin size and whether aRT is indicated. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of aRT, surgical margin size, and MCC local recurrence. METHODS: Analysis of 188 MCC cases presenting without clinical nodal involvement. RESULTS: aRT-treated patients tended to have higher-risk tumors (larger diameter, positive microscopic margins, immunosuppression) yet had fewer local recurrences (LRs) than patients treated with surgery only (1% vs 15%; P = .001). For patients who underwent surgery alone, 7 of 35 (20%) treated with narrow margins (defined as ≤1.0 cm) developed LR, whereas 0 of 13 patients treated with surgical margins greater than 1.0 cm developed LR (P = .049). For aRT-treated patients, local control was excellent regardless of surgical margin size; only 1% experienced recurrence in each group (1 of 70 with narrow margins ≤1 cm and 1 of 70 with margins >1 cm; P = .56). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated with aRT, local control was superb even if significant risk factors were present and margins were narrow. We propose an algorithm for managing primary MCC that integrates risk factors and optimizes local control while minimizing morbidity.

Postoperative Management of Salivary Gland Tumors.

OPINION STATEMENT: Salivary gland tumors represent a heterogeneous group of neoplasms characterized by varied histologies and disease outcomes. Initial treatment for the primary and gross nodal disease is usually surgery. Management of the clinically node-negative neck depends upon the risk of lymph nodal involvement. This is usually determined by the AJCC "T" stage and histology. Both surgery and radiation may be utilized to address the lymph nodes at risk. This is especially important for minor salivary gland tumors. Radiation plays an important role in the adjuvant management of salivary gland tumors by reducing the risk of locoregional recurrence. Certain histologies like adenoid cystic carcinoma have a predilection for neurotropic spread to the skull base. Radiation is particularly important in controlling disease at the skull base. The role of concurrent chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of salivary gland tumors is not established and remains an area of active research. Certain histologies like salivary duct carcinoma exhibit readily identifiable molecular targets amenable to targeted therapy. Finally, advanced testing of these tumors using next-generation sequencing can also potentially identify molecular targets amenable to therapy. While useful in the management of metastatic disease, the role of these therapies in the adjuvant setting remains unknown.

The brave new world of endometrial cancer : Future implications for adjuvant treatment decisions.

PURPOSE: For many decades, endometrial cancer (EC) has been considered as a homogenous tumor entity with good prognosis. The currently valid risk stratification considers clinical and pathological factors. Treatment recommendations differ considerably from country to country. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Research Network has shown that ECs should be reclassified into four novel molecular prognostic groups, with the potential of changing adjuvant management of EC patients: ultra-mutated, hyper-mutated, copy-number low, and copy-number high. Clinical examples are shown, and the available literature has been highlighted. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) guideline for endometrial cancer takes the new classification system into consideration for adjuvant treatment decisions and will be published this year. RESULTS: In the near future, we expect new treatment recommendations that may differ considerably from the clinicopathologically driven recommendations on the basis of our deeper insight and better understanding of molecular markers in endometrial cancer. The PORTEC 4a study is the only recruiting study which randomizes patients to adjuvant or no adjuvant treatment on the basis of the aforementioned new classification system. CONCLUSION: The aim of the new classification is a more personalized adjuvant radio(chemo)therapy decision and better oncologic outcomes or avoidance of overtreatment.

Utilization and survival outcomes of sequential, concurrent and sandwich therapies for advanced stage endometrial cancers by histology.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact on overall survival (OS) of different modalities of adjuvant therapy for the treatment of stage III endometrial cancer (EC), by histology. METHODS: Stage 3 endometrioid (EAC), serous (SER), clear cell (CC), and carcinosarcoma (CS) patients who underwent primary surgical staging from 2000 to 2013 were identified in SEER-Medicare. Adjuvant therapy was defined by a 4-arm comparator grouping (none; RT only; CT only; combination RT), as well as by an 8-arm comparator grouping (none; RT only; CT only; concurrent CT-RT; concurrent CT-RT then CT; Serial CT-RT; serial RT-CT; sandwich). Modality of RT and CT were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates, log rank tests, and multivariable cox modeling. RESULTS: Of 2870 cases identified (1798 EAC, 606 SER, 118 CC, 348 CS), 31.5% received no adjuvant therapy. The remainder received RT or CT alone, concurrent RT-CT, serial or sandwich modalities. OS differed by adjuvant therapy in adjusted and unadjusted models, when combining all histologies, and when stratifying by histology using both the 4-arm, and 8-arm comparator analyses (log rank p < .05, all). By histology, in adjusted analyses, sandwich modality had the greatest improvement in OS for endometrioid, but pairwise comparisons did not identify a superior chemotherapy-based regimen. For serous and clear cell, the greatest improvement in OS was seen with concurrent RT-CT, and for carcinosarcoma, CT alone. CONCLUSIONS: OS for advanced EC significantly differs by histology and mode of adjuvant therapy. Future studies should evaluate the efficacy of combination-based adjuvant therapy versus chemotherapy alone, by histologic subtype and molecular signature.

Adjuvant radiation for WHO grade II and III intracranial meningiomas: insights on survival and practice patterns from a National Cancer Registry.

INTRODUCTION: WHO grades II (atypical) and III (malignant) meningiomas are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The role of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) in management remains controversial. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of adjuvant RT on 5-year survival in patients with atypical and malignant meningiomas. We secondarily aimed to assess contemporary practice patterns and the impact of sociodemographic factors on outcome. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients ≥ 18 years of age with cranial atypical or malignant meningiomas from 2010 through 2015 who underwent surgical resection with or without adjuvant radiotherapy. Subjects with unknown WHO grade or radiation status and those not receiving any surgical procedure were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: The study includes 7486 patients, 6788 with atypical and 698 with malignant meningiomas. Overall 5-year survival was 76.9% (95% CI 75.5-78.3%) and 43.3% (95% CI 38.8-48.2%) among patients with WHO grades II and III meningiomas, respectively. Adjuvant RT correlated with improved survival in a multivariable model in patients with grade II tumors (HR 0.78; p = 0.029) regardless of the extent of resection. Age (HR 2.33; p < 0.001), male sex (HR 1.27; p < 0.001), Black race (HR 1.27; p = 0.011) and Charlson-Deyo Score ≥ 2 (1.35; p = 0.001) correlated with poorer survival whereas private insurance (HR 0.71; p < 0.001) correlated with improved survival. Adjuvant RT was also associated with improved 5-year survival among those with grade III tumors on univariate analysis (log-rank p = 0.006) but was underpowered for multivariable modeling. Utilization of adjuvant radiotherapy was only 28.4% and correlated with private insurance status. Academic institutions (25.3%) and comprehensive community cancer programs (21.4%) had lower radiotherapy utilization rates compared with integrated network cancer programs (30.5%) and community cancer programs (29.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant RT may correlate with improved overall survival in patients with grades II and III intracranial meningiomas regardless of the extent of resection. There is poor utilization of adjuvant RT for patients with grades II and III meningiomas likely due to a paucity of quality data on the subject. These findings will be strengthened with prospective data evaluating the role of adjuvant RT.

Surgical approach, management, and oncologic outcomes of primary leiomyosarcoma of the inferior vena cava: An institutional case series.

BACKGROUND: Leiomyosarcoma of the inferior vena cava (IVC) is a rare tumor arising from the smooth muscle of vessel walls. Surgery is the only potential curative treatment. Given its rarity, optimal surgical, and oncologic management is not well described. We review our institutional series of primary leiomyosarcomas treated with resection and IVC reconstruction over the last decade. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent surgical resection of primary leiomyosarcoma of the IVC from November 2009 to March 2020 at a single tertiary care center was performed. RESULTS: Among the eight patients treated, the majority were female (87.5%) with a median age of 52 years (range, 44-63). Tumor was located in the infrarenal IVC in five patients (62.5%). IVC was reconstructed using a ring-enforced PTFE graft in six patients (75%). All but one patient had an intermediate (grade 2) or high grade (grade 3) tumor, and all resections achieved grossly negative margins. The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival was 85.7% and 64.3%, respectively. There were no disease-specific deaths during a median follow-up of 36 months (interquartile range, 10-51 months). CONCLUSIONS: With a well-coordinated multidisciplinary approach, primary leiomyosarcoma of the IVC can be safely resected with good long-term survival.

Optimal treatment strategy for paratesticular liposarcoma: retrospective analysis of 265 reported cases.

BACKGROUND: Liposarcoma is one of the most common subtypes of soft tissue sarcoma. Although the standard treatment for localized liposarcoma is surgical resection with negative margins, a treatment specific to paratesticular liposarcoma has yet to be quantitatively evaluated. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Google was performed to find articles describing localized paratesticular liposarcoma published between 1979 and 2018 in English. The final cohort included 265 patients in 183 articles. The starting point was the time of surgical treatment, and the endpoint was the time of recurrence, including local recurrence, or distant metastasis. RESULTS: The median patient age was 62 years and the median tumor size was 9.5 cm. In total, 178 patients underwent high inguinal orchiectomy and 40 underwent simple tumorectomy. Based on the Kaplan-Meier curves, recurrence-free survival rates were significantly higher for those who underwent high inguinal orchiectomy than for those who underwent tumorectomy. Moreover, those with microscopic positive margins had a higher risk of recurrence than those with negative margins, but adjuvant radiation therapy after resection had no statistically significant effect on recurrence-free survival, even in subgroup analysis of patients with positive margins. Regarding the pathological subtypes, dedifferentiated, pleomorphic, and round-cell liposarcoma had a higher risk of recurrence than well-differentiated or myxoid liposarcoma. In the multivariate analysis, high inguinal orchiectomy greatly affected recurrence-free survival. The tumor size and histological subtype were independent risk factors for recurrence. CONCLUSION: Complete resection with high inguinal orchiectomy is the optimal treatment for paratesticular liposarcoma.

Patterns of care and predictors of adjuvant radiation therapy in phyllodes tumor of the breast.

Patterns of care, utilization, and predictors of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) for phyllodes tumors of the breast were retrospectively analyzed using the National Cancer Database. We identified 3080 patients; 53.4% received lumpectomy and 35.9% mastectomy. 25.9% of patients had lymph node sampling or dissection. 23.2% received adjuvant RT, which doubled in utilization over a decade. Predictors of RT were younger age, fewer comorbidities, less favorable pathologic features, and treatment at academic centers. There was no association between RT and overall survival (AHR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97-1.53, P = .097). Despite national guidelines recommending against nodal sampling or RT, it remains prevalent. Further research on indications for adjuvant radiation for phyllodes is needed.

Trends in utilization of sentinel node biopsy and adjuvant radiation in women ≥ 70.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Omission of routine axillary staging and adjuvant radiation (XRT) in women ≥ 70 years old with early stage, hormone receptor-positive, clinically node-negative breast cancer has been endorsed based on several landmark studies. We sought to determine how much omission of axillary staging/XRT has been adopted. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base, we selected malignant breast cancer cases in women ≥ 70 with ER + tumors, ≤2 cm with clinically negative lymph nodes who underwent breast conservation and had known XRT status in 2005-2015. The use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) and XRT status was summarized by year to determine trends over time. RESULTS: In total, 57 230/69 982 patients underwent SNB. Of the 12 752 patients in whom SNB was omitted, 6296 were treated at comprehensive community cancer programs. Regarding XRT, 33 891/70 114 received adjuvant XRT. There were no significant trends with regards to patients receiving SNB or those receiving XRT. CONCLUSION: Since 2005, there has been no change in SNB or XRT for early stage ER + breast tumors. However, there was a difference in omission of SNB based on facility type and setting. Future monitoring is needed to determine if these trends persist following the recently released Choosing Wisely® recommendations.

Comparative toxicity outcomes of proton-beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the postoperative setting.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing utilization of proton-beam therapy (PBT) in the postprostatectomy setting, no data exist regarding toxicity outcomes relative to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The authors compared acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PC) who received treatment with postprostatectomy IMRT versus PBT. METHODS: With institutional review board approval, patients with PC who received adjuvant or salvage IMRT or PBT (70.2 gray with an endorectal balloon) after prostatectomy from 2009 through 2017 were reviewed. Factors including combined IMRT and PBT and/or concurrent malignancies prompted exclusion. A case-matched cohort analysis was performed using nearest-neighbor 3-to-1 matching by age and GU/GI disorder history. Logistic and Cox regressions were used to identify univariate and multivariate associations between toxicities and cohort/dosimetric characteristics. Toxicity-free survival (TFS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Three hundred seven men (mean ± SD age, 59.7 ± 6.3 years; IMRT, n = 237; PBT, n = 70) were identified, generating 70 matched pairs. The median follow-up was 48.6 and 46.1 months for the IMRT and PBT groups, respectively. Although PBT was superior at reducing low-range (volumes receiving 10% to 40% of the dose, respectively) bladder and rectal doses (all P ≤ .01), treatment modality was not associated with differences in clinician-reported acute or late GU/GI toxicities (all P ≥ .05). Five-year grade ≥2 GU and grade ≥1 GI TFS was 61.1% and 73.7% for IMRT, respectively, and 70.7% and 75.3% for PBT, respectively; and 5-year grade ≥3 GU and GI TFS was >95% for both groups (all P ≥ .05). CONCLUSIONS: Postprostatectomy PBT minimized low-range bladder and rectal doses relative to IMRT; however, treatment modality was not associated with clinician-reported GU/GI toxicities. Future prospective investigation and ongoing follow-up will determine whether dosimetric differences between IMRT and PBT confer clinically meaningful differences in long-term outcomes.

Role of adjuvant radiation or re-excision for early stage vulvar squamous cell carcinoma with positive or close surgical margins.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate whether re-excision or adjuvant radiation for stage I vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) with either a close or positive surgical margin improves recurrence-free survival. METHODS: Patients with pathologically confirmed FIGO stage I vulvar SCC who underwent primary surgical management between January 1, 1995 and September 30, 2017 and had positive or close (<8 mm) surgical margins were included. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Of 150 patients with stage I vulvar SCC, 47 (31.3%) had positive or close margins. Median follow-up time was 25 months (IQR 13-59 months). Twenty-one (44.6%) patients received additional treatment with re-excision (n = 17) or vulvar radiation (n = 4); 26 (55.3%) patients received no additional therapy. Patients with positive margins were more likely to receive additional therapy compared to patients with close margins (80% vs 35.1%, p = 0.03). The 2-year recurrence rates were similar between the no further therapy and the re-excision/vulvar radiation groups (11.5% vs 4.8%, p = 0.62). Local recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between patients who received re-excision/vulvar radiation and patients who received no further therapy (p = 0.10 and p = 0.16, respectively). Subgroup analysis of the 37 patients with close margins demonstrated no difference in RFS or OS when patients received re-excision or adjuvant vulvar radiation compared to no additional therapy (p = 0.74 and p = 0.82, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, any additional treatment following primary surgical resection did not improve RFS or OS in stage IA and IB vulvar SCC. Larger studies are warranted in order to definitively determine the role of re-excision and adjuvant radiation in early stage disease.