Low-dose palliative radiotherapy for malignant peripheral T-cell lymphoma masked by cellulitis and osteomyelitis: a case report.

Classic Hodgkin lymphoma is a potentially curable disease. With the advent of effective systemic regimens with adriamycin, bleomycin, vincristine, and dacarbazine, chemotherapy has become the treatment of choice for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. However, for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma after chemotherapy, disease relapse rates are still high. This case report highlights how low-dose palliative radiotherapy can be used successfully for the management of an unusual case of recurrent lymphoma with a different histology soon after completing systemic therapy, which was further complicated by an ongoing local infection.

Two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) versus two-fraction high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: Does dose heterogeneity matter?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Contemporary radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is deliverable via stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Here we report on a parallel cohort analysis of two prospective, phase II clinical trials of two-fraction prostate SABR versus two-fraction HDR monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrolled patients had histologically-confirmed PCa (clinical stage T1c-T2b; grade group 1, 2, or 3; and PSA < 20 ng/mL). SABR and HDR doses were 26 Gy and 27 Gy in 2 weekly fractions, respectively. Patient-level data from each cohort was analysed to assess prostate specific antigen (PSA) response kinetics, biochemical failure, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: Thirty patients receiving SABR and 83 receiving HDR were included. Fifty percent and 30% of patients had unfavourable-intermediate risk disease, respectively. SABR patients had higher mean baseline PSA (8.7 versus 6.8 ng/mL, p = 0.016). Median follow-up was 72.7 and 65.3 months, respectively. Mean dose delivered (Dmean) was 26.6-26.8 Gy for SABR versus 35.5-45.5 Gy for HDR. Both cohorts achieved a median nadir PSA of 0.16 ng/mL at a median of 57 months post-treatment. Cumulative biochemical failure probability (±SE) at 72 months was 3.5% (±3.5%) for SABR versus 12.8% (±4.8%) for HDR (p = 0.19). Low rates of CTCAE grade ≥2 toxicity were observed in both cohorts. No differences in EPIC scores over time were observed between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Two-fraction SABR yields similar rates of biochemical failure, acute and late toxicities, and QOL as two-faction HDR brachytherapy. These data support the design of a randomized controlled trial comparing these treatments.

Single-fraction HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy in low and intermediate risk prostate cancer: Outcomes from two clinical trials with and without an MRI-guided boost.

PURPOSE: Single-fraction HDR monotherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer is appealing, but published outcomes are discouraging. An approach to improve local control is MRI-guided focal dose-escalation to the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL). Here we report a comparison of outcomes from two phase II clinical trials with and without a focal boost. METHODS: Patients had low or intermediate-risk disease. Patients in Trial1 received a single 19 Gy HDR implant to the whole prostate. Trial2 incorporated an additional MRI-guided focal DIL boost to at least 23 Gy. ADT was not allowed. Toxicities (CTCAEv4.0) and quality of life (EPIC) were collected. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as nadir +2. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to search for predictors of BF. RESULTS: Trial1 had 87 patients with a median follow-up of 62 months, while Trial2 had 60 patients with a median follow-up of 50 months. The five-year cumulative BF rate was 32.6% and 31.3%, respectively (p = 0.9). 77.5% of failures were biopsy-confirmed local failures, all of which underwent local salvage therapy. The addition of a DIL boost was not associated with worse toxicity or QOL. Baseline PSA and Gleason score correlated with BF, but none of the dosimetric parameters was a significant predictor of BF. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-guided focal boost was safe and well tolerated, but did not improve local control after 19 Gy single-fraction HDR monotherapy, and the control rates were unacceptable. Single-fraction HDR monotherapy for prostate cancer should not be offered outside of clinical trials.

Saudi Lymphoma Group's Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis, Management and Follow-up of Patients with Various Types of Lymphoma during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

The Saudi Lymphoma Group had previously published recommendations on the management of the major subtypes of lymphoma. However, the effect the currently ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has on the management of patients with lymphoma has been paramount. Therefore, the Saudi Lymphoma Group has decided to provide clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis, management and follow-up of patients with various types of lymphoma during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dosimetric impact of tracheostomy devices in head and neck cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: The tracheostomy site and adjacent skin is at risk for recurrence in head/neck squamous cell cancer patients. The tracheostomy tube is an in situ device located directly over the tracheostomy site and may have clinical implications on the radiation dose delivered to the peristomal region. This study aimed to investigate this effect by comparing the prescribed treatment planning dose with the actual dose in vivo to the peristomal clinical target region. A retrospective, dosimetric study was performed with approval of the institutional research ethics board. METHODS: Fifteen patients who had received high-dose radiotherapy to the tracheostomy region with in vivo dose measurements were included. The radiation dose at the skin surface underneath the tracheostomy device was measured using an optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD) and was compared with the prescribed dose from the radiation planning system. The effect of the tracheostomy flange and/or soft tissue equivalent bolus on the peristomal dose was calculated. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Patients with tracheostomy equipment in situ were found to have a 3.7% difference between their prescribed and actual dose. With a tissue equivalent bolus there was a 2.0% difference between predicted and actual. The mean prescribed single fraction dose (mean = 191.8 cGy, SD = 40.18) and OSLD measured dose (mean = 194.02 cGy, SD = 44.3) were found to have no significant difference. However, with the flange excluded from the planning simulation (density = air) target skin dose deviated from predicted by an average of 55.3% (range = 12.4-72.9, SD = 22.5) and volume coverage was not achieved. CONCLUSION: In summary, the tracheostomy flange acts like bolus with a twofold increase in the skin surface dose. Changes in the peristomal apparatus from simulation to treatment needs to be considered to ensure that the simulated dose and coverage is achieved.

Accelerating prostate stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy: Efficacy and toxicity of a randomized phase II study of 11 versus 29 days overall treatment time (PATRIOT).

BACKGROUND: Prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) regimens differ in time, dose, and fractionation. We report an update of a multicentre, Canadian randomized phase II study to investigate the impact of overall treatment time on quality of life (QOL), efficacy, and toxicity. METHODS: Men with intermediate risk prostate cancer were randomized to 40 Gy in 5 fractions delivered every other day (EOD) versus once per week (QW). Primary outcome was proportion of patients experiencing a minimally clinically important change (MCIC) in acute bowel QOL using EPIC. Secondary outcomes were toxicity, biochemical failure (BF), other QOL domains, and the rate of salvage therapy. FINDINGS: 152 men from 3 centers were randomized; the median follow-up was 62 months. Results are described for EOD versus QW. Acute bowel and urinary QOL was reported previously. Late changes in QOL were not significantly different between the two arms. There were 1 (1.3%) vs 3 (2.7%) late grade 3 + GI toxicities (p = 0.36) and 5 (6.7%) vs 2 (2.7%) late grade 3 GU toxicities (p = 0.44). Two and 5 patients had BF (5-year failure rate 3.0 vs 7.2%, p = 0.22); 0 and 4 patients received salvage therapy (p = 0.04). 5-Year OS and CSS was 95.8% and 98.6% with no difference between arms (p = 0.49, p = 0.15). 3 patients in the QW arm developed metastases. INTERPRETATION: Although we previously reported that weekly prostate SABR had better bowel and urinary QOL compared to EOD, the updated results show no difference in late toxicity, QOL, BF, or PSA kinetics. Patients should be counseled that QW SABR reduces short-term toxicity compared to QW SABR.

Comparison of CTVHR and organs at risk contours between TRUS and MR images in IB cervical cancers: a proof of concept study.

PURPOSE: To compare CTVHR and OAR dimensions and inter-rater agreement between magnetic resonance (MR) and trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) images in IB cervical cancer patients. METHODS: IB cervical cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiotherapy plus MR-guided brachytherapy (BT) were prospectively enrolled in this study. Radiation oncologists contoured CTVHR and OARs in pre-BT MR images (MRI) and intra-operative TRUS images. These contours were subsequently compared in regard to volume and dimension. Contour inter-rater agreement analysis was also investigated using kappa index (KI). Stata 15.0 was used for statistical analysis and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: TRUS CTVHR volumes were statistically smaller than the respective MRI contoured volumes. TRUS CTVHR thickness was found to be consistently smaller than MRI contours in all patients. No statistical difference was seen in width and height between the two different imaging modalities. MRI contours had a median KI of 0.66 (range: 0.56-0.77) while TRUS-based contours had a median KI of 0.64 (range: 0.47-0.77). Bladder and rectum had very satisfactory KI in both imaging modalities. Vaginal contours had moderate agreement in MR (0.52) and in TRUS images (0.58). CONCLUSION: TRUS images allow good visualization of CTVHR and OARs in IB cervical cancer patients. Inter-rater contour variability was comparable between TRUS and MR images. TRUS is a promising modality on its own for image-guided BT.

Evaluating the Tolerability of a Simultaneous Focal Boost to the Gross Tumor in Prostate SABR: A Toxicity and Quality-of-Life Comparison of Two Prospective Trials.

PURPOSE: Dose-escalated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to the whole prostate may be associated with better outcomes but has a risk of increased toxicity. An alternative approach is to focally boost the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) seen on magnetic resonance imaging. We report the toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes of 2 phase 2 trials of prostate and pelvic SABR, with or without a simultaneous DIL boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The first trial treated patients with high-risk prostate cancer to a dose of 40 Gy to the prostate and 25 Gy to the pelvis in 5 fractions. The second trial treated patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer to a dose of 35 Gy to the prostate, 25 Gy to the pelvis, and a DIL boost up to 50 Gy in 5 fractions. Acute toxicities, late toxicities, and QOL were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled in each trial. In the focal boost cohort, the median DIL D90% was 48.3 Gy. There was no significant difference in acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity between the 2 trials or in cumulative worst late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity up to 24 months. There was no significant difference in QOL domain scores or minimally clinical important change between the 2 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate and pelvic SABR with a simultaneous DIL boost was feasible. Acute grade ≥2 toxicity, late toxicity, and QOL seemed to be comparable to a cohort that did not receive a focal boost. Further follow-up will be required to assess long-term outcomes, and randomized data are required to confirm these findings.

Dosimetric predictors of toxicity and quality of life following prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: SABR offers an effective treatment option for clinically localized prostate cancer. Here we report the dosimetric predictors of late toxicity and quality of life (QOL) in a pooled cohort of patients from four phase II trials. METHODS: The combined cohort included all three prostate cancer risk groups. The prescription dose was 35-40 Gy in 5 fractions. Toxicity (CTCAE) and QOL (EPIC) were collected. Multiple dosimetric parameters for the bladder, rectum and penile bulb were collected. Univariate (UVA) followed by multivariate (MVA) logistic regression analysis was conducted to search for significant dosimetric predictors of late GI/GU toxicity, or minimal clinically important change in the relevant QOL domain. RESULTS: 258 patients were included with median follow up of 6.1 years. For QOL, bladder Dmax, V38, D1cc, D2cc, D5cc and rectal V35 were predictors of urinary and bowel MCIC on UVA. On MVA, only bladder V38 remained significant. For late toxicity, various parameters were significant on UVA but only rectal Dmax, V38 and bladder D2cc were significant predictors on MVA. CONCLUSIONS: This report confirms that the high-dose regions in the bladder and rectum are more significant predictors of late toxicity and QOL after prostate SABR compared to low-dose regions. Caution must be taken to avoid high doses and hotspots in those organs.

MRI assisted focal boost integrated with HDR monotherapy study in low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (MARS): Results from a phase II clinical trial.

PURPOSE: There is growing concern that single-fraction HDR monotherapy to a dose of 19 Gy is suboptimal for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. We report the results of a phase II prospective trial of single-fraction 19 Gy HDR monotherapy with MRI-guided simultaneous focal boost. METHODS: Eligible patients had low or intermediate risk prostate cancer and an identified lesion on MRI. TRUS based single-fraction HDR monotherapy with MRI fusion was delivered. The dose prescribed was 19 Gy to the prostate and ≥23 Gy to the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL). ADT was not used. The purpose is to report early efficacy results. RESULTS: 60 patients were enrolled, with a median follow-up of 39 months. With MRI T-stage incorporated into the risk-group criteria, 8% had low-risk, 35% had favorable intermediate-risk and 57% had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. The median dose to 90% of the DIL (D90) was 27.2 Gy, and the median prostate V100% was 96.9%. No acute or late grade ≥3 bowel or urinary toxicity was observed. The cumulative BF probability was 15.2% at 36 months and 31.6% at 48 months. All patients that were fully investigated had local failure only, and 88% of the local failures were at the site of original DIL. The median PSA nadir was 0.79 ng/ml, with a median time to nadir of 32 months. CONCLUSIONS: Focal boost to the MRI-specified gross tumor was well tolerated, but did not adequately improve local control. Single-fraction HDR monotherapy to 19 Gy for prostate cancer provides suboptimal local control, and should not be offered outside of clinical trials.

Two versus five stereotactic ablative radiotherapy treatments for localized prostate cancer: A quality of life analysis of two prospective clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is appealing for prostate cancer (PCa) due to low α/ß, and increasing the dose per fraction could improve the therapeutic index and lead to a better quality of life (QOL). Here we report the outcomes of a QOL comparison between two phase II clinical trials: two vs. five fraction prostate SABR. METHODS: Patients had low or intermediate risk PCa. The doses prescribed were 26 Gy/2 and 40 Gy/5. Expanded prostate cancer index composite was collected. Urinary, bowel and sexual domains were analyzed. Minimal clinically important change (MCIC) was defined as >0.5 standard deviation. RESULTS: 30 and 152 patients were treated with 2-fraction and 5-fraction SABR. Median follow-up was 55 and 62 months. Five-year biochemical failure rate was 3.3% and 4.6%. The 2-fraction cohort had a significantly better mean QOL over time in the bowel domain (p = 0.0004), without a significant difference in the urinary or sexual domains. The 2-fraction cohort had a significantly lower rate of bowel MCIC (17.8% vs 42.3%, p = 0.01), but there was no difference in urinary (24.1% vs 35.7%) or sexual (15.3% vs 29.2%) MCIC. For MCIC x2 (moderate QOL change), the 2-fraction trial had significantly lower MCIC rates in both the bowel (7.1% vs 24%, p = 0.04) and sexual (0 vs 17.6%, p = 0.01) domains. CONCLUSIONS: 2-Fraction SABR is feasible to deliver and well tolerated, with significant signals of improved bowel and sexual QOL. A randomized trial of two vs. five fractions for prostate SABR is needed to confirm the promising findings of this study.

5-Year Outcomes of a Prospective Phase 1/2 Study of Accelerated Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy to the Prostate Bed.

PURPOSE: To report the 5-year outcomes from a single institution, prospective, phase 1/2 study on hypofractionated, accelerated radiation therapy to the prostate bed after radical prostatectomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients enrolled in this study were all eligible for postoperative radiation therapy and received a prescribed dose of 51 Gy in 17 fractions to the prostate bed. On follow-up, gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was evaluated and quality of life was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled between 2008 and 2011. Median age was 65 (52-75) years. Median pretreatment PSA was 0.12 ng/mL (0.01-1.42). Twenty-six (93%) patients had Gleason ≤7 disease, 13 (43%) had pT3 disease, and 20 (67%) had positive margins. Twenty-six patients (87%) underwent radiation therapy as salvage treatment. After a median follow-up of 6.4 (2.1-8.1) years, no patient experienced Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3/4 toxicity. Eleven patients (37%) had grade 2 genitourinary and 2 (7%) had grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity. At baseline and 5 years after radiation therapy, mean EPIC urinary domain score was 80% (standard deviation, 18%) and 82% (17%). Mean EPIC bowel domain score was 93% (13%) and 93% (15%). One patient (4%) had a minimally clinically important change in urinary domain score and 1 patient (4%) had a minimally clinically important change in bowel domain score. Nelson-Aalen estimated cumulative incidence of biochemical failure was 31% (nadir +0.2) and 18% (nadir +2.0) at 5 years. Four-year PSA ≥0.4 was predictive of subsequent androgen deprivation therapy use (Nelson-Aalen cumulative incidence: 1.45; P < .0001). Five patients (17%) received hormonal therapy for biochemical failure. Nelson-Aalen estimated cumulative incidence of hormone therapy use was 14% at 5 years. All patients who received hormone therapy had PSA >0.4 at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1/2 study, hypofractionated postoperative radiation therapy seems to have good clinical efficacy without significant late toxicity. Phase 3 studies are warranted.

Two StereoTactic ablative radiotherapy treatments for localized prostate cancer (2STAR): Results from a prospective clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Ultrahypofractionation is appealing for prostate cancer (PCa) due to low α/ß, and increasing the dose per fraction could improve the therapeutic index. Here we report the outcomes of a phase II prostate SABR trial using two fractions. METHODS: Patients had low or intermediate risk prostate cancer. Three gold fiducials were implanted for image guidance. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the prostate only, and the planning target volume (PTV) was a 3 mm expansion enabled through the use of a rectal immobilization device. The dose prescribed was 26 Gy in 2 weekly fractions (EQD2 110 Gy1.4). The primary endpoint was quality of life using EPIC, and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) was defined as an EPIC QOL decrease >0.5 SD. RESULTS: 30 patients were accrued with a median follow-up of 49.3 months. 10% had low-risk, 33% had favourable intermediate-risk and 57% had unfavourable intermediate-risk PCa. Five patients received a short course of ADT. Median nPSA was 0.2 ng/ml. One patient had BF and is being observed. 56.6% of patients had a 4yPSARR. Six (20.7%) patients had a MCIC in the urinary domain, 6 (21.4%) had a MCIC in the bowel domain, and 3 (20%) had a MCIC in the sexual domain. CONCLUSIONS: Two-fraction SABR in prostate cancer is safe and feasible, with a minimal change in QOL and a low rate of late grade 3-4 toxicity. The PSA kinetics and biochemical control rates are encouraging given that the majority had unfavourable intermediate-risk disease, although longer follow-up is required.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Boost for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Study.

PURPOSE: High-dose-rate brachytherapy boost plus external beam radiation therapy is an established option for intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) boost can potentially mimic high-dose-rate boost and could be a viable alternative. Here we report the long-term outcomes of a phase 1 dose-escalation trial of single-fraction SBRT boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients had intermediate-risk PCa and were accrued to 3 different SBRT single-fraction dose-level cohorts (10 Gy, 12.5 Gy, and 15 Gy). All received supplemental radiation therapy afterwards (37.5 Gy in 15 fractions). Three gold fiducials were implanted for image guidance. Patients were simulated and treated with a foley catheter and intrarectal balloon. A T2 magnetic resonance imaging scan was used for contouring, and a cine magnetic resonance imaging scan was used to calculate patient-specific internal target volume margins. Toxicity and quality-of-life data were collected using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. RESULTS: 30 patients were accrued, 10 in each cohort. Median follow-up was 72 months. 60% had unfavorable intermediate-risk PCa. Two patients in the 15 Gy cohort developed late grade ≥3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, with 1 patient suffering from a grade-4 rectal fistula after a rectal ulcer was biopsied repeatedly. Two patients had biochemical failure. Median PSA nadir was 0.4 ng/mL with 10 Gy, 0.09 ng/mL with 12.5 Gy and 0.07 ng/mL with 15 Gy. Median PSA at 4 years as well as proportion achieving a nadir <0.2 ng/mL improved significantly with higher doses. There was no significant change in quality of life from baseline in any of the domains, and the minimal clinically important change was not statistically different between the 3 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Other than a grade 4 toxicity, which may in part be due to repeated biopsies of a rectal ulcer, single-fraction SBRT boost was feasible and well tolerated. Larger studies are warranted to better document the outcomes of such an approach.

SABR in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Outcomes From 2 Prospective Clinical Trials With and Without Elective Nodal Irradiation.

PURPOSE: There is limited data on stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), especially regarding the role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI). This study compares 2 prospective phase 2 trials using SABR in high-risk PCa, with and without ENI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients had high-risk PCa. Those in trial 1 received 40 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate and 30 Gy in 5 fractions to the seminal vesicles. Patients in trial 2 received 40 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate and 25 Gy in 5 fractions to the pelvis and seminal vesicles. National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicities were collected. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as nadir + 2, and the 4-year prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (4yPSARR) was <0.4 ng/mL. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included (trial 1, n = 30; trial 2, n = 30). Median follow-up was 5.6 years and 4.0 years. The median nadir PSA was 0.02 ng/mL for both trials. Six patients had BF, all from trial 1. The BF rate was 14.6% at 5 years in trial 1 and 0% in trial 2. Sixty-three percent of patients in trial 1 and 93% in trial 2 had a 4yPSARR. Two patients died in trial 1, 1 from metastatic disease. One patient in trial 2 died of other causes. No other patients developed metastatic disease, and 1 patient in trial 1 had castrate resistant PCa. Overall survival at 5 years was 93.2% and 96.7% (P = .86). There was significantly worse late gastrointestinal and sexual toxicity in trial 1, but there was no difference in late genitourinary toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: SABR in high-risk PCa yields biochemical control rates that may be comparable to that of other radiation therapy modalities. ENI using SABR is feasible and may lead to a significant improvement in biochemical control and in 4yPSARR, without an increase in late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Longer follow-up would provide a better assessment of biochemical control. Well-conducted phase 3 trials are needed to fully establish the role of SABR and ENI in high-risk PCa.

Radiotherapy for patients with unresected locally advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Management of locally-advanced breast cancer is determined by multiple factors, but in patients without distant metastases often involves neoadjuvant systemic therapy, surgery and radiation. If the primary tumour remains unresectable following systemic therapy, radiotherapy may be used for tumour shrinkage prior to surgery. When metastatic disease is present, locoregional radiotherapy is generally reserved for management of tumour-related symptoms. We reviewed our experience of high-dose radiotherapy for unresected locally-advanced breast cancer. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients with unresected locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) receiving external beam radiotherapy to the breast, chest wall and/or regional lymph nodes. Patients were stratified based on the presence of metastatic disease at presentation. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-three cases were analyzed between 2004 and 2016. Median follow-up was 25 months from diagnosis and 14 months from completion of radiotherapy. There were 24 cases (56%) with metastatic disease on presentation, and 19 (44%) without. Tumour shrinkage occurred within 3 months of completing radiotherapy in 36 cases (84%). Ulceration and bleeding improved following radiotherapy in 13 (54%) of the 24 applicable cases. Twenty-six patients (60%) developed moist desquamation but none experienced grade 4 or 5 radiation dermatitis. Median locoregional progression-free survival for all patients was 12 months from completion of radiotherapy. Locoregional progression-free survival (P=0.2) and overall survival (OS) (P=0.4) were not significantly different between patients with and without distant metastases at presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy provided good response and symptom control in most patients in this study; there is a role for palliative radiotherapy in patients with LABC.

Targeting Micrometastases: The Effect of Heterogeneous Radionuclide Distribution on Tumor Control Probability.

The spatial distribution of radiopharmaceuticals that emit short-range high linear-energy-transfer electrons greatly affects the absorbed dose and their biological effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of heterogeneous radionuclide distribution on tumor control probability (TCP) in a micrometastases model. Methods: Cancer cell lines; MDA-MB-468, SQ20B and 231-H2N were grown as spheroids to represent micrometastases. The intracellular distribution of a representative radiopeptide (111In-labelled epidermal growth factor, EGF) and radioimmunotherapeutic (111In-labelled Trastuzumab) was determined in cell internalization experiments. The intratumoral distribution was evaluated by microautoradiography of spheroids. γH2AX staining was performed on spheroid sections to correlate DNA damage with radionuclide distribution. Experimental surviving fractions (SFexp ) were obtained using clonogenic assays. A random closed-packed algorithm, which models the random packing behavior of cells and reflects variation in the radii of cells and nuclei, was used to simulate 3-D spheroids. Calculated survival fractions (SFcal ) were generated using an iterative modelling method based on Monte Carlo determined absorbed dose with the PENELOPE code and were compared to (SFexp ). Radiobiological parameters deduced from experimental results and MC simulations were used to predict the TCP for a 3-D spheroid model. Results: Calculated SFs were in good agreement with experimental data, particularly when an increased value for relative biological effectiveness (RBE) was applied to self-dose deposited by sources located in the nucleus and when radiobiological parameters were adjusted to account for dose protraction. Only in MDA-MB-468 spheroids treated with 111In-EGF was a TCP>0.5 achieved, indicating that for this cell type the radiopeptide would be curative when targeting micrometastases. This is attributed to the relative radiosensitivity of MDA-MB-468 cells, high nuclear uptake of the radiopeptide and uniform distribution of radioactivity throughout the spheroid. Conclusion: It is imperative to include biological endpoints when evaluating the distribution of radionuclides in models emulating micrometastatic disease. The spatial distribution of radioactivity is a clear determinant of biological effect and TCP as demonstrated in this study.

Dose escalation for prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR): Late outcomes from two prospective clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Optimal prostate SABR dose-fractionation is unknown. This study compares long-term outcomes from two prospective trials. METHODS: Study1 patients had low-risk PCa and received 35 Gy/5. Study2 patients had low/intermediate-risk PCa and received 40 Gy/5. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as nadir + 2. RESULTS: 114 patients were included (study1, n = 84; study2, n = 30). Median follow-up was 9.6 years and 6.9 years. Median nPSA was 0.4 and 0.1 ng/ml. Nine patients had BF (8 in study1, 1 in study2); two were managed with ADT and four had local salvage. The BF rate was 2.5% and 12.8% at 5 and 10 years for study1 and 3.3% at 5 years for study 2. BF probability was 0% if PSA <0.4 at 4 years, and 20.5% at 10 years if PSA ≥0.4 (p = 0.02). Nine patients died, none of PCa. No patient has metastases or castrate-resistance. At 10 years, OS and CSS were 90.4% (p = 0.25) and 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalated prostate SABR was associated with lower nPSAs but no difference in BF, OS, CSS or MFS. PSA <0.4 at 4 years was a predictor of biochemical control. Half of patients with BF were successfully salvaged. Given that this is a favorable-risk cohort, longer follow-up will be needed to see if the lower nPSA translates into lower BF rates.