Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy before resection to avoid delay for early-stage lung cancer or oligometastases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Pathologic outcomes from the SABR-BRIDGE protocol.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related operating room closures, some multidisciplinary thoracic oncology teams adopted a paradigm of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as a bridge to surgery, an approach called SABR-BRIDGE. This study presents the preliminary surgical and pathological results. METHODS: Eligible participants from four institutions (three in Canada and one in the United States) had early-stage presumed or biopsy-proven lung malignancy that would normally be surgically resected. SABR was delivered using standard institutional guidelines, with surgery >3 months following SABR with standardized pathologic assessment. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of viable cancer. Major pathologic response (MPR) was defined as ≤10% viable tissue. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent SABR. Most common SABR regimens were 34 Gy/1 (29%, n = 21), 48 Gy/3-4 (26%, n = 19), and 50/55 Gy/5 (22%, n = 16). SABR was well-tolerated, with one grade 5 toxicity (death 10 days after SABR with COVID-19) and five grade 2-3 toxicities. Following SABR, 26 patients underwent resection thus far (13 pending surgery). Median time-to-surgery was 4.5 months post-SABR (range, 2-17.5 months). Surgery was reported as being more difficult because of SABR in 38% (n = 10) of cases. Thirteen patients (50%) had pCR and 19 (73%) had MPR. Rates of pCR trended higher in patients operated on at earlier time points (75% if within 3 months, 50% if 3-6 months, and 33% if ≥6 months; p = .069). In the exploratory best-case scenario analysis, pCR rate does not exceed 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The SABR-BRIDGE approach allowed for delivery of treatment during a period of operating room closure and was well-tolerated. Even in the best-case scenario, pCR rate does not exceed 82%.

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.

Utilization of Immunotherapy in Patients with Cancer Treated in Routine Care Settings: A Population-Based Study Using Health Administrative Data.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of immunotherapy (IO) in the treatment of patients with cancer has significantly improved clinical outcomes. Population level information on actual IO utilization is limited. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using provincial health administrative data from Ontario, Canada to: (1) assess the extent of IO use from 2011 (pre-IO funding) to 2019; and (2) identify factors associated with IO use in patients with advanced cancers for which IO is reimbursed including melanoma, bladder, lung, head and neck, and kidney tumors. The datasets were linked using a unique encoded identifier. A Fine and Gray regression model with death as a competing risk was used to identify factors associated with IO use. RESULTS: Among 59 510 patients assessed, 8771 (14.7%) received IO between 2011 and 2019. Use of IO increased annually from 2011 (3.3%) to 2019 (39.2%) and was highest in melanoma (52%) and lowest in head and neck cancer (6.6%). In adjusted analysis, factors associated with lower IO use included older age (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93)), female sex (HR 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89)), lower-income quintile, hospital admission (HR 0.78 (95% CI, 0.75-0.82)), high Charlson score and de novo stage 4 cancer. IO use was heterogeneous across cancer centers and regions. CONCLUSION: IO utilization for advanced cancers rose substantially since initial approval albeit use is associated with patient characteristics and system-level factors even in a universal healthcare setting. To optimize IO utilization in routine practice, survival estimates and potential inequity in access should be further investigated and addressed.

Radiation Oncologist Consultations Prior to Radical Prostatectomy: Disparities and Opportunities.

PURPOSE: In 2015, men undergoing radical prostatectomy in Ontario, Canada were recommended to undergo multidisciplinary care by seeing a radiation oncologist or discussion at multidisciplinary rounds before surgery. The a priori target rate was ≥76%. We used population-based data to explore factors associated with not receiving multidisciplinary care prior to radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer in Ontario between 2007 and 2017 were identified using administrative data. Physician billings identified patients who received multidisciplinary care. Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict receipt of multidisciplinary care. RESULTS: A total of 31,485 men underwent radical prostatectomy between 2007 and 2017. Of these patients 28.7% saw a radiation oncologist, 1.2% underwent multidisciplinary discussion and 1.9% had both before surgery. Multidisciplinary care receipt increased from 17.8% in 2007 to 47.8% in 2017 (p <0.001). The odds ratio between the highest and lowest geographic regions was 7.93 (95% CI 6.17-10.18, p <0.001). Lower odds of multidisciplinary care receipt were observed for men further from the nearest cancer center (OR 0.74 per 50 km, 95% CI 0.71-0.78, p <0.001) and higher odds for the highest versus lowest income quintile (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29-1.54, p <0.001). Of 128 urologists who performed ≥10 radical prostatectomies between 2016 and 2017, 29 (22.7%) met the target of having ≥76% of men seen for multidisciplinary care prior to surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing utilization, many men do not receive multidisciplinary care prior to radical prostatectomy. While geography and the urologist appear to be the greatest factors predicting multidisciplinary care receipt, these factors are closely intertwined.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. Part III: Principles of Radiation and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part III of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of radiation and offering several future directions of further relevant study in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts I and II for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of active surveillance and surgery and follow-up (Part II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding management of patients using radiation therapy as well as important future directions of research are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of active surveillance and surgery as well as follow-up for patients after primary treatment. Please refer to Parts I and III for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding active surveillance, surgical management, and patient follow-up are detailed. CONCLUSION: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Circulating tumor cells detected in follow-up predict survival outcomes in tri-modality management of advanced non-metastatic esophageal cancer: a secondary analysis of the QUINTETT randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to establish if presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) predicted worse outcome in patients with non-metastatic esophageal cancer undergoing tri-modality therapy. METHODS: We prospectively collected CTC data from patients with operable non-metastatic esophageal cancer from April 2009 to November 2016 enrolled in our QUINTETT esophageal cancer randomized trial (NCT00907543). Patients were randomized to receive either neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus radiotherapy followed by surgical resection (Neoadjuvant) or adjuvant cisplatin, 5-FU, and epirubicin chemotherapy with concurrent extended volume radiotherapy following surgical resection (Adjuvant). CTCs were identified with the CellSearch® system before the initiation of any treatment (surgery or chemoradiotherapy) as well as at 6-, 12-, and 24-months post-treatment. The threshold for CTC positivity was one and the findings were correlated with patient prognosis. RESULTS: CTC data were available for 74 of 96 patients and identified in 27 patients (36.5%) at a median follow-up of 13.1months (interquartile range:6.8-24.1 months). Detection of CTCs at any follow-up visit was significantly predictive of worse disease-free survival (DFS;hazard ratio [HR]: 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-4.24; p=0.002), regional control (HR: 6.18; 95% CI: 1.18-32.35; p=0.031), distant control (HR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.52-5.65;p=0.001) and overall survival (OS;HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.16-3.51; p=0.013). After adjusting for receiving neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the presence of CTCs at any follow-up visit remained significantly predictive of worse OS ([HR]:2.02;95% [Cl]:1.16-3.51; p=0.013) and DFS (HR: 2.49;95% Cl: 1.43-4.33; p=0.001). Similarly, any observed increase in CTCs was significantly predictive of worse OS (HR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.56-6.34; p=0.001) and DFS (HR: 3.34; 95% CI: 1.67-6.69; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The presence of CTCs in patients during follow-up after tri-modality therapy was associated with significantly poorer DFS and OS regardless of timing of chemoradiotherapy.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): a randomised, phase 2, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: The oligometastatic paradigm suggests that some patients with a limited number of metastases might be cured if all lesions are eradicated. Evidence from randomised controlled trials to support this paradigm is scarce. We aimed to assess the effect of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on survival, oncological outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life in patients with a controlled primary tumour and one to five oligometastatic lesions. METHODS: This randomised, open-label phase 2 study was done at 10 hospitals in Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, and Australia. Patients aged 18 or older with a controlled primary tumour and one to five metastatic lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were eligible. After stratifying by the number of metastases (1-3 vs 4-5), we randomly assigned patients (1:2) to receive either palliative standard of care treatments alone (control group), or standard of care plus SABR to all metastatic lesions (SABR group), using a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks of nine. Neither patients nor physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We used a randomised phase 2 screening design with a two-sided α of 0·20 (wherein p<0·20 designates a positive trial). All analyses were intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01446744. FINDINGS: 99 patients were randomised between Feb 10, 2012, and Aug 30, 2016. Of 99 patients, 33 (33%) were assigned to the control group and 66 (67%) to the SABR group. Two (3%) patients in the SABR group did not receive allocated treatment and withdrew from the trial; two (6%) patients in the control group also withdrew from the trial. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 19-54) in the control group versus 26 months (23-37) in the SABR group. Median overall survival was 28 months (95% CI 19-33) in the control group versus 41 months (26-not reached) in the SABR group (hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·30-1·10; p=0·090). Adverse events of grade 2 or worse occurred in three (9%) of 33 controls and 19 (29%) of 66 patients in the SABR group (p=0·026), an absolute increase of 20% (95% CI 5-34). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (4·5%) of 66 patients after SABR, compared with none in the control group. INTERPRETATION: SABR was associated with an improvement in overall survival, meeting the primary endpoint of this trial, but three (4·5%) of 66 patients in the SABR group had treatment-related death. Phase 3 trials are needed to conclusively show an overall survival benefit, and to determine the maximum number of metastatic lesions wherein SABR provides a benefit. FUNDING: Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and London Regional Cancer Program Catalyst Grant.

Is hypofractionated whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) as well tolerated as conventionally fractionated WPRT in prostate cancer patients? The HOPE trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer are at increased risk of lymph node metastasis and are thought to benefit from whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT). There has been recent interest in the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in treating prostate cancer. However, toxicity and cancer outcomes associated with hypofractionated WPRT are unclear at this time. This phase II study aims to investigate the impact in quality of life associated with hypofractionated WPRT compared to conventionally fractionated WPRT. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with unfavourable intermediate-, high- or very high-risk prostate cancer will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) + conventionally fractionated (45 Gy in 25 fractions) WPRT vs. HDR-BT + hypofractionated (25 Gy in 5 fractions) WPRT. Randomization will be performed with a permuted block design without stratification. The primary endpoint is late bowel toxicity and the secondary endpoints include acute and late urinary and sexual toxicity, acute bowel toxicity, biochemical failure-, androgen deprivation therapy-, metastasis- and prostate cancer-free survival of the hypofractionated arm compared to the conventionally fractionated arm. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare hypofractionated WPRT to conventionally fractionated WPRT with HDR-BT boost. Hypofractionated WPRT is a more attractive and convenient treatment approach, and may become the new standard of care if demonstrated to be well-tolerated and effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04197141 on December 12, 2019.

Assessment of precision irradiation in early non-small cell lung cancer and interstitial lung disease (ASPIRE-ILD): study protocol for a phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become an established treatment option for medically-inoperable early-stage (Stage I-IIA) non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC). SABR is able to obtain high rates of local control with low rates of symptomatic toxicity in this patient population. However, in a subset of patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD), elevated rates of SABR-related toxicity and mortality have been described. The Assessment of Precision Irradiation in Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Interstitial Lung Disease (ASPIRE-ILD) study will conduct a thorough prospective evaluation of the clinical outcomes, toxicity, changes in diagnostic test parameters and patient-related outcomes following SABR for ES-NSCLC for patients with fibrotic ILD. METHODS: ASPIRE-ILD is a single-arm Phase II prospective study. The accrual target is 39 adult patients with T1-2N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer with co-existing ILD who are not candidates for surgical excision. Pathological confirmation of diagnosis is strongly recommended but not strictly required. Enrolled patients will be stratified by ILD-related mortality risk. The starting SABR dose will be 50 Gy in 5 fractions every other day (biologically effective dose: 100 Gy10 or 217 Gy3), but the radiation dose can be de-escalated up to two times to 50 Gy in 10 fractions daily (75 Gy10 or 133 Gy3) and 45 Gy in 15 fractions daily (58 Gy10 or 90 Gy3). Dose de-escalation will occur if 2 or more of the first 7 patients in a cohort experiences grade 5 toxicity within 6 months of treatment. Similarly, dose de-escalation can also occur if 2 or more of the first 7 patients with a specific subtype of ILD experiences grade 5 toxicity within 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include toxicity (CTC-AE 4.0), progression-free survival, local control, patient-reported outcomes (cough severity and quality of life), rates of ILD exacerbation and changes in pulmonary function tests/high-resolution computed tomography findings post-SABR. DISCUSSION: ASPIRE-ILD will be the first prospective study specifically designed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SABR for ES-NSCLC in patients with co-existing ILD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03485378. Date of registration: April 2, 2018.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of 4-10 oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET-10): study protocol for a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control for primary tumors or metastases. A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated SABR in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1-3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival. The goal of this phase III trial is to assess the impact of SABR in patients with 4-10 metastatic cancer lesions. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-nine patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (Group 1: prostate, breast, or renal; Group 2: all others), and type of pre-specified systemic therapy (Group 1: immunotherapy/targeted; Group 2: cytotoxic; Group 3: observation). SABR is to be completed within 2 weeks, allowing for rapid initiation of systemic therapy. Recommended SABR doses are 20 Gy in 1 fraction, 30 Gy in 3 fractions, or 35 Gy in 5 fractions, chosen to minimize risks of toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life, and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 4-10 oligometastatic lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03721341 . Date of registration: October 26, 2018.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options.

PURPOSE: This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/). RESULTS: The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options.

PURPOSE: This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The summary presented represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/). RESULTS: The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

Assessment of function and quality of life in a phase II multi-institutional clinical trial of fractionated simultaneous in-field boost radiotherapy for patients with 1-3 metastases.

We examined functional outcomes and quality of life of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with integrated fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy boost (FSRT) for brain metastases treatment. Eighty seven people with 1-3 brain metastases (54/87 lung primary, 42/87 single brain metastases) were enrolled on this Phase II trial of WBRT (30 Gy/10) + simultaneous FSRT, (60 Gy/10). Median overall follow-up and survival was 5.4 months, 6 month actuarial intra-lesional control was 78 %; only 1 patient exhibited grade 4 toxicity (worsened seizures); most treatment related toxicity was grade 1 or 2; 2/87 patients demonstrated asymptomatic radiation necrosis on follow-up imaging. Mean (Min-Max) baseline KPS, Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) and FACT-BR quality of life were 83 (70-100), 28 (21-30) and 143 (98-153). Lower baseline MMSE (but not KPS or FACT-Br) was associated with worse survival after adjusting for age, number of metastases, primary and extra-cranial disease status. Crude rates of deterioration (>10 points decrease from baseline for KPS and FACT-Br, MMSE fall to <27) ranged from 26 to 38 % for KPS, 32-59 % for FACT-Br and 0-16 % for MMSE depending on the time-point assessed with higher rates generally noted at earlier time points (≤6 months post-treatment). Using a linear mixed models analysis, significant declines from baseline were noted for KPS and FACT-Br (largest effects at 6 weeks to 3 months) with no significant change in MMSE. The effects on function and quality of life of this integrated treatment of WBRT + simultaneous FSRT were similar to other published series combining WBRT + radiosurgery.

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.

Identification and survival outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer of unknown primary in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cancer of unknown primary origin (CUP) is defined by the presence of pathologically identified metastatic disease without clinical or radiological evidence of a primary tumour. Our objective was to identify incident cases of CUP in Ontario, Canada, and determine the influence of histology and sites of metastases on overall survival (OS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) and the Same-Day Surgery and Discharge Abstract Database (SDS/DAD) to identify patients diagnosed with CUP in Ontario between 1 January 2000, and 31 December 2005. Patient diagnostic information, including histology and survival data, was obtained from the OCR. We cross-validated CUP diagnosis and obtained additional information about metastasis through data linkage with the SDS/DAD database. OS was assessed using Cox regression models adjusting for histology and sites of metastases. RESULTS: We identified 3564 patients diagnosed with CUP. Patients without histologically confirmed disease (n = 1821) had a one-year OS of 10.9%, whereas patients with confirmed histology (n = 1743) had a one-year OS of 15.6%. The most common metastatic sites were in the respiratory or digestive systems (n = 1603), and the most common histology was adenocarcinoma (n = 939). Three-year survival rates were 3.5%, 5.3%, 41.6% and 3.6% among adenocarcinoma, unspecified carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and undifferentiated histology, respectively. Three-year survival rates were 40%, 2.4%, 8.0% and 4.6% among patients with metastases localised to lymph nodes, the respiratory or digestive systems, other specified sites, and unspecified sites, respectively. CONCLUSION: CUP patients in Ontario have a poor prognosis. Some subgroups may have better survival rates, such as patients with metastases localised to lymph nodes and patients with squamous cell histology.

Impact of target volume segmentation accuracy and variability on treatment planning for 4D-CT-based non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Accurate target volume segmentation is crucial for success in image-guided radiotherapy. However, variability in anatomical segmentation is one of the most significant contributors to uncertainty in radiotherapy treatment planning. This is especially true for lung cancer where target volumes are subject to varying magnitudes of respiratory motion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study aims to analyze multiple observer target volume segmentations and subsequent intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans defined by those segmentations against a reference standard for lung cancer patients imaged with four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT). Target volume segmentations of 10 patients were performed manually by six physicians, allowing for the calculation of ground truth estimate segmentations via the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm. Segmentation variability was assessed in terms of distance- and volume-based metrics. Treatment plans defined by these segmentations were then subject to dosimetric evaluation consisting of both physical and radiobiological analysis of optimized 3D dose distributions. RESULTS: Significant differences were noticed amongst observers in comparison to STAPLE segmentations and this variability directly extended into the treatment planning stages in the context of all dosimetric parameters used in this study. Mean primary tumor control probability (TCP) ranged from (22.6±11.9)% to (33.7±0.6)%, with standard deviation ranging from 0.5% to 11.9%. However, mean normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) based on treatment plans for each physician-derived target volume well as the NTCP derived from STAPLE-based treatment plans demonstrated no discernible trends and variability appeared to be patient-specific. This type of variability demonstrated the large-scale impact that target volume segmentation uncertainty can play in IMRT treatment planning. CONCLUSIONS: Significant target volume segmentation and dosimetric variability exists in IMRT treatment planning amongst experts in the presence of a reference standard for 4D-CT-based lung cancer radiotherapy. Future work is needed to mitigate this uncertainty and ensure highly accurate and effective radiotherapy for lung cancer patients.

Measuring the population impact of introducing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Risk Management Model (CRMM) was used to estimate the health and economic impact of introducing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada. METHODS: The CRMM uses Monte Carlo microsimulation representative of all Canadians. Lung cancer outputs were previously validated internally (Statistics Canada) and externally (Canadian Cancer Registry). We updated costs using the Ontario schedule of fees and benefits or the consumer price index to calculate 2013 Canadian dollars, discounted at a 3% rate. The reference model assumed that for stage I NSCLC, 75% of patients undergo surgery (lobectomy, sublobar resection, or pneumonectomy), 12.5% undergo radiotherapy (RT), and 12.5% undergo best supportive care (BSC). SABR was introduced in 2008 as an alternative to sublobar resection, RT, and BSC at rates reflective of the literature. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated; a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 (all amounts are in Canadian dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was used from the health care payer perspective. RESULTS: The total cost for 25,085 new cases of lung cancer in 2013 was calculated to be $608,002,599. Mean upfront costs for the 4,318 stage I cases were $7,646.98 for RT, $8,815.55 for SABR, $12,161.17 for sublobar resection, $16,266.12 for lobectomy, $22,940.59 for pneumonectomy, and $14,582.87 for BSC. SABR dominated (higher QALY, lower cost) RT, sublobar resection, and BSC. RT had lower initial costs than SABR that were offset by subsequent costs associated with recurrence. Lobectomy was cost effective when compared with SABR, with an ICER of $55,909.06. CONCLUSION: The use of SABR for NSCLC in Canada is projected to result in significant cost savings and survival gains.

Functional lung avoidance for individualized radiotherapy (FLAIR): study protocol for a randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Although radiotherapy is a key component of curative-intent treatment for locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), it can be associated with substantial pulmonary toxicity in some patients. Current radiotherapy planning techniques aim to minimize the radiation dose to the lungs, without accounting for regional variations in lung function. Many patients, particularly smokers, can have substantial regional differences in pulmonary ventilation patterns, and it has been hypothesized that preferential avoidance of functional lung during radiotherapy may reduce toxicity. Although several investigators have shown that functional lung can be identified using advanced imaging techniques and/or demonstrated the feasibility and theoretical advantages of avoiding functional lung during radiotherapy, to our knowledge this premise has never been tested via a prospective randomized clinical trial. METHODS/DESIGN: Eligible patients will have Stage III NSCLC with intent to receive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Every patient will undergo a pre-treatment functional lung imaging study using hyperpolarized 3He MRI in order to identify the spatial distribution of normally-ventilated lung. Before randomization, two clinically-approved radiotherapy plans will be devised for all patients on trial, termed standard and avoidance. The standard plan will be designed without reference to the functional state of the lung, while the avoidance plan will be optimized such that dose to functional lung is as low as reasonably achievable. Patients will then be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the standard or the avoidance plan, with both the physician and the patient blinded to the randomization results. This study aims to accrue a total of 64 patients within two years. The primary endpoint will be a pulmonary quality of life (QOL) assessment at 3 months post-treatment, measured using the functional assessment of cancer therapy-lung cancer subscale. Secondary endpoints include: pulmonary QOL at other time-points, provider-reported toxicity, overall survival, progression-free survival, and quality-adjusted survival. DISCUSSION: This randomized, double-blind trial will comprehensively assess the impact of functional lung avoidance on pulmonary toxicity and quality of life in patients receiving concurrent CRT for locally advanced NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02002052.