Patient-reported Quality of Life After SBRT, LDR, and HDR Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of Outcomes.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare changes in patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL) following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), high dose rate (HDR), and low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Sexual Health Inventory For Men (SHIM), and Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) were prospectively collected for men with low/intermediate-risk cancer treated at a single institution. We used Generalized Estimating Equations to identify associations between variables and early (3 to 6 mo) or late (1 to 2 y) PRQOL scores. Minimally important differences (MID) were compared with assess clinical relevance. RESULTS: A total of 342 LDR, 159 HDR, and 112 SBRT patients treated from 2001 to 2018 were eligible. Gleason score, PSA, and age were lower among LDR patients compared with HDR/SBRT. Unadjusted baseline IPSS score was similar among all groups. Adjusted IPSS worsened at all time points compared with baseline after LDR/HDR. At early/late time points, rates of IPSS MID after LDR were higher compared to HDR/SBRT. There were no IPSS differences between SBRT and HDR. All modalities showed early and late SHIM worsening. There were no temporal differences in SHIM between SBRT and brachytherapy. There were no differences in EPIC subdomains between HDR and SBRT. Bowel symptoms worsened early after SBRT, whereas urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms worsened late after HDR. Among all domains, MID after SBRT and HDR were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients treated with modern radiotherapy techniques, HDR and SBRT resulted in clinically meaningful improved urinary PRQOL compared with LDR.

Pelvic Reirradiation Utilizing Pulsed Low-dose Rate Radiation Therapy.

Pulsed low-dose rate radiation therapy has been shown to reduce normal tissue damage while decreasing DNA damage repair in tumor cells. In a cohort of patients treated with palliative or definitive pelvic reirradiation using pulsed low-dose rate radiation therapy, we observed substantial local control and low rates of toxicity.

Treatment times in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy: Is efficiency a benefit of preoperative chemotherapy?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Delays in times to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy impair survival in breast cancer patients. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) confers equivalent survival to adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), but it remains unknown which approach facilitates faster initiation and completion of treatment. METHODS: Women ≥18 years old with nonrecurrent, noninflammatory, clinical stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who underwent both surgery and chemotherapy were reviewed from the National Cancer Database. RESULTS: Among 155 606 women overall, 28 241 patients received NAC and 127 365 patients received AC. NAC patients had higher clinical T and N stages (35.8% T3/4 vs 4.9% T3/4; 14.4% N2/3 vs 3.7% N2/3). After adjusting for stage and other factors, NAC patients had longer times to begin treatment (36.1 vs 35.4 days adjusted, P = .15), and took significantly longer to start radiotherapy (240.8 vs 218.2 days adjusted, P < .0001), and endocrine therapy (301.6 vs 275.7 days adjusted, P < .0001). Unplanned readmissions (1.2% vs 1.7%), 30-day mortality (0.04% vs 0.01%), and 90-day mortality (0.30% vs 0.08%) were all low and clinically insignificant between NAC and AC. CONCLUSION: Compared to patients receiving AC, those receiving NAC do not start treatment sooner. In addition, patients receiving NAC do not complete treatment faster. Although there are clear indications for administering NAC vs AC, rapidity of treatment should not be considered a benefit of giving chemotherapy preoperatively.

Predictors of Distant Recurrence Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize patients at an increased risk of distant metastasis (DM) following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients undergoing SBRT for stage I NSCLC between 2005 and 2016. Patients with a prior lung cancer diagnosis, receiving a biological effective dose <100 Gy, or receiving chemotherapy were excluded. Patients underwent pretreatment staging and were classified according to the American Joint Committee for Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition staging. The primary endpoint was DM. The Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival analysis and to identify predictors of DM. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients were included, with a median age 75 years (range, 49 to 96 y) and a median follow-up of 24 months (range, 3 to 123 mo). The 2- and 4-year cumulative incidences of DM were 14.2% and 19.1%, respectively. Patients who developed DM had worse overall survival versus patients developing a locoregional recurrence (P=0.023). On multivariable analysis, having stage IB disease (hazard ratio: 2.95; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-8.23; P=0.039) or a lower/middle lobe tumor (hazard ratio: 2.67; 95% confidence interval: 1.07-6.69; P=0.036) was associated with increased risk of DM. The 2-year cumulative incidences of DM were 10.9% and 35.7% (P=0.002) for patients with stage IA versus IB tumors, respectively, and 11.3% and 19.7% (P=0.049) for patients with upper lobe versus lower/middle lobe tumors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage IB disease or lower/middle lobe tumors may have an increased risk of DM following SBRT. Randomized controlled trials are needed to further identify patients who may benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy after SBRT for stage I NSCLC.

Patterns of Care and Efficacy of Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy in Skin-Involved Breast Cancers of All Sizes.

BACKGROUND: The management of small skin-involved (SI) invasive breast cancers is controversial because although they are considered unresectable, their prognosis is far better than their stage III classification. This study was undertaken to determine how SI lesions are treated in the United States and to discern the benefit of systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of patients diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in the National Cancer Data Base between 2004 and 2011 were reviewed. Treatment patterns were examined and overall survival assessed. RESULTS: A total of 3485 patients had SI and 456,287 patients had non-SI breast cancers. Chemotherapy was administered to 68.5% of SI and 45.9% of non-SI tumors (P < .001), including 77.2% of SI and 33% of non-SI tumors < 2 cm (P < .001). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, SI patients were 19.4% more likely to receive chemotherapy than non-SI patients. Radiotherapy was provided to 61.1% of SI and 64.3% of non-SI tumors (P < .001), including 65.5% of SI and 66.5% non-SI tumors < 2 cm (P = .711). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, SI patients were 76.6% more likely to receive radiotherapy than non-SI patients. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy provided an overall survival benefit for stage II and III SI and non-SI tumors. CONCLUSION: Despite controversy regarding staging and prognosis of SI tumors, the majority of patients are provided systemic therapy and radiotherapy. Varied patterns of chemotherapy administration for SI tumors suggests that further treatment guidance and standardization are required, especially because chemotherapy and radiotherapy are equally efficacious in SI and non-SI tumors alike.

Local Control and Toxicity of External Beam Reirradiation With a Pulsed Low-dose-rate Technique.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of external beam reirradiation using a pulsed low-dose-rate (PLDR) technique. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We evaluated patients treated with PLDR reirradiation from 2009 to 2016 at a single institution. Toxicity was graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and local control was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.1. On univariate analysis (UVA), the χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to assess the toxicity outcomes. Competing risk analysis using cumulative incidence function estimates were used to assess local progression. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were treated to 41 disease sites with PLDR reirradiation. These patients had a median follow-up time of 8.8 months (range 0.5-64.7). The targets were the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, including 36 symptomatic sites. The median interval from the first radiation course and reirradiation was 26.2 months; the median dose of the first and second course of radiation was 50.4 Gy and 50 Gy, respectively. Five patients (13%) received concurrent systemic therapy. Of the 39 patients, 9 (23%) developed grade ≥2 acute toxicity, most commonly radiation dermatitis (5 of 9). None developed grade ≥4 acute or subacute toxicity. The only grade ≥2 late toxicity was late skin toxicity in 1 patient. On UVA, toxicity was not significantly associated with the dose of the first course of radiation or reirradiation, the interval to reirradiation, or the reirradiation site. Of the 41 disease sites treated with PLDR reirradiation, 32 had pre- and post-PLDR scans to evaluate for local control. The local progression rate was 16.5% at 6 months and 23.8% at 12 months and was not associated with the dose of reirradiation, the reirradiation site, or concurrent systemic therapy on UVA. Of the 36 symptomatic disease sites, 25 sites (69%) achieved a symptomatic response after PLDR, including 6 (17%) with complete symptomatic relief. CONCLUSION: Reirradiation with PLDR is effective and well-tolerated. The risk of late toxicity and the durability of local control were limited by the relatively short follow-up duration in the present cohort.

A treatment planning comparison between a novel rotating gamma system and robotic linear accelerator based intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy.

To compare the dosimetric parameters of a novel rotating gamma ray system (RGS) with well-established CyberKnife system (CK) for treating malignant brain lesions. RGS has a treatment head of 16 cobalt-60 sources focused to the isocenter, which can rotate 360° on the ring gantry and swing 35° in the superior direction. We compared several dosimetric parameters in 10 patients undergoing brain stereotactic radiosurgery including plan normalization, number of beams and nodes for CK and shots for RGS, collimators used, estimated treatment time, D 2 cm and conformity index (CI) among two modalities. The median plan normalization for RGS was 56.7% versus 68.5% (p = 0.002) for CK plans. The median number of shots from RGS was 7.5 whereas the median number of beams and nodes for CK was 79.5 and 46. The median collimator's diameter used was 3.5 mm for RGS as compared to 5 mm for CK (p = 0.26). Mean D 2 cm was 5.57 Gy for CyberKnife whereas it was 3.11 Gy for RGS (p = 0.99). For RGS plans, the median CI was 1.4 compared to 1.3 for the CK treatment plans (p = 0.98). The average minimum and maximum doses to optic chiasm were 21 and 93 cGy for RGS as compared to 32 and 209 cGy for CK whereas these were 0.5 and 364 cGy by RGS and 18 and 399 cGy by CK to brainstem. The mean V12 Gy for brain predicting for radionecrosis with RGS was 3.75 cm3 as compared to 4.09 cm3 with the CK (p = 0.41). The dosimetric parameters of a novel RGS with a ring type gantry are comparable with CyberKnife, allowing its use for intracranial lesions and is worth exploring in a clinical setting.

Omission of radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery in the postneoadjuvant setting.

BACKGROUND: Breast conservation therapy (BCT) consists of breast conservation surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) can downstage tumors, broadening BCS eligibility in patients requiring mastectomy. However, tumor downstaging does not obviate need for RT. This study evaluated factors that predict RT omission after NACT and BCS. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for women with unilateral, clinical stage II-III breast cancer, treated with NACT and BCS between 2008 and 2012. Patients not receiving RT after NACT and BCS were identified. A subgroup analysis was performed eliminating patients for whom RT was recommended but not received. RESULTS: Among 10,220 patients meeting study eligibility, 974 (9.53%) did not receive RT after BCS. Predictors of RT omission included older age, insurance status, facility type, facility region, more recent year of diagnosis, receptor status unknown, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status positive or unknown, and positive margins. Factors increasing the likelihood of RT receipt included cN3 disease, receptor positivity, and primary downstaging. Race, Hispanicity, education, income, comorbidities, rural versus urban setting, histology, grade, and nodal stage change were not associated with RT omission. When excluding the 314 patients for whom RT was recommended but not received, age, Medicaid insurance, facility type, facility region, receptor status unknown, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status unknown, and positive margins were predictors of RT omission. CONCLUSIONS: Race, comorbidities, and socioeconomic status were not predictors of RT omission. It remains unclear whether omission of RT in some cases is due to lack of physician knowledge. Further efforts are needed to ensure that physicians and patients recognize that RT is a vital and required part of BCT, even after NACT.

Impact of rheumatoid arthritis on radiation-related toxicity and cosmesis in breast cancer patients: a contemporary matched-pair analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on toxicity and cosmesis in women undergoing radiotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: We queried an institutional database for women with RA treated with external beam radiotherapy for breast cancer between 1981 and 2016. Matching each patient to three controls without RA was attempted. Radiation toxicity was graded using CTCAE 4.0. Cosmesis was graded using the Global Harris Scoring System of Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. Grade 2+ (G2+) acute and late toxicities were compared between women with RA and their matched pairs using a generalized estimating equation (GEE). Wilcoxon test and mixed effects model were used to compare the cosmesis between two groups. RESULTS: Forty women with RA at time of radiation were matched to 117 controls. The median radiation dose was 60 Gy (50-66 Gy) and the median follow-up was 94 months (1-354 months). When comparing the women with RA to their matched pairs, there was no significant difference in the rates of G2+ acute toxicity (25.0 vs. 13.7%, O 2.1, CI 0.91-4.9) or G2+ late toxicity (7.5 vs. 4.3%, OR 1.8, CI 0.48-6.8). Mean cosmesis was between Good and Excellent for both groups of patients, although women with RA were less likely to get Excellent cosmesis compared to their matched pairs (OR 0.35, CI 0.15-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with RA, radiation for breast cancer was well tolerated without significantly increased toxicity. Their cosmesis was generally Good to Excellent, although they might be less likely to get Excellent cosmesis compared to their matched pairs.

NRG Oncology-Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Study 1014: 1-Year Toxicity Report From a Phase 2 Study of Repeat Breast-Preserving Surgery and 3-Dimensional Conformal Partial-Breast Reirradiation for In-Breast Recurrence.

PURPOSE: To determine the associated toxicity, tolerance, and safety of partial-breast reirradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligibility criteria included in-breast recurrence occurring >1 year after whole-breast irradiation, <3 cm, unifocal, and resected with negative margins. Partial-breast reirradiation was targeted to the surgical cavity plus 1.5 cm; a prescription dose of 45 Gy in 1.5 Gy twice daily for 30 treatments was used. The primary objective was to evaluate the rate of grade ≥3 treatment-related skin, fibrosis, and/or breast pain adverse events (AEs), occurring ≤1 year from re-treatment completion. A rate of ≥13% for these AEs in a cohort of 55 patients was determined to be unacceptable (86% power, 1-sided α = 0.07). RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2013, 65 patients were accrued, and the first 55 eligible and with 1 year follow-up were analyzed. Median age was 68 years. Twenty-two patients had ductal carcinoma in situ, and 33 had invasive disease: 19 ≤1 cm, 13 >1 to ≤2 cm, and 1 >2 cm. All patients were clinically node negative. Systemic therapy was delivered in 51%. All treatment plans underwent quality review for contouring accuracy and dosimetric compliance. All treatment plans scored acceptable for tumor volume contouring and tumor volume dose-volume analysis. Only 4 (7%) scored unacceptable for organs at risk contouring and organs at risk dose-volume analysis. Treatment-related skin, fibrosis, and/or breast pain AEs were recorded as grade 1 in 64% and grade 2 in 7%, with only 1 (<2%) grade ≥3 and identified as grade 3 fibrosis of deep connective tissue. CONCLUSION: Partial-breast reirradiation with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy after second lumpectomy for patients experiencing in-breast failures after whole-breast irradiation is safe and feasible, with acceptable treatment quality achieved. Skin, fibrosis, and breast pain toxicity was acceptable, and grade 3 toxicity was rare.

Splenic irradiation for splenomegaly: A systematic review.

Splenic irradiation (SI) is a palliative treatment option for symptomatic splenomegaly (i.e. for pain, early satiety, pancytopenia from sequestration) secondary to hematologic malignancies and disorders. The purpose of the current article is to review the literature on SI for hematologic malignancies and disorders, including: (1) patient selection and optimal technique; (2) efficacy of SI; and (3) toxicities of SI. PICOS/PRISMA methods are used to select 27 articles including 766 courses of SI for 486 patients from 1960 to 2016. The most common cancers treated included chronic lymphocytic leukemia and myeloproliferative disorders; the most common regimen was 10Gy in 1Gy fractions over two weeks, and 27% of patients received retreatment. A partial or complete response (for symptoms, lab abnormalities) was obtained in 85-90% of treated patients, and 30% were retreated within 6-12months. There was no correlation between biologically equivalent dose of radiation therapy and response duration, pain relief, spleen reduction, or cytopenia improvement (r2 all <0.4); therefore, lower doses (e.g. 5Gy in 5 fractions) may be as effective as higher doses. Grade 3-4 toxicity (typically leukopenia, infection) was noted in 22% of courses, with grade 5 toxicity in 0.7% of courses. All grade 5 toxicities were due to either thrombocytopenia with hemorrhage or leukopenia with sepsis (or a combination of both); they were sequelae of cancer and not directly caused by SI. In summary, SI is generally a safe and efficacious method for treating patients with symptomatic splenomegaly.

Prostate Cancer Patients With Unmanaged Diabetes or Receiving Insulin Experience Inferior Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment With Radiation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on outcomes and toxicities among men with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 3217 patients, from 1998 to 2013, subdivided into 5 subgroups: (I) no T2DM; (II) T2DM receiving oral antihyperglycemic agent that contains metformin, no insulin; (III) T2DM receiving nonmetformin oral agent alone, no insulin; (IV) T2DM receiving any insulin; and (V) T2DM not receiving medication. Outcome measures were overall survival, freedom from biochemical failure (BF), freedom from distant metastasis, cancer-specific survival, and toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log rank tests, Fine and Gray competing risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), Cox models, and subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) were used. RESULTS: Of the 3217 patients, 1295 (40%) were low-risk, 1192 (37%) were intermediate-risk, and 652 (20%) were high risk. The group I to V distribution was 81%, 8%, 5%, 3%, and 4%. The median dose was 78 Gy, and the median follow-up time was 50 (range, 1-190) months. Group V had increased mortality (sHR, 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.54), BF (sHR, 2.14; 0.88-1.83), and cause-specific mortality (sHR, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.31-11). Acute toxicities were higher in group IV versus group I (genitourinary: 38% vs. 26%; P = .01; gastrointestinal: 21% vs. 5%; P = 001). Late toxicities were higher in groups IV and V versus group I (12%-14% vs. 2%-6%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Men with T2DM not receiving medication and men with T2DM receiving insulin had worse outcomes and toxicities compared to other patients.

Patient reported outcomes among treatment modalities for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: To characterize patient reported outcomes for urinary and sexual function using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) comparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR), post-prostatectomy IMRT (PPRT), and radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated for prostate cancer from 2001-2012 completed self-reported SHIM and IPSS surveys. Subgroups were created by baseline score. Mean change from baseline was determined at each time point for the cohort and subgroups. Statistical analysis was performed with generalized estimating equation method. Incontinence was not captured in the questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 14,523 IPSS surveys from 3,515 men were evaluated. Patients treated with IMRT experienced a minimal decrease in IPSS score from baseline. PPRT scores did not differ from IMRT at any time point (range: +/- 3 points from baseline in IPSS score over 50 months). LDR had an initial IPSS rise (between 5-10 points on the IPSS over 1-9 months) versus IMRT but returned to comparable levels at 34 months. RP was associated with a lower IPSS versus IMRT. LDR had the largest rise from baseline, with return toward baseline. A total of 2,624 SHIM surveys from 857 men were evaluated. LDR and PPRT did not differ from IMRT at any time point (range: +/- 5 points from baseline in SHIM score for 36 months). RP experienced the largest decline from baseline (up to -7 points on SHIM score), at 3 to 7 months; RP had a larger early decrease in SHIM score versus IMRT between 3 and 22 months, after which there was no difference. CONCLUSIONS: IPSS and SHIM score patterns differed among treatment modalities. These data can be used to predict changes in urinary and sexual function over time based on modality and baseline score.

Men's health supplement use and outcomes in men receiving definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of newly diagnosed cancer patients start taking dietary supplements. Men's health supplements (MHSs), which we define as supplements that are specifically marketed with the terms men's health and prostate health (or similar permutations), are often mislabeled as having potential anticancer benefits. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effects of MHSs on patient outcomes and toxicities in patients who were undergoing definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer. DESIGN: This retrospective analysis included patients who were being treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center and consented to have information stored in a prospective database. MHSs were queried online. Outcome measures were freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) (biochemical failure was defined with the use of the prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2-ng/mL definition), freedom from distant metastasis (FFDM), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) as well as toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank tests, Fine and Gray competing-risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), and Cox models were used. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2012, 2207 patients were treated with IMRT with a median dose of 78 Gy, and a median follow-up of 46 mo. Of these patients, 43% were low risk, 37% were intermediate risk, and 20% were high risk; 10% used MHSs. MHSs contained a median of 3 identifiable ingredients (range: 0-78 ingredients). Patients who were taking an MHS compared with those who were not had improved 5-y OS (97% compared with 92%, respectively; P = 0.01), but there were no differences in the FFBF (94% compared with 89%, respectively; P = 0.12), FFDM (96% compared with 97%, respectively; P = 0.32), or CSS (100% compared with 99%, respectively; P = 0.22). The unadjusted association between MHS use and improved OS was attenuated after adjustment for patient lifestyle factors and comorbidities. There was no difference in toxicities between the 2 groups (late-grade 3-4 genitourinary <3%; gastrointestinal <4%). CONCLUSION: The use of MHSs is not associated with outcomes or toxicities.

Patterns of multidisciplinary care in the management of non-metastatic invasive breast cancer in the United States Medicare patient.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) in managing breast cancer is resource-intensive and growing in prevalence anecdotally, although care patterns are poorly characterized. We sought to determine MDC patterns and effects on care in the United States Medicare patient. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer from 1992-2009 were reviewed using the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked dataset. MDC was defined as a post-diagnosis, preoperative visit with a surgical, medical, and radiation oncologist. Same-day MDC (MDCSD) was the MDC subset having all three visits on one date. RESULTS: Among 88,865 patients, MDC was utilized in 2.9 %, with 14.1 % of these having MDCSD. MDC use did not vary by stage, but MDC patients were more likely to be younger, black, receive lumpectomy, have fewer nodes examined, and receive radiotherapy. MDCSD patients were more likely than non-MDC patients to be black, receive mastectomy, and receive radiotherapy. MDC and MDCSD use increased over time and varied by geographic region, with rural patients less likely to receive MDC (OR 0.54 [95 % CI 0.45-0.65]) and MDCSD (OR 0.32 [95 % CI 0.19-0.54]). Radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery, used in 86.2 % of non-MDC patients, was administered to 90.2 % of MDC (p < 0.001) and 92.6 % of MDC(SD) (p = 0.096) patients. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy was administered in 52.0 % of non-MDC patients, 63.8 % of MDC (p = 0.050), and 89.1 % of MDC(SD) (p = 0.011) patients after propensity score adjustment. CONCLUSION: While increasing, few Medicare patients undergo MDC and MDCSD is rare. MDC may improve quality and MDCSD should be considered for patient convenience. While not yet widespread, efforts should integrate MDC and MDCSD across the U.S.

A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6-15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5-7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3-4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

Comparison of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy treatment options for prostate cancer.

We review radiation therapy (RT) options available for prostate cancer, including external beam (EBRT; with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, stereotactic body RT [SBRT]) and brachytherapy (BT), with an emphasis on the outcomes, toxicities, and contraindications for therapies. PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015) that included men treated on prospective studies with a primary endpoint of patient outcomes, with ⩾70 patients, and ⩾5year median follow up. Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 16 used EBRT, and 10 used BT. Long-term freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were roughly equivalent between conventional and hypofractionated RT with intensity modulation (evidence level 1B), with 10-year FFBF rates of 45-90%, 40-60%, and 20-50% (for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively). SBRT had promising rates of BF, with shorter follow-up (5-year FFBF of >90% for low-risk patients). Similarly, BT (5-year FFBF for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients have generally been >85%, 69-97%, 63-80%, respectively) and BT+EBRT were appropriate in select patients (evidence level 1B). Differences in overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer specific mortality (5-year rates: 82-97%, 1-14%, 0-8%, respectively) have not been detected in randomized trials of dose escalation or in studies comparing RT modalities. Studies did not use patient-reported outcomes, through Grade 3-4 toxicities were rare (<5%) among all modalities. There was limited evidence available to compare proton therapy to other modalities. The treatment decision for a man is usually based on his risk group, ability to tolerate the procedure, convenience for the patient, and the anticipated impact on quality of life. To further personalize therapy, future trials should report (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education status; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics.

Importance of Surgical Margin Status in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to identify the effect of final surgical margin (SM) status and re-excision on outcomes in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who underwent breast conservation therapy (BCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of women diagnosed with DCIS who underwent BCT between 1989 and 2014. All women received adjuvant whole breast radiation and a boost. The primary end point was local control (LC). Final SMs were defined according to margin width: negative SM was defined as > 2 mm, close SM was defined as > 0 to ≤ 2 mm, and a positive SM was defined as tumor on ink. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine predictors of outcomes on multivariable analysis. Actuarial incidence of LC was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 498 patients were included; 400 patients had a final negative SM, 87 had a close SM, and 11 had a positive SM. A total of 172 patients received adjuvant hormonal therapy, 265 patients required ≥ 1 re-excision. Patients with positive or close SMs were more likely to receive a radiation dose > 60 Gy (P < .001) and undergo re-excision (P < .01). The 10-year LC rates were not significantly different between patients with a negative (93.5%), close (91.8%), or positive (100%) SM (P = .57). There was no difference in LC in patients who underwent re-excision for initial close or positive SMs (P = .55). CONCLUSION: This single-institution experience showed that risks of local recurrence remain poorly characterized. Re-excision and whole breast radiation with boost resulted in excellent LC for women with DCIS. Trials aimed at personalized deintensified local therapy are warranted.

Comparison of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Alone Versus Radiation Therapy and Endocrine Therapy in Elderly Women With Early-Stage, Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Treated With Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Randomized data examining adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) alone in elderly women with low-risk, hormone receptor-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer is lacking. We investigated the outcomes for elderly women treated with adjuvant RT alone versus RT plus endocrine therapy (ET) after breast-conserving surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We queried our institutional breast cancer database for the following patients: age > 65 years, stage T1-T2N0, HR(+), and treatment with breast-conserving surgery, including adjuvant RT. The χ(2) analysis identified significant baseline differences between the groups. Cox proportional hazard methods identified predictors of endpoints on multivariate analysis. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival were compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 504 patients were identified, 311 had undergone RT plus ET (62%) and 193, RT alone (38%). The median follow-up time was 88 months. The RT-alone group versus RT plus ET group had different median age (72 vs.71 years, P < .001), different median tumor size (1 vs. 1.3 cm, P < .001), lower grade (40% vs. 29%, P = .05), and fewer close or positive margins (11% vs. 19%, P = .01). The adherence rate to prescribed ET was 70%. Tumor size predicted an increased risk of distant metastasis (DM) (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-3.13) and worse disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.22-2.86). ET nonadherence versus adherence predicted for risk of DM (hazard ratio, 5.03; 95% CI, 1.98-12.66) and DFS (HR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.9-10.3). Of the women with DM, 83.8% had tumors > 1 cm in size. CONCLUSION: ET nonadherence and tumor size > 1 cm predicted an increased risk of DM and worse DFS, favoring the addition of ET in this group. However, RT alone for women with tumors less than or equal to 1 cm may be appropriate.