Body composition and mortality in men receiving prostate radiotherapy: A pooled analysis of NRG/RTOG 9406 and NRG/RTOG 0126.

PURPOSE: To validate the association between body composition and mortality in men treated with radiation for localized prostate cancer (PCa). Secondarily, to integrate body composition as a factor to classify patients by risk of all-cause mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants of NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9406 and NRG/RTOG 0126 with archived computed tomography were included. Muscle mass and muscle density were estimated by measuring the area and attenuation of the psoas muscles on a single slice at L4-L5. Bone density was estimated by measuring the attenuation of the vertebral body at mid-L5. Survival analyses, including Cox proportional hazards models, assessed the relationship between body composition and mortality. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to create a classification tree to classify participants by risk of death. RESULTS: Data from 2066 men were included in this study. In the final multivariable model, psoas area, comorbidity score, baseline prostate serum antigen, and age were significantly associated with survival. The RPA yielded a classification tree with four prognostic groups determined by age, comorbidity, and psoas area. Notably, the classification among older (≥70 years) men into prognostic groups was determined by psoas area. CONCLUSIONS: This study strongly supports that body composition is related to mortality in men with localized PCa. The inclusion of psoas area in the RPA classification tree suggests that body composition provides additive information to age and comorbidity status for mortality prediction, particularly among older men. More research is needed to determine the clinical impact of body composition on prognostic models in men with PCa.

The addition of androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic lymph node treatment to prostate bed salvage radiotherapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG 0534 SPPORT): an international, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after prostatectomy for prostate cancer, salvage prostate bed radiotherapy (PBRT) results in about 70% of patients being free of progression at 5 years. A three-group randomised trial was designed to determine whether incremental gains in patient outcomes can be achieved by adding either 4-6 months of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to PBRT, or both short-term ADT and pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT) to PBRT. METHODS: The international, multicentre, randomised, controlled SPPORT trial was done at 283 radiation oncology cancer treatment centres in the USA, Canada, and Israel. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) were those who after prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate had a persistently detectable or an initially undetectable and rising PSA of between 0·1 and 2·0 ng/mL. Patients with and without lymphadenectomy (N0/Nx) were eligible if there was no clinical or pathological evidence of lymph node involvement. Other eligibility criteria included pT2 or pT3 disease, prostatectomy Gleason score of 9 or less, and a Zubrod performance status of 0-1. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive PBRT alone at a dose of 64·8-70·2 Gy at 1·8 Gy per fraction daily (group 1), PBRT plus short-term ADT (group 2), or PLNRT (45 Gy at 1·8 Gy per fraction, and then a volume reduction made to the planning target volume for the remaining 19·8-25 ·2 Gy) plus PBRT plus short-term ADT (group 3). The primary endpoint was freedom from progression, in which progression was defined as biochemical failure according to the Phoenix definition (PSA ≥2 ng/mL over the nadir PSA), clinical failure (local, regional, or distant), or death from any cause. A planned interim analysis of 1191 patents with minimum potential follow-up time of 5 years applied a Haybittle-Peto boundary of p<0·001 (one sided) for comparison of 5-year freedom from progression rates between the treatment groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00567580. The primary objectives of the trial have been completed, although long-term follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2008, and March 30, 2015, 1792 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the three treatment groups (592 to group 1 [PBRT alone], 602 to group 2 [PBRT plus short-term ADT], and 598 to group 3 [PLNRT plus PBRT plus short-term ADT]). 76 patients subsequently found to be ineligible were excluded from the analyses; thus, the evaluable patient population comprised 1716 patients. At the interim analysis (n=1191 patients; data cutoff May 23, 2018), the Haybittle-Peto boundary for 5-year freedom from progression was exceeded when group 1 was compared with group 3 (difference 17·9%, SE 2·9%; p<0·0001). The difference between groups 2 and 3 did not exceed the boundary (p=0·0063). With additional follow-up beyond the interim analysis (the final planned analysis; data cutoff May 26, 2021), at a median follow-up among survivors of 8·2 years (IQR 6·6-9·4), the 5-year freedom from progression rates in all 1716 eligible patients were 70·9% (95% CI 67·0-74·9) in group 1, 81·3% (78·0-84·6) in group 2, and 87·4% (84·7-90·2) in group 3. Per protocol criteria, freedom from progression in group 3 was superior to groups 1 and 2. Acute (≤3 months after radiotherapy) grade 2 or worse adverse events were significantly more common in group 3 (246 [44%] of 563 patients) than in group 2 (201 [36%] of 563; p=0·0034), which, in turn, were more common than in group 1 (98 [18%] of 547; p<0·0001). Similar findings were observed for grade 3 or worse adverse events. However, late toxicity (>3 months after radiotherapy) did not differ significantly between the groups, apart from more late grade 2 or worse blood or bone marrow events in group 3 versus group 2 (one-sided p=0·0060) attributable to the addition of PLNRT in this group. INTERPRETATION: The results of this randomised trial establish the benefit of adding short-term ADT to PBRT to prevent progression in prostate cancer. To our knowledge, these are the first such findings to show that extending salvage radiotherapy to treat the pelvic lymph nodes when combined with short-term ADT results in meaningful reductions in progression after prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Logistical, technical, and radiation safety aspects of establishing a radiopharmaceutical therapy program: A case in Lutetium-177 prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) therapy.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a cell surface protein highly expressed in nearly all prostate cancers, with restricted expression in some normal tissues. The differential expression of PSMA from tumor to non-tumor tissue has resulted in the investigation of numerous targeting strategies for therapy of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In March of 2022, the FDA granted approval for the use of lutetium-177 PSMA-617 (Lu-177-PSMA-617) for patients with PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have been treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibition and taxane-based chemotherapy. Therefore, the use of Lu-177-PSMA-617 is expected to increase and become more widespread. Herein, we describe logistical, technical, and radiation safety considerations for implementing a radiopharmaceutical therapy program, with particular focus on the development of operating procedures for therapeutic administrations. Major steps for a center in the U.S. to implement a new radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) program are listed below, and then demonstrated in greater detail via examples for Lu-177-PSMA-617 therapy.

Survival Outcomes in Men with Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk and High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Prostate-Only versus Whole Pelvic Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR-PCa) or high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa) are often treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy. Treatment is frequently intensified by electively treating the pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) with whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT), but practice patterns and the benefits of WPRT are not well defined. We hypothesized that men treated with WPRT would have improved overall survival (OS) relative to men treated with prostate-only radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: National Cancer Database records of men diagnosed between 2008-2015 with UIR-PCa or HR-PCa and treated with prostate EBRT±androgen deprivation therapy (72-86.4 Gy) with (15,175) or without (13,549) WPRT were reviewed. Risk of LN involvement was calculated using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram. Measured confounders were balanced with inverse probability of treatment weighting and OS hazard ratios (HRs) were generated using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Of the men, 53% received WPRT. Every 1% increase in risk of LN involvement correlated with a 1% increase in risk of death (p <0.001). WPRT trended toward improved OS in all men with UIR-PCa and HR-PCa (HR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.90-1.006], p=0.055). WPRT correlated with improved OS in men with Gleason 9 and 10 disease (HR: 0.87 [0.78-0.98], p=0.02) or risk of LN involvement ≥10% (HR: 0.93 [0.87-0.99], p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Men with higher LN risk scores and Gleason grade benefited from WPRT. These results complement the recent POP-RT randomized trial in mostly positron emission tomography/computerized tomography-staged patients, demonstrating that a more heterogeneous population of men staged without functional imaging benefits from WPRT.

Outcomes of Patients With Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With External-Beam Radiotherapy Versus Brachytherapy Alone.

BACKGROUND: The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer currently recommend several definitive radiotherapy (RT) options for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) prostate cancer: external-beam RT (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost with or without ADT. However, brachytherapy alone with or without ADT is not well defined and is currently not recommended for UIR prostate cancer. We hypothesized that men treated with brachytherapy with or without ADT have comparable survival rates to men treated with EBRT with or without ADT. METHODS: A total of 31,783 men diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with UIR prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed from the National Cancer Database. Men were stratified into 4 groups: EBRT (n=12,985), EBRT plus ADT (n=12,960), brachytherapy (n=4,535), or brachytherapy plus ADT (n=1,303). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for covariable imbalances, and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Relative to EBRT alone, the following treatments were associated with improved OS: EBRT plus ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; P=.002), brachytherapy alone (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98; P=.01), and brachytherapy plus ADT (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P=.00006). Brachytherapy correlated with improved OS relative to EBRT in men who were not treated with ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P=.03) and in those receiving ADT (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95; P=.004). At 10-year follow-up, 56% and 63% of men receiving EBRT and brachytherapy, respectively, were alive (P<.0001). IPTW was used to determine the average treatment effect of definitive brachytherapy. Relative to EBRT, definitive brachytherapy correlated with improved OS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P=.009) on weight-adjusted MVA. CONCLUSIONS: Definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS compared with EBRT. The addition of ADT to both EBRT and definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS. These results suggest that definitive brachytherapy should be considered as an option for men with UIR prostate cancer.

Management of primary skin cancer during a pandemic: Multidisciplinary recommendations.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making regarding the pros and cons of early versus delayed interventions for localized skin cancer. Patients at highest risk of COVID-19 complications are older; are immunosuppressed; and have diabetes, cancer, or cardiopulmonary disease, with multiple comorbidities associated with worse outcomes. Physicians must weigh the patient's risk of COVID-19 complications in the event of exposure against the risk of worse oncologic outcomes from delaying cancer therapy. Herein, the authors have summarized current data regarding the risk of COVID-19 complications and mortality based on age and comorbidities and have reviewed the literature assessing how treatment delays affect oncologic outcomes. They also have provided multidisciplinary recommendations regarding the timing of local therapy for early-stage skin cancers during this pandemic with input from experts at 11 different institutions. For patients with Merkel cell carcinoma, the authors recommend prioritizing treatment, but a short delay can be considered for patients with favorable T1 disease who are at higher risk of COVID-19 complications. For patients with melanoma, the authors recommend delaying the treatment of patients with T0 to T1 disease for 3 months if there is no macroscopic residual disease at the time of biopsy. Treatment of tumors ≥T2 can be delayed for 3 months if the biopsy margins are negative. For patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, those with Brigham and Women's Hospital T1 to T2a disease can have their treatment delayed for 2 to 3 months unless there is rapid growth, symptomatic lesions, or the patient is immunocompromised. The treatment of tumors ≥T2b should be prioritized, but a 1-month to 2-month delay is unlikely to worsen disease-specific mortality. For patients with squamous cell carcinoma in situ and basal cell carcinoma, treatment can be deferred for 3 months unless the individual is highly symptomatic.

Concurrent chemo-radiotherapy with proton therapy: reduced toxicity with comparable oncological outcomes vs photon chemo-radiotherapy.

Concurrent chemo-radiotherapy is a commonly employed curative treatment approach for locally advanced cancers but is associated with considerable morbidity. Chemo-radiotherapy using proton therapy may be able to reduce side effects of treatment and improve efficacy, but this remains an area of controversy and data are relatively limited. We comment on recently published studies and discuss future directions for proton therapy.

Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment. METHODS: The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07-13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18-17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3-33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7-28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9-24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0-35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. INTERPRETATION: In this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

NRG oncology RTOG 9006: a phase III randomized trial of hyperfractionated radiotherapy (RT) and BCNU versus standard RT and BCNU for malignant glioma patients.

From 1990 to 1994, patients with newly diagnosed malignant gliomas were enrolled and randomized between hyperfractionated radiation (HFX) of 72.0 Gy in 60 fractions given twice daily and 60.0 Gy in 30 fractions given once daily. All patients received 80 mg/m2 of 1,3 bis(2 chloroethyl)-1 nitrosourea on days 1-3 q8 weeks for 1 year. Patients were stratified by age, KPS, and histology. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), with secondary endpoints including progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity. Out of the 712 patients accrued, 694 (97.5%) were analyzable cases (350 HFX, 344 standard arm). There was no significant difference between the arms on overall acute or late treatment-related toxicity. No statistically significant effect for HFX, as compared to standard therapy, was found on either OS, with a median survival time (MST) of 11.3 versus 13.1 months (p = 0.20) or PFS, with a median PFS time of 5.7 versus 6.9 months (p = 0.18). The treatment effect on OS remained insignificant based on the multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 1.16; p = 0.0682). When OS was analyzed by histology subgroup there was also no significant difference between the two arms for patients with glioblastoma multiforme (MST: 10.3 vs. 11.2 months; p = 0.34), anaplastic astrocytoma (MST: 69.8 vs. 50.0 months; p = 0.91) or anaplastic oligodendroglioma (MST: 92.1 vs. 66.5 months; p = 0.33). Though this trial provided many invaluable secondary analyses, there was no trend or indication of a benefit to HFX radiation to 72.0 Gy in any subset of malignant glioma patients.

Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Annually, there are nearly 3000 new cases and 500 deaths from prostate cancer in Missouri. When treatment is appropriate and necessary, radiotherapy offers similar cure rates to prostatectomy, with fewer long-term sexual side effects and little effect on urinary continence. Radiotherapy is delivered with external beam or implanted radioactive sources (brachytherapy). In high-risk disease, combinations of external beam and brachytherapy offers improved biochemical control. Following prostatectomy, salvage radiotherapy should be initiated as soon as possible.

Adjuvant radiation therapy, androgen deprivation, and docetaxel for high-risk prostate cancer postprostatectomy: Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG study 0621.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 trials have demonstrated a benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) for men who have adverse factors at radical prostatectomy (RP). However, some patients have a high risk of progression despite ART. The role of systemic therapy with ART in this high-risk group remains to be defined. METHODS: Patients who had either a post-RP prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir > 0.2 ng/mL and a Gleason score ≥7 or a PSA nadir ≤0.2 ng/mL, a Gleason score ≥8, and a pathologic tumor (pT) classification ≥ pT3 received 6 months of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) plus radiotherapy and 6 cycles of docetaxel. The primary objective was to assess whether the addition of ADT and docetaxel to ART resulted in a freedom from progression (FFP) rate ≥ 70% compared with an expected rate of 50%. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to model associations between factors and outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 74 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The pathologic tumor classification was pT2 in 4% of patients, pT3 in 95%, and pT4 in 1%. The Gleason score was 7 in 18% of patients and ≥8 in 82%. Post-RP PSA levels were ≤0.2 ng/mL in 53% of patients and >0.2 ng/mL in 47%. The 3-year FFP rate was 73% (95% confidence interval, 61%-83%), and the 3-year cumulative incidence of biochemical, distant, and local failure was 26%, 7%, and 0%, respectively. In multivariate models, postprostatectomy PSA nadir was associated with 3-year FFP, Gleason score, and PSA with biochemical failure. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was common; however, only 3 episodes of febrile neutropenia occurred. Late toxicities were not impacted by the addition of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Combined ADT, docetaxel, and ART for men with high-risk prostate cancer after prostatectomy exceeded the prespecified study endpoint of 70% 3-year FFP. Phase 3 trials assessing combined local and systemic therapies for these high-risk patients are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2489-96. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Treatment of Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: AUA/ASCO/ASTRO/SUO Guideline.

PURPOSE: This multidisciplinary, evidence-based guideline for clinically non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer focuses on the evaluation, treatment and surveillance of muscle-invasive bladder cancer guided toward curative intent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review utilizing research from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as well as additional supplementation by the authors and consultant methodologists was used to develop the guideline. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strengths Grade A, B or C and were designated as Strong, Moderate and Conditional Recommendations with additional statements presented in the form of Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions. RESULTS: For the first time for any type of malignancy, the American Urological Association, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology and Society of Urologic Oncology have formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk-stratified clinical framework for the management of muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer. This document is designed to be used in conjunction with the associated treatment algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity and scope of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer should focus on the patient, disease and treatment response characteristics. This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to evaluate and treat each patient, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve level of care for these patients.

Relief of Urinary Symptom Burden after Primary Prostate Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Harms of prostate cancer treatment on urinary health related quality of life have been thoroughly studied. In this study we evaluated not only the harms but also the potential benefits of prostate cancer treatment in relieving the pretreatment urinary symptom burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In American (1,021) and Spanish (539) multicenter prospective cohorts of men with localized prostate cancer we evaluated the effects of radical prostatectomy, external radiotherapy or brachytherapy in relieving pretreatment urinary symptoms and in inducing urinary symptoms de novo, measured by changes in urinary medication use and patient reported urinary bother. RESULTS: Urinary symptom burden improved in 23% and worsened in 28% of subjects after prostate cancer treatment in the American cohort. Urinary medication use rates before treatment and 2 years after treatment were 15% and 6% with radical prostatectomy, 22% and 26% with external radiotherapy, and 19% and 46% with brachytherapy, respectively. Pretreatment urinary medication use (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-2.0, p = 0.04) and pretreatment moderate lower urinary tract symptoms (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.2-3.6) predicted prostate cancer treatment associated relief of baseline urinary symptom burden. Subjects with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent radical prostatectomy experienced the greatest relief of pretreatment symptoms (OR 4.3, 95% CI 3.0-6.1), despite the development of deleterious de novo urinary incontinence in some men. The magnitude of pretreatment urinary symptom burden and beneficial effect of cancer treatment on those symptoms were verified in the Spanish cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Men with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms may experience benefit rather than harm in overall urinary outcome from primary prostate cancer treatment. Practitioners should consider the full spectrum of urinary symptom burden evident before prostate cancer treatment in treatment decisions.

A comparative study based on image quality and clinical task performance for CT reconstruction algorithms in radiotherapy.

CT image reconstruction is typically evaluated based on the ability to reduce the radiation dose to as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) while maintaining acceptable image quality. However, the determination of common image quality metrics, such as noise, contrast, and contrast-to-noise ratio, is often insufficient for describing clinical radiotherapy task performance. In this study we designed and implemented a new comparative analysis method associating image quality, radiation dose, and patient size with radiotherapy task performance, with the purpose of guiding the clinical radiotherapy usage of CT reconstruction algorithms. The iDose4 iterative reconstruction algorithm was selected as the target for comparison, wherein filtered back-projection (FBP) reconstruction was regarded as the baseline. Both phantom and patient images were analyzed. A layer-adjustable anthropomorphic pelvis phantom capable of mimicking 38-58 cm lateral diameter-sized patients was imaged and reconstructed by the FBP and iDose4 algorithms with varying noise-reduction-levels, respectively. The resulting image sets were quantitatively assessed by two image quality indices, noise and contrast-to-noise ratio, and two clinical task-based indices, target CT Hounsfield number (for electron density determination) and structure contouring accuracy (for dose-volume calculations). Additionally, CT images of 34 patients reconstructed with iDose4 with six noise reduction levels were qualitatively evaluated by two radiation oncologists using a five-point scoring mechanism. For the phantom experiments, iDose4 achieved noise reduction up to 66.1% and CNR improvement up to 53.2%, compared to FBP without considering the changes of spatial resolution among images and the clinical acceptance of reconstructed images. Such improvements consistently appeared across different iDose4 noise reduction levels, exhibiting limited interlevel noise (< 5 HU) and target CT number variations (< 1 HU). The radiation dose required to achieve similar contouring accuracy decreased when using iDose4 in place of FBP, up to 32%. Contouring accuracy improvement for iDose4 images, when compared to FBP, was greater in larger patients than smaller-sized patients. Overall, the iDose4 algorithm provided superior radiation dose control while maintaining or improving task performance, when compared to FBP. The reader study on image quality improvement of patient cases shows that physicians preferred iDose4-reconstructed images on all cases compared to those from FBP algorithm with overall quality score: 1.21 vs. 3.15, p = 0.0022. However, qualitative evaluation strongly indicated that the radiation oncologists chose iDose4 noise reduction levels of 3-4 with additional consideration of task performance, instead of image quality metrics alone. Although higher iDose4 noise reduction levels improved the CNR through the further reduction of noise, there was pixelization of anatomical/tumor structures. Very-low-dose scans yielded severe photon starvation artifacts, which decreased target visualization on both FBP and iDose4 reconstructions, especially for the 58 cm phantom size. The iDose4 algorithm with a moderate noise reduction level is hence suggested for CT simulation and treatment planning. Quantitative task-based image quality metrics should be further investigated to accommodate additional clinical applications.

Preliminary patient-reported outcomes analysis of 3-dimensional radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy on the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0126 prostate cancer trial.

BACKGROUND: The authors analyzed a preliminary report of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among men who received high-dose radiation therapy (RT) on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group study 0126 (a phase 3 dose-escalation trial) with either 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). METHODS: Patients in the 3D-CRT group received 55.8 gray (Gy) to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles and were allowed an optional field reduction; then, they received 23.4 Gy to the prostate only. Patients in the IMRT group received 79.2 Gy to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles. PROs were assessed at 0 months (baseline), 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months and included bladder and bowel function assessed with the Functional Alterations due to Changes in Elimination (FACE) instrument and erectile function assessed with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Analyses included the patients who completed all data at baseline and for at least 1 follow-up assessment, and the results were compared with an imputed data set. RESULTS: Of 763 patients who were randomized to the 79.2-Gy arm, 551 patients and 595 patients who responded to the FACE instrument and 505 patients and 577 patients who responded to the IIEF were included in the completed and imputed analyses, respectively. There were no significant differences between modalities for any of the FACE or IIEF subscale scores or total scores at any time point for either the completed data set or the imputed data set. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant reductions in dose and volume to normal structures using IMRT, this robust analysis of 3D-CRT and IMRT demonstrated no difference in patient-reported bowel, bladder, or sexual functions for similar doses delivered to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles with IMRT compared with 3D-CRT delivered either to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles or to the prostate alone.

Evaluation of 3 T pelvic MRI imaging in prostate cancer patients receiving post-prostatectomy IMRT.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the utility of a 3 T pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting a local recurrence in post-prostatectomy prostate cancer patients prior to receiving adjuvant or salvage intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS: Ninety prostate cancer patients status post-prostatectomy with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had a 3 T pelvic MRI prior to IMRT. The following variables were analyzed for predicting positive findings on MRI: initial presenting and initial post-op PSA, PSA at the time of imaging, PSA velocity, surgical margins, Gleason score, pathological stage, pre-RT digital rectal examination, and type of surgical prostatectomy. RESULTS: The only significant variable predictive of a positive MRI was positive margins. Specifically, 15 of 46 (33 %) patients with positive margins had a positive MRI, while 5 of 44 (11 %) patients with negative margins had a positive MRI. In the MRI positive group, the location of the positive findings on MRI corresponded with the pathology report in 9 of 12 (75 %) cases. CONCLUSION: Post-prostatectomy patients with pathologic positive margins are three times more likely to have positive findings on a 3 T MRI.

Comparative effectiveness study of patient-reported outcomes after proton therapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Data continue to emerge on the relative merits of different treatment modalities for prostate cancer. The objective of this study was to compare patient-reported quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes after proton therapy (PT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. METHODS: A comparison was performed of prospectively collected QOL data using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire. QOL data were collected during the first 2 years after treatment for men who received PT and IMRT. PT was delivered to 1243 men at a single center at doses from 76 grays (Gy) to 82 Gy. IMRT was delivered to 204 men who were included in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction with Treatment Quality Assessment (PROSTQA) study in doses from 75.6 Gy to 79.4 Gy. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare EPIC outcomes by modality using baseline-adjusted scores at different time points. Individual questions were assessed by converting to binary outcomes and testing with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: No differences were observed in summary score changes for bowel, urinary incontinence, urinary irritative/obstructive, and sexual domains between the 2 cohorts. However, more men who received IMRT reported moderate/big problems with rectal urgency (P = 0.02) and frequent bowel movements (P = 0.05) than men who received PT. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in QOL summary scores between the IMRT and PT cohorts during early follow-up (up to 2-years). Response to individual questions suggests possible differences in specific bowel symptoms between the 2 cohorts. These outcomes highlight the need for further comparative studies of PT and IMRT.

Handling Patient Emergencies During Radiopharmaceutical Therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) is a rapidly growing treatment modality. Though uncommon, patients may experience complications during their RPT treatment, which may trigger a rapid response from the hospital team. However, members of this team are typically not familiar with precautions for radiation safety. During these events, it is important to prioritize the patient's health over all else. There are some practices that can help minimize the risk of radiation contamination spread and exposure to staff while tending to the patient. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We formed a team to develop a standard protocol for handling patient emergencies during RPT treatment. This team consisted of an authorized user, radiation safety officer, medical physicist, nurse, RPT administration staff, and a quality/safety coordinator. The focus for developing this standardized protocol for RPT patient emergencies was 3-fold: (1) stabilize the patient; (2) reduce radiation exposure to staff; and (3) limit the spread of radiation contamination. RESULTS: We modified our hospital's existing rapid response protocol to account for the additional staff and tasks needed to accomplish all 3 of these goals. Each team member was assigned specific responsibilities, which include serving as a gatekeeper to restrict traffic, managing the crash cart, performing chest compressions, timing chest compressions, documenting the situation, and monitoring/managing radiation safety in the area. We developed a small, easy-to-read card for rapid response staff to read while they are en route to the area so they can be aware of and prepare for the unique circumstances that RPT treatments present. CONCLUSIONS: Though rapid response events with RPT patients are uncommon, it is important to have a standardized protocol for how to handle these situations beforehand rather than improvise in the moment. We have provided an example of how our team adapted our hospital's current rapid response protocol to accommodate RPT patients.