Chromogranin A staining as a prognostic variable in newly diagnosed Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the association of neuroendocrine differentiation, as identified by chromogranin A (CgA) staining, with clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed prostatic adenocarcinoma treated with definitive radiotherapy (RT). MATERIALS/METHODS: Patients with Gleason score ≥7 adenocarcinoma were identified from our outcomes database. RT consisted of external beam, brachytherapy, or external beam with brachytherapy boost. Biopsy specimens were stained for neuroendocrine differentiation with CgA. Results were interpreted by a single pathologist. CgA staining was quantified as 0%, <1%, 1-10%, or >10% of tumor cells. Clinical outcomes were blinded at the time of pathologic evaluation. RESULTS: CgA staining was performed on 289 patients. 149 patients had Gleason score 7, and 140 were Gleason score 8-10. Median follow-up was 6.5 years. For patients with <1% versus >1% CgA staining, pretreatment characteristics were well-balanced. CgA staining was detected in 90 cases (31%). 58 patients had focal positive (<1%) CgA staining, and 32 cases had >1% of tumor cells CgA positive. Patients with >1% CgA staining had inferior biochemical control, clinical failure, distant metastases (DM), and cause-specific survival (CSS) rates. Ten-year rates of DM were 8% versus 48% for patients with <1% versus >1% CgA positive cells, respectively (P < 0.001). CSS at 10 years was 95% versus 76%, respectively (P < 0.001). Local control was equivalent in the two patient cohorts. Patients with <1% CgA staining had similar outcomes to those patients with 0% staining. CONCLUSIONS: Neuroendocrine differentiation involving >1% of tumor cells on prostate cancer biopsies is a predictor of DM and CSS in patients treated with primary RT.

Seven-Year Outcomes Following Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Stratified by ASTRO Consensus Groupings.

OBJECTIVES: Limited long-term data exist regarding outcomes for patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI), particularly, when stratified by American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Consensus Statement (CS) risk groups. The purpose of this analysis is to present 5- and 7-year outcomes following APBI based on CS groupings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 690 patients with early-stage breast cancer underwent APBI from 1993 to 2012, receiving interstitial brachytherapy (n=195), balloon-based brachytherapy (n=290), or 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (n=205) at a single institution. Patients were stratified into suitable, cautionary, and unsuitable groups with 5-year outcomes analyzed. Seven-year outcomes were analyzed for a subset with follow-up of ≥2 years (n=625). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.7 years (range, 0.1 to 20.1 y). Patients assigned to cautionary and unsuitable categories were more likely to have high-grade tumors (21% to 25% vs. 9%, P=0.001), receive chemotherapy (15% to 38% vs. 6%, P<0.001), and have close/positive margins (9% to 11% vs. 0%, P<0.001). There was no difference in ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence at 5 or 7 years: 2.2%, 1.2%, 2.8% at 5 years (P=0.57), and 2.2%, 1.9%, 4.6% at 7 years (P=0.58) in the suitable, cautionary, and unsuitable groups, respectively. As compared with the suitable group, increased rates of distant metastases were noted for the unsuitable and cautionary groups at 5 years (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: No differences in rates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence were seen at 5 or 7 years when stratified by ASTRO CS groupings. Modest increases in distant recurrence were noted in the cautionary and unsuitable groups. These findings suggest that the ASTRO CS groupings stratify more for systemic recurrence and may not appropriately select patients for whole versus partial breast irradiation.

Phase II dose escalation study of image-guided adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer: use of dose-volume constraints to achieve rectal isotoxicity.

PURPOSE: In our Phase II prostate cancer Adaptive Radiation Therapy (ART) study, the highest possible dose was selected on the basis of normal tissue tolerance constraints. We analyzed rectal toxicity rates in different dose levels and treatment groups to determine whether equivalent toxicity rates were achieved as hypothesized when the protocol was started. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 1999 to 2002, 331 patients with clinical stage T1 to T3, node-negative prostate cancer were prospectively treated with three-dimensional conformal adaptive RT. A patient-specific confidence-limited planning target volume was constructed on the basis of 5 CT scans and 4 sets of electronic portal images after the first 4 days of treatment. For each case, the rectum (rectal solid) was contoured in its entirety. The rectal wall was defined by use of a 3-mm wall thickness (median volume: 29.8 cc). The prescribed dose level was chosen using the following rectal wall dose constraints: (1) Less than 30% of the rectal wall volume can receive more than 75.6 Gy. (2) Less than 5% of the rectal wall can receive more than 82 Gy. Low-risk patients (PSA < 10, Stage < or = T2a, Gleason score < 7) were treated to the prostate alone (Group 1). All other patients, intermediate and high risk, where treated to the prostate and seminal vesicles (Group 2). The risk of chronic toxicity (NCI Common Toxicity Criteria 2.0) was assessed for the different dose levels prescribed. HIC approval was acquired for all patients. Median follow-up was 1.6 years. RESULTS: Grade 2 chronic rectal toxicity was experienced by 34 patients (10%) (9% experienced rectal bleeding, 6% experienced proctitis, 3% experienced diarrhea, and 1% experienced rectal pain) at a median interval of 1.1 year. Nine patients (3%) experienced grade 3 or higher chronic rectal toxicity (1 Grade 4) at a median interval of 1.2 years. The 2-year rates of Grade 2 or higher and Grade 3 or higher chronic rectal toxicity were 17% and 3%, respectively. No significant difference by dose level was seen in the 2-year rate of Grade 2 or higher chronic rectal toxicity. These rates were 27%, 15%, 14%, 17%, and 24% for dose levels equal to or less than 72, 73.8, 75.6, 77.4, and 79.2 Gy, respectively (p = 0.3). Grade 2 or higher chronic rectal bleeding was significantly greater for Group 2 than for Group 1, 17% vs. 8% (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: High doses (79.2 Gy) were safely delivered in selected patients by our adaptive radiotherapy process. Under the rectal dose-volume histogram constraints for the dose level selection, the risk of chronic rectal toxicity is similar among patients treated to different dose levels. Therefore, rectal chronic toxicity rates reflect the dose-volume cutoff used and are independent of the actual dose levels. On the other hand, a larger PTV will increase the rectal wall dose and chronic rectal toxicity rates. PTV volume and dose constraints should be defined, considering their potential benefit.

Dose-volume analysis of predictors for chronic rectal toxicity after treatment of prostate cancer with adaptive image-guided radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: We analyzed our experience treating localized prostate cancer with image-guided off-line correction with adaptive high-dose radiotherapy (ART) in our Phase II dose escalation study to identify factors predictive of chronic rectal toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1999-2002, 331 patients with clinical stage T1-T3N0M0 prostate cancer were prospectively treated in our Phase II 3D conformal dose escalation ART study to a median dose of 75.6 Gy (range, 63.0-79.2 Gy), minimum dose to confidence limited-planning target volume (cl-PTV) in 1.8 Gy fractions (median isocenter dose = 79.7 Gy). Seventy-four patients (22%) also received neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. A patient-specific cl-PTV was constructed using 5 computed tomography scans and 4 sets of electronic portal images by applying an adaptive process to assure target accuracy and minimize PTV margin. For each case, the rectum (rectal solid) was contoured from the sacroiliac joints or rectosigmoid junction (whichever was higher) to the anal verge or ischial tuberosities (whichever was lower), with a median volume of 81.2 cc. The rectal wall was defined using the rectal solid with an individualized 3-mm wall thickness (median volume = 29.8 cc). Rectal wall dose-volume histogram was used to determine the prescribed dose. Toxicity was quantified using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria 2.0. Multiple dose-volume endpoints were evaluated for their association with chronic rectal toxicity. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 1.6 years. Thirty-four patients (crude rate = 10.3%) experienced Grade 2 chronic rectal toxicity at a median interval of 1.1 years. Nine patients (crude rate = 2.7%) experienced Grade > or =3 chronic rectal toxicity (1 was Grade 4) at a median interval of 1.2 years. The 3-year rates of Grade > or =2 and Grade > or =3 chronic rectal toxicity were 20% and 4%, respectively. Acute toxicity predicted for chronic: Acute Grade 2-3 rectal toxicity (p < 0.001) including any acute rectal Grade 2-3 tenesmus (p = 0.02) and pain (p = 0.008) were significant predictors of chronic Grade > or =2 rectal toxicity. Any acute rectal toxicity (p = 0.001), any acute tenesmus (p = 0.03), and any acute diarrhea (p < 0.001) were also found to be predictive for chronic toxicity, as continuous variables. Dose-volume histogram predicted for chronic toxicity: Rectal wall absolute and relative V50, V60, V66.6, V70, and V72 and rectal solid relative V60-V72 were significantly associated with chronic Grade > or =2 rectal toxicity both as categorical and continuous variables (t test, linear regression) and when divided into subgroups (chi-square table). The chronic rectal toxicity Grade > or =2 risk was 9%, 18%, and 25% for the rectal wall relative V70 <15%, 25%-40%, and >40% respectively. The volume of rectum or rectal wall radiated to > or =50 Gy was a strong predictor for chronic rectal toxicity. Nonpredictive factors: Rectal solid/wall absolute or relative volumes irradiated to < or =40 Gy, dose level, and use of androgen deprivation were not found predictive. CONCLUSIONS: In our ART dose escalation study, rectal wall or rectum relative > or =V50 are closely predictive for chronic rectal toxicity. If rectal dose-volume histogram constraints are used to select the dose level, the risk of chronic rectal toxicity will reflect the risk of toxicity of the selected constraint rather than the dose selected as found in our study using an adaptive process. To select the prescribed dose, different dose-volume histogram constraints may be used including the rectal wall V70. Patients experiencing acute rectal toxicity are more likely to experience chronic toxicity.

Prostate gland motion assessed with cine-magnetic resonance imaging (cine-MRI).

PURPOSE: To quantify prostate motion during a radiation therapy treatment using cine-magnetic resonance imaging (cine-MRI) for time frames comparable to that expected in an image-guided radiation therapy treatment session (20-30 min). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer were imaged on 3 days, over the course of therapy (Weeks 1, 3, and 5). Four hundred images were acquired during the 1-h MRI session in 3 sagittal planes through the prostate at 6-s intervals. Eleven anatomic points of interest (POIs) have been used to characterize prostate/bony pelvis/abdominal wall displacement. Motion traces and standard deviation for each of the 11 POIs have been determined. The probability of displacement over time has also been calculated. RESULTS: Patients were divided into 2 groups according to rectal filling status: full vs. empty rectum. The displacement of POIs (standard deviation) ranged from 0.98 to 1.72 mm for the full-rectum group and from 0.68 to 1.04 mm for the empty-rectum group. The low standard deviations in position (2 mm or less) would suggest that these excursions have a low frequency of occurrence. The most sensitive prostate POI to rectal wall motion was the mid-posterior with a standard deviation of 1.72 mm in the full-rectum group vs. 0.79 mm in the empty-rectum group (p = 0.0001). This POI has a 10% probability of moving more than 3 mm in a time frame of approximately 1 min if the rectum is full vs. approximately 20 min if the rectum is empty. CONCLUSION: Motion of the prostate and seminal vesicles during a time frame similar to a standard treatment session is reduced compared to that reported in interfraction studies. The most significant predictor for intrafraction prostate motion is the status of rectal filling. A prostate displacement of <3 mm (90%) can be expected for the 20 min after the moment of initial imaging for patients with an empty rectum. This is not the case for patients presenting with full rectum. The determination of appropriate intrafraction margins in radiation therapy to accommodate the time-dependent uncertainty in positional targeting is a topic of ongoing investigations for the on-line image guidance model.

An age-corrected matched-pair study of erectile function in patients treated with dose-escalated adaptive image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy vs. high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare erectile dysfunction (ED) after adaptive dose-escalated image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) and high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy (HDR) monotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with IG-IMRT or HDR were matched on pretreatment ED, age, Gleason score, T-stage, and prostate specific antigen. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy were excluded. ED was graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4. Actuarial rates of ED were computed by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: There were 384 patients with median followup of 2.0 years (0.5-6.1) for IG-IMRT and 2.0 years (0.5-8.7) for HDR. The median IG-IMRT dose was 75.6 Gy and HDR dose 38 Gy in four fractions. For patients with no pretreatment ED, actuarial rates of requiring intervention (Grade ≥2 ED) at 3 years were 31% for IG-IMRT and 19% for HDR (p=0.23), and impotence despite medical intervention (Grade 3) were 0% for IG-IMRT and 6% for HDR (p=0.06). For patients with Grade 1 pretreatment ED, Grade ≥2 ED at 3 years were 47% for IG-IMRT and 34% for HDR (p=0.79), and Grade 3 ED were 15% in both groups (p=0.59). For patients with Grade 2 pretreatment ED, Grade 3 ED at 3 years were 22% for IG-IMRT and 37% for HDR (p=0.70). No variables were predictive of Grade ≥2 ED following treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of ED requiring medical intervention for both IG-IMRT and HDR are low and equivalent. Even patients with ED before treatment are likely to maintain potency with medication use at 3 years following treatment.

Comparison of dose-escalated, image-guided radiotherapy vs. dose-escalated, high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in a modern cohort of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: We compared outcomes in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with dose-escalated adaptive image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) or dose-escalated high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-B). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria were treated with either CT-based off-line adaptive IGRT (n = 734) or HDR-B (n = 282). IGRT was delivered with 3D-conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a median dose of 77.4 Gy. For HDR-B, the whole pelvis received a median 46 Gy, and the prostate 2 implants of 9.5 Gy (n = 71), 10.5 Gy (n = 155), or 11.5 Gy (n = 56). RESULTS: Median followup was 3.7 years for IGRT and 8.0 years for HDR-B (p < 0.001). Eight-year biochemical control was 86% for IGRT and 91% for HDR-B (p = 0.22), disease-free survival 67% for IGRT and 79% for HDR-B (p = 0.006), and overall survival 75% for IGRT and 86% for HDR-B (p = 0.009). Cause-specific survival (8-year, 100% vs. 99%), freedom from distant metastases (98% vs. 97%), and freedom from local recurrence (98% vs. 98%) did not differ (p > 0.50 each). A worse prognosis group was defined by percent positive prostate biopsy cores >50%, perineural invasion, or stage T2b-c, encompassing 260 (35%) IGRT and 171 (61%) HDR-B patients. These patients evidenced a 5-year biochemical control of 96% for HDR-B and 87% for IGRT (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalated IGRT and HDR-B both yield excellent clinical outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Improved biochemical control with HDR-B for patients with worse pretreatment characteristics suggests that a subgroup of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients may benefit from dual-modality treatment.

Prognostic significance of neuroendocrine differentiation in patients with Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer treated with primary radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To determine the prognostic significance of neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) in Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer treated with primary radiotherapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Chromogranin A (CgA) staining was performed and overseen by a single pathologist on core biopsies from 176 patients from the William Beaumont prostate cancer database. A total of 143 had evaluable biopsy material. Staining was quantified as 0%, <1%, 1-10%, or >10% of tumor cells. Patients received external beam RT alone or together with high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier estimates determined if the presence/frequency of neuroendocrine cells correlated with clinical endpoints. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 5.5 years. Forty patients (28%) had at least focal positive CgA staining (<1% n = 21, 1-10% n = 11, >10% n = 8). No significant differences existed between patients with or without staining in terms of age, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, tumor stage, hormone therapy administration, % biopsy core involvement, mean Gleason score, or RT dose/modality. CgA staining concentration independently predicted for biochemical and clinical failure, distant metastases (DM), and cause-specific survival (CSS). For patients with <1% vs. >1% staining, 10-year DM rates were 13.4% vs. 55.3%, respectively (p = 0.001), and CSS was 91.7% vs. 58.9% (p < 0.001). As a continuous variable, increasing CgA staining concentration predicted for inferior rates of DM, CSS, biochemical control, and any clinical failure. No differences in outcomes were appreciated for patients with 0% vs. <1% NED. CONCLUSIONS: For Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer, >1% NED is associated with inferior clinical outcomes for patients treated with radiotherapy. This relates most directly to an increase in distant disease failure.

The impact of age on long-term outcome in patients with endometrial cancer treated with postoperative radiation.

PURPOSE: Endometrial cancer is the most commonly diagnosed gynecologic malignancy in the United States. Age has been associated with worse outcome in univariate analysis. However, the patterns of failure and associated risk factors in older patients remain unclear. We reviewed our institution's experience to assess the effect of age in a population of endometrial cancer patients treated with surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy. METHODS: From 1992-2002, 243 endometrial cancer patients underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy and adjuvant radiation. Forty-nine patients with stage I-II (occult) endometrial adenocarcinoma (no clear cell or serous papillary) were treated postoperatively with vaginal intracavitary high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy alone using Iridium-192 (median dose 30 Gy) to a median length of 4 cm. Forty-eight patients with stage I-III endometrial adenocarcinoma (no clear cell or papillary serous) were treated with postoperative pelvic RT (median dose 45 Gy) and intracavitary HDR brachytherapy (median dose 20 Gy). One hundred forty-six patients underwent postoperative whole abdomino-pelvic irradiation (WAPI) secondary to unfavorable histology (clear cell or serous papillary) or two of the following: deep myometrial invasion, grade 3, or FIGO stage III. Age was analyzed as a continuous and a categorical variable. The age of 63 year split the age group using various statistical analyses. RESULTS: Median follow-up of all patients was 4.2 years. Patients grouped by age of < or =63 years or older had similar FIGO stage (P = 0.5), grade (P = 0.09), treatment modality (P = 0.7), and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) (P = 0.6). Twenty-five percent (60/243) of patients developed recurrence. Of these failures, 15% (15/102) were age < or =63 years and 32% (45/141) were age >63 years at diagnosis (P = 0.02). For all patients, the 5-year event-free survival (EFS), cause specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were 64%, 82%, and 72%, respectively. Five-year EFS for patients age < or =63 years and >63 years was 76% vs. 55% (P < 0.001). Five-year OS for age < or =63 years and >63 years was 85% vs. 63% (P < 0.001). Five-year CSS for age < or =63 years and >63 years was 91% vs. 75% (P = 0.003). Various factors were analyzed to determine an association with age. Older patients with stage III-IVA had significantly more failures than patients less than age 63 (P = 0.002). Older patients (>63 years) were found to have serous papillary histology (28%) more often than younger patients (15%) (P = 0.02). Greater depth of invasion was associated with older age (P = 0.01). On univariate analysis, older age (P = 0.003), LVSI (P = 0.002), FIGO stage (P < 0.001), grade (P < 0.001), and depth of invasion (P = 0.03) predicted for failure. On Cox multivariate analysis, older age (P = 0.006, HR 2.83), higher FIGO stage (P = 0.001, HR 1.96), and higher grade (P = 0.002, HR 2.66) were significant prognostic factors for recurrence. No difference was seen between the two age groups from date of surgery and start of radiation. The duration of therapy was not different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Older endometrial cancer (age >63 years) patients have a significantly decreased overall survival, cause-specific survival, and greater risk of recurrence following postoperative RT independent of other prognostic factors and/or treatment technique. The impact of treatment-related variables did not alter the age-related outcome.