Why is a small sample size not enough?

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies are often limited by resources available, which results in constraints on sample size. We use simulated data to illustrate study implications when the sample size is too small. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using 2 theoretical populations each with N = 1000, we randomly sample 10 from each population and conduct a statistical comparison, to help make a conclusion about whether the 2 populations are different. This exercise is repeated for a total of 4 studies: 2 concluded that the 2 populations are statistically significantly different, while 2 showed no statistically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Our simulated examples demonstrate that sample sizes play important roles in clinical research. The results and conclusions, in terms of estimates of means, medians, Pearson correlations, chi-square test, and P values, are unreliable with small samples.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part III: Salvage Therapy After Radiotherapy or Focal Therapy, Pelvic Nodal Recurrence and Oligometastasis, and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part III of a three-part series focusing on evaluation and management of suspected non-metastatic recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, evaluation and management of regional recurrence, management for molecular imaging metastatic recurrence, and future directions. Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and deliberate efforts for multidisciplinary care in prostate cancer will be required to optimize and improve the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients treated with salvage therapies in the future.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part I: Introduction and Treatment Decision-Making at the Time of Suspected Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part I of a three-part series focusing on treatment decision-making at the time of suspected biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic BCR after RP and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing work in the area of diagnostic tools (particularly imaging), biomarkers, radiation delivery, and biological manipulation with the evolving armamentarium of therapeutic agents will undoubtedly present new opportunities for patients to experience long-term control of their cancer while minimizing toxicity.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part II: Treatment Delivery for Non-metastatic Biochemical Recurrence After Primary Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part II of a three-part series focusing on treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing and personalizing the approach to salvage therapy remains an ongoing area of work in the field of genitourinary oncology and represents an area of research and clinical care that requires well-coordinated, multi-disciplinary efforts.

A novel treatment planning method via scissor beams for uniform-target-dose proton GRID with peak-valley-dose-ratio optimization.

BACKGROUND: Proton spatially fractionated RT (SFRT) can potentially synergize the unique advantages of using proton Bragg peak and SFRT peak-valley dose ratio (PVDR) to reduce the radiation-induced damage for normal tissues. Uniform-target-dose (UTD) proton GRID is a proton SFRT modality that can be clinically desirable and conveniently adopted since its UTD resembles target dose distribution in conventional proton RT (CONV). However, UTD proton GRID is not used clinically, which is likely due to the lack of an effective treatment planning method. PURPOSE: This work will develop a novel treatment planning method using scissor beams (SB) for UTD proton GRID, with the joint optimization of PVDR and dose objectives. METHODS: The SB method for spatial dose modulation in normal tissues with UTD has two steps: (1) a primary beam (PB) is halved with interleaved beamlets, to generate spatial dose modulation in normal tissues; (2) a complementary beam (CB) is added to fill in previously valley-dose positions in the target to generate UTD, while the CB is angled slightly from the PB, to maintain spatial dose modulation in normal tissues. A treatment planning method with PVDR optimization via the joint total variation and L1 (TVL1) regularization is developed to jointly optimize PVDR and dose objectives. The plan optimization solution is obtained using an iterative convex relaxation algorithm. RESULTS: The new methods SB and SB-TVL1 were validated in comparison with CONV. Compared to CONV of relatively homogeneous dose distribution, SB had modulated spatial dose pattern in normal tissues with UTD and comparable plan quality. Compared to SB, SB-TVL1 further maximized PVDR, with comparable dose-volume parameters. CONCLUSIONS: A novel SB method is proposed that can generate modulated spatial dose pattern in normal tissues to achieve UTD proton GRID. A treatment planning method with PVDR optimization capability via TVL1 regularization is developed that can jointly optimize PVDR and dose objectives for proton GRID.

Differences in Rural Versus Urban Patients With Prostate Cancer in Diagnosis and Treatment: An Analysis of a Population-Based Cohort.

PURPOSE: Patients living in rural communities have greater barriers to cancer care and poorer outcomes. We hypothesized that rural patients with prostate cancer have less access and receive different treatments compared with urban patients. METHODS: We used a population-based prospective cohort, the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study, to compare differences in prostate cancer diagnosis, access to care, and treatment in patients by geographic residence. The 2013 rural-urban continuum code (RUCC) was used to determine urban (RUCC 1-3) versus rural (RUCC 4-9) location of residence. RESULTS: Patients with rural residence comprised 25% of the cohort (364 of 1,444); they were less likely to be White race and had lower income and educational attainment. Rural patients were more likely to have <12 cores on biopsy (47.1% v 35.7%; P < .001) and less likely (40.8% v 47.6%; P = .04) to receive multidisciplinary consultation. We observed significant differences in treatment between urban and rural patients, including rural patients receiving less active surveillance or observation (22.6% v 28.7%), especially in low-risk cancer (33.2% v 40.7%). On multivariable analysis that adjusted for patient and diagnostic factors, rural residence was associated with less use of active surveillance or observation over radical treatment (ie, surgery or radiation therapy; odds ratio, 0.49 v urban; P < .001) in patients with low-risk cancer. CONCLUSION: Patients with prostate cancer who live in rural versus urban areas experience several differences in care that are likely clinically meaningful, including fewer cores in the diagnostic biopsy, less utilization of multidisciplinary consultation, less use of active surveillance, or observation for low-risk disease. Future studies are needed to assess the efficacy of interventions in mitigating these disparities.

Biological optimization for hybrid proton-photon radiotherapy.

Objective.Hybrid proton-photon radiotherapy (RT) is a cancer treatment option to broaden access to proton RT. Additionally, with a refined treatment planning method, hybrid RT has the potential to offer superior plan quality compared to proton-only or photon-only RT, particularly in terms of target coverage and sparing organs-at-risk (OARs), when considering robustness to setup and range uncertainties. However, there is a concern regarding the underestimation of the biological effect of protons on OARs, especially those in close proximity to targets. This study seeks to develop a hybrid treatment planning method with biological dose optimization, suitable for clinical implementation on existing proton and photon machines, with each photon or proton treatment fraction delivering a uniform target dose.Approach.The proposed hybrid biological dose optimization method optimized proton and photon plan variables, along with the number of fractions for each modality, minimizing biological dose to the OARs and surrounding normal tissues. To mitigate underestimation of hot biological dose spots, proton biological dose was minimized within a ring structure surrounding the target. Hybrid plans were designed to be deliverable separately and robustly on existing proton and photon machines, with enforced uniform target dose constraints for the proton and photon fraction doses. A probabilistic formulation was utilized for robust optimization of setup and range uncertainties for protons and photons. The nonconvex optimization problem, arising from minimum monitor unit constraint and dose-volume histogram constraints, was solved using an iterative convex relaxation method.Main results.Hybrid planning with biological dose optimization effectively eliminated hot spots of biological dose, particularly in normal tissues surrounding the target, outperforming proton-only planning. It also provided superior overall plan quality and OAR sparing compared to proton-only or photon-only planning strategies.Significance.This study presents a novel hybrid biological treatment planning method capable of generating plans with reduced biological hot spots, superior plan quality to proton-only or photon-only plans, and clinical deliverability on existing proton and photon machines, separately and robustly.

TEAM: Triangular-mEsh Adaptive and Multiscale proton spot generation method.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy is preferred for its dose conformality to spare normal tissues and organs-at-risk (OAR) via Bragg peaks with negligible exit dose. However, proton dose conformality can be further optimized: (1) the spot placement is based on the structured (e.g., Cartesian) grid, which may not offer conformal shaping to complex tumor targets; (2) the spot sampling pattern is uniform, which may be insufficient at the tumor boundary to provide the sharp dose falloff, and at the same time may be redundant at the tumor interior to provide the uniform dose coverage, for example, due to multiple Coulomb scattering (MCS); and (3) the lateral spot penumbra increases with respect to the depth due to MCS, which blurs the lateral dose falloff. On the other hand, while (1) the deliverable spots are subject to the minimum-monitor-unit (MMU) constraint, and (2) the dose rate is proportional to the MMU threshold, the current spot sampling method is sensitive to the MMU threshold and can fail to provide satisfactory plan quality for a large MMU threshold (i.e., high-dose-rate delivery). PURPOSE: This work will develop a novel Triangular-mEsh-based Adaptive and Multiscale (TEAM) proton spot generation method to address these issues for optimizing proton dose conformality and plan delivery efficiency. METHODS: Compared to the standard clinically-used spot placement method, three key elements of TEAM are as follows: (1) a triangular mesh instead of a structured grid: the triangular mesh is geometrically more conformal to complex target shapes and therefore more efficient and accurate for dose shaping inside and around the target; (2) adaptive sampling instead of uniform sampling: the adaptive sampling consists of relatively dense sampling at the tumor boundary to create the sharp dose falloff, which is more accurate, and coarse sampling at the tumor interior to uniformly cover the target, which is more efficient; and (3) depth-dependent sampling instead of depth-independent sampling: the depth-dependent sampling is used to compensate for MCS, that is, with increasingly dense sampling at the tumor boundary to improve dose shaping accuracy, and increasingly coarse sampling at the tumor interior to improve dose shaping efficiency, as the depth increases. In the TEAM method the spot locations are generated for each energy layer and layer-by-layer in the multiscale fashion; and then the spot weights are derived by solving the IMPT problem of dose-volume planning objectives, MMU constraints, and robustness optimization with respect to range and setup uncertainties. RESULTS: Compared to the standard clinically-used spot placement method UNIFORM, TEAM achieved (1) better plan quality using <60% number of spots of UNIFORM; (2) better robustness to the number of spots; (3) better robustness to a large MMU threshold. Furthermore, TEAM provided better plan quality with fewer spots than other adaptive methods (Cartesian-grid or triangular-mesh). CONCLUSIONS: A novel triangular-mesh-based proton spot placement method called TEAM is proposed, and it is demonstrated to improve plan quality, robustness to the number of spots, and robustness to the MMU threshold, compared to the clinically-used spot placement method and other adaptive methods.

Clinical considerations for sexual and gender minorities with prostate cancer.

At every stage of the cancer continuum, the management of sexual and gender minorities with prostate cancer requires a thoughtful and multidisciplinary approach. For example, it is important to recognize that receptive anal intercourse, common among sexual minority men-i.e. gay and bisexual men-can potentially elevate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Additionally, it is important to understand that sexual minority men with prostate cancer might engage in insertive and/or receptive anal intercourse, as opposed to insertive vaginal intercourse, requiring a treatment conversation that expands beyond the usual discussion of sexual health in prostate cancer patients. For gender minorities-i.e. transgender women or trans feminine individuals (those recorded male at birth with feminine gender identities)-it is important to consider gender affirming hormones and pelvic surgeries as they can cause diagnostic and treatment challenges, including PSA suppression, more aggressive disease, and anatomical changes. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that gender minorities are a diverse cohort and may or may not be on gender affirming hormone therapy and may or may not have received or intend to receive pelvic affirming surgery. In this seminar article, we highlight considerations for personalized management of prostate cancer in sexual and gender minorities to improve care for this understudied cohort and enhance health equity.

2V-CBCT: Two-Orthogonal-Projection based CBCT Reconstruction and Dose Calculation for Radiation Therapy using Real Projection Data.

This work demonstrates the feasibility of two-orthogonal-projection-based CBCT (2V-CBCT) reconstruction and dose calculation for radiation therapy (RT) using real projection data, which is the first 2V-CBCT feasibility study with real projection data, to the best of our knowledge. RT treatments are often delivered in multiple fractions, for which on-board CBCT is desirable to calculate the delivered dose per fraction for the purpose of RT delivery quality assurance and adaptive RT. However, not all RT treatments/fractions have CBCT acquired, but two orthogonal projections are always available. The question to be addressed in this work is the feasibility of 2V-CBCT for the purpose of RT dose calculation. 2V-CBCT is a severely ill-posed inverse problem for which we propose a coarse-to-fine learning strategy. First, a 3D deep neural network that can extract and exploit the inter-slice and intra-slice information is adopted to predict the initial 3D volumes. Then, a 2D deep neural network is utilized to fine-tune the initial 3D volumes slice-by-slice. During the fine-tuning stage, a perceptual loss based on multi-frequency features is employed to enhance the image reconstruction. Dose calculation results from both photon and proton RT demonstrate that 2V-CBCT provides comparable accuracy with full-view CBCT based on real projection data.

Simultaneous dose and dose rate optimization via dose modifying factor modeling for FLASH effective dose.

BACKGROUND: Although the FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH) can improve the sparing of organs-at-risk (OAR) via the FLASH effect, it is generally a tradeoff between the physical dose coverage and the biological FLASH coverage, for which the concept of FLASH effective dose (FED) is needed to quantify the net improvement of FLASH, compared to the conventional radiotherapy (CONV). PURPOSE: This work will develop the first-of-its-kind treatment planning method called simultaneous dose and dose rate optimization via dose modifying factor modeling (SDDRO-DMF) for proton FLASH that directly optimizes FED. METHODS: SDDRO-DMF models and optimizes FED using FLASH dose modifying factor (DMF) models, which can be classified into two categories: (1) the phenomenological model of the FLASH effect, such as the FLASH effectiveness model (FEM); (2) the mechanistic model of the FLASH radiobiology, such as the radiolytic oxygen depletion (ROD) model. The general framework of SDDRO-DMF will be developed, with specific DMF models using FEM and ROD, as a demonstration of general applicability of SDDRO-DMF for proton FLASH via transmission beams (TB) or Bragg peaks (BP) with single-field or multi-field irradiation. The FLASH dose rate is modeled as pencil beam scanning dose rate. The solution algorithm for solving the inverse optimization problem of SDDRO-DMF is based on iterative convex relaxation method. RESULTS: SDDRO-DMF is validated in comparison with IMPT and a state-of-the-art method called SDDRO, with demonstrated efficacy and improvement for reducing the high dose and the high-dose volume for OAR in terms of FED. For example, in a SBRT lung case of the dose-limiting factor that the max dose of brachial plexus should be no more than 26 Gy, only SDDRO-DMF met this max dose constraint; moreover, SDDRO-DMF completely eliminated the high-dose (V70%) volume to zero for CTV10mm (a high-dose region as a 10 mm ring expansion of CTV). CONCLUSION: We have proposed a new proton FLASH optimization method called SDDRO-DMF that directly optimizes FED using phenomenological or mechanistic models of DMF, and have demonstrated the efficacy of SDDO-DMF in reducing the high-dose volume or/and the high-dose value for OAR, compared to IMPT and a state-of-the-art method SDDRO.

Demographic and Clinical Factors Associated With Health-Related Quality-of-Life Profiles Among Prostate Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to describe the prevalence and predictors of symptom and function clusters related to physical, emotional, and social components of general health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a population-based sample of prostate cancer (PCa) survivors. METHODS: Participants (N = 1,162) completed a baseline survey at a median of 9 months after diagnosis to ascertain the co-occurrence of eight symptom and functional domains that are common across all cancers and not treatment-specific. We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify subgroup profiles of survivors with low, moderate, or high HRQOL levels. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to identify clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with survivors' membership in the low versus moderate or high HRQOL profile. RESULTS: The LPA identified 16% of survivors who were categorized in the low HRQOL profile at baseline, indicative of the highest symptom burden and lowest functioning. Factors related to survivors' membership in the low versus higher HRQOL profile groups included less than age 65 years at diagnosis, identifying as non-Hispanic Black race, not working, being a former versus never smoker, systemic therapy, less companionship, more comorbidities, lower health care financial well-being, or less spirituality. Several factors remained associated with remaining in the low versus higher HRQOL profiles on the follow-up survey (n = 699), including younger age, Black race, comorbidity, and lower financial and spiritual well-being. CONCLUSION: About one of six PCa survivors experienced elevated physical and psychosocial symptoms that were independent of local curative therapy, but with younger age, race, comorbidity, and lower financial and spiritual well-being as stable risk factors for poor HRQOL over time.

Noninferiority of Hypofractionated vs Conventional Postprostatectomy Radiotherapy for Genitourinary and Gastrointestinal Symptoms: The NRG-GU003 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: No prior trial has compared hypofractionated postprostatectomy radiotherapy (HYPORT) to conventionally fractionated postprostatectomy (COPORT) in patients primarily treated with prostatectomy. Objective: To determine if HYPORT is noninferior to COPORT for patient-reported genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms at 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, patients with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA; ≥0.1 ng/mL) postprostatectomy with pT2/3pNX/0 disease or an undetectable PSA (<0.1 ng/mL) with either pT3 disease or pT2 disease with a positive surgical margin were recruited from 93 academic, community-based, and tertiary medical sites in the US and Canada. Between June 2017 and July 2018, a total of 296 patients were randomized. Data were analyzed in December 2020, with additional analyses occurring after as needed. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive 62.5 Gy in 25 fractions (HYPORT) or 66.6 Gy in 37 fractions (COPORT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary end points were the 2-year change in score from baseline for the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite Index questionnaire. Secondary objectives were to compare between arms freedom from biochemical failure, time to progression, local failure, regional failure, salvage therapy, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and adverse events. Results: Of the 296 patients randomized (median [range] age, 65 [44-81] years; 100% male), 144 received HYPORT and 152 received COPORT. At the end of RT, the mean GU change scores among those in the HYPORT and COPORT arms were neither clinically significant nor different in statistical significance and remained so at 6 and 12 months. The mean (SD) GI change scores for HYPORT and COPORT were both clinically significant and different in statistical significance at the end of RT (-15.52 [18.43] and -7.06 [12.78], respectively; P < .001). However, the clinically and statistically significant differences in HYPORT and COPORT mean GI change scores were resolved at 6 and 12 months. The 24-month differences in mean GU and GI change scores for HYPORT were noninferior to COPORT using noninferiority margins of -5 and -6, respectively, rejecting the null hypothesis of inferiority (mean [SD] GU score: HYPORT, -5.01 [15.10] and COPORT, -4.07 [14.67]; P = .005; mean [SD] GI score: HYPORT, -4.17 [10.97] and COPORT, -1.41 [8.32]; P = .02). With a median follow-up for censored patients of 2.1 years, there was no difference between HYPORT vs COPORT for biochemical failure, defined as a PSA of 0.4 ng/mL or higher and rising (2-year rate, 12% vs 8%; P = .28). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, HYPORT was associated with greater patient-reported GI toxic effects compared with COPORT at the completion of RT, but both groups recovered to baseline levels within 6 months. At 2 years, HYPORT was noninferior to COPORT in terms of patient-reported GU or GI toxic effects. HYPORT is a new acceptable practice standard for patients receiving postprostatectomy radiotherapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03274687.