Management of Dry Eye Toxicity After Treatment With 177Lu-PSMA-617 Radioligand Therapy.

Treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer include use of radioligand therapy with 177Lu-PSMA-617. 177Lu-PSMA-617 is used to target prostate cancer cells selectively by targeting prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA); however, PSMA is also expressed on lacrimal glands among other tissues. Herein, we report on a case of a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5 grade 3 dry eye event with concomitant blepharitis after administration of 177Lu-PSMA-617. The patient was managed with neomycin-polymyxin-dexamethasone 3.5-10000-0.1 ophthalmic suspension, artificial tears, lubricating ointments, lid scrubs, and oral antihistamines.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in Men With Hip Prostheses: A Cautionary Note.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been established as a safe and effective treatment for prostate cancer. SBRT requires high accuracy to reduce treatment margins. Metal hip prostheses create artifacts that distort pelvic imaging and potentially decrease the accuracy of target/organ at risk (OAR) identification and radiation dose calculations. Data on the safety and efficacy of SBRT after hip replacement is limited. This single-institution study sought to evaluate the safety and local control following SBRT for prostate cancer in men with hip replacements. METHODS: 23 patients treated with localized prostate cancer and a history of pre-treatment hip replacement, treated with SBRT from 2007 to 2017 at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital were included in this retrospective analysis. Treatment was administered with the CyberKnife® (Accuray Incorporated, Sunnyvale, CA) at doses of 35 Gy or 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions. The targets and OARs were identified and contoured by a single experienced Radiation Oncologist (SPC). The adequacy of the CT and T2W MRI images for treatment planning was assessed with a three-point scale (good, adequate, or suboptimal). During treatment planning, care was taken to avoid treatment beams that directly traversed the hip prosthesis. Toxicities were recorded and scored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE v.4.0). Local recurrence was confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging and/or prostate biopsy. RESULTS: The median follow-up was seven years. The patients were elderly (median age = 71 years) with a high rate of comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index > 2 in 25%). Four patients had bilateral hip replacements. The majority of patients were low to intermediate risk per the D'Amico classification. Around 13% received upfront ADT. In total, 13 patients were treated with 35 Gy, and 10 were treated with 36.25 Gy. The rates of late > Grade 3 GU toxicity and > Grade 2 GI toxicity were 8.6% and 4.3%, respectively. There were no Grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Six patients (26%) developed a local recurrence at a median time of 7.5 years. Of these six patients, four had unilateral hip replacements and two had bilateral. Three underwent salvage cryotherapy and three received salvage ADT. CONCLUSIONS:  In the general population, high-grade toxicities and local recurrences are uncommon following prostate SBRT. However, in this cohort of patients with prior hip replacements, prostate SBRT had higher than expected rates of late toxicity and local recurrence. In the opinion of the authors, such patients should be counseled regarding an elevated risk of late toxicity and local recurrence with prostate SBRT. With its ultrasound guidance, brachytherapy would have the advantage of circumventing the need for MRI/CT-based imaging and thus may represent a preferable radiation alternative in this patient population. If these patients are treated with SBRT, they should be monitored closely for local recurrence so early salvage can be performed. We hope that recent advances in metal artifact reduction techniques and dose-calculation algorithms will improve future outcomes.

Bothersome Hot Flashes Following Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves local cancer control in unfavorable localized prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. ADT is known to cause hormonally related symptoms that resolve with testosterone recovery. Hot flashes are particularly burdensome. This study sought to evaluate the timeline of hot flashes following short-course ADT and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as well as its relationship with testosterone recovery. METHODS: Institutional IRB approval was obtained for this retrospective review of prospectively collected data (IRB#: 2009-510). ADT was initiated three months prior to the start of SBRT. Hot flashes were self-reported via question 13a of the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC)-26 prior to ADT initiation, the first day of robotic SBRT, and at each follow-up (one, three, six, nine, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months). The responses were grouped into three relevant categories (no problem, very small-small problem, and moderate-big problem). Scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores reflecting less bother. Testosterone levels were measured at each follow-up. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2010, 122 localized prostate cancer patients (nine low-, 64 intermediate-, and 49 high-risk according to the D'Amico classification) at a median age of 72 years (range 54.5-88.3) were treated with short course ADT (three to six months) and SBRT (35-36.25 Gy) at Georgetown University Hospital. Thirty-two percent were Black and 27% were obese. Seventy-seven percent of patients received three months of ADT. At baseline, 2% of men experienced hot flashes that were a "moderate to big problem" and that proportion peaked at the start of SBRT (45%) before returning to baseline (2%) nine months post-SBRT with a cumulative incidence of 52.4%. The median baseline EPIC-26 hot flash score of 94 declined to 50 at the start of SBRT but this returned to baseline (92) by six months post SBRT. These changes were both statistically and clinically significant (MID = 9.5083, p<0.01). Testosterone recovery (> 230 ng/dL) occurred in approximately 70% of patients by 12 months post SBRT. Resolution of hot flashes correlated with testosterone recovery. CONCLUSION: Bothersome hot flashes occur in greater than 50% of men treated with neoadjuvant ADT. Resolution of hot flashes occurs in the majority of patients within one year after treatment. Reassurance of the temporary nature of hot flashes may assist in reducing patient anxiety. Measuring testosterone levels at follow-up visits may allow for anticipatory counseling that may limit the associated bother.