Protecting Caribbean patients diagnosed with cancer from compounding disasters.

Caribbean small island developing states are becoming increasingly vulnerable to compounding disasters, prominently featuring climate-related hazards and pandemic diseases, which exacerbate existing barriers to cancer control in the region. We describe the complexities of cancer prevention and control efforts throughout the Caribbean small island developing states, including the unique challenges of people diagnosed with cancer in the region. We highlight potential solutions and strategies that concurrently address disaster adaptation and cancer control. Because Caribbean small island developing states are affected first and worst by the hazards of compounding disasters, the innovative solutions developed in the region are relevant for climate mitigation, disaster adaptation, and cancer control efforts globally. In the age of complex and cascading disaster scenarios, developing strategies to mitigate their effect on the cancer control continuum, and protecting the health and safety of people diagnosed with cancer from extreme events become increasingly urgent. The equitable development of such strategies relies on collaborative efforts among professionals whose diverse expertise from complementary fields infuses the local community perspective while focusing on implementing solutions.

Beyond Average: α-Particle Distribution and Dose Heterogeneity in Bone Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

α-particle emitters are emerging as a potent modality for disseminated cancer therapy because of their high linear energy transfer and localized absorbed dose profile. Despite great interest and pharmaceutical development, there is scant information on the distribution of these agents at the scale of the α-particle pathlength. We sought to determine the distribution of clinically approved [223Ra]RaCl2 in bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer at this resolution, for the first time to our knowledge, to inform activity distribution and dose at the near-cell scale. Methods: Biopsy specimens and blood were collected from 7 patients 24 h after administration. 223Ra activity in each sample was recorded, and the microstructure of biopsy specimens was analyzed by micro-CT. Quantitative autoradiography and histopathology were segmented and registered with an automated procedure. Activity distributions by tissue compartment and dosimetry calculations based on the MIRD formalism were performed. Results: We revealed the activity distribution differences across and within patient samples at the macro- and microscopic scales. Microdistribution analysis confirmed localized high-activity regions in a background of low-activity tissue. We evaluated heterogeneous α-particle emission distribution concentrated at bone-tissue interfaces and calculated spatially nonuniform absorbed-dose profiles. Conclusion: Primary patient data of radiopharmaceutical therapy distribution at the small scale revealed that 223Ra uptake is nonuniform. Dose estimates present both opportunities and challenges to enhance patient outcomes and are a first step toward personalized treatment approaches and improved understanding of α-particle radiopharmaceutical therapies.

Does Chemo-Radiotherapy Improve Survival Outcomes vs. Radiotherapy Alone for High-Grade cT1 Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder?

BACKGROUND: Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (non-MIBC) that is high-grade and confined to the lamina propria (HGT1) often has an aggressive clinical course. Currently, there is limited data on the comparative effectiveness of RT vs. CRT for HGT1 non-MIBC. We hypothesized that CRT would be associated with improved overall survival (OS) vs. RT in HGT1 bladder cancer. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with HGT1 non-MIBC, and treated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor followed by either treatment with RT alone or CRT, were identified in the National Cancer Database. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was employed and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) hazard ratios. OS was the primary endpoint, and was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients with HGT1 UC were treated with: (i) RT alone (n = 123) or (ii) CRT (n = 136). Propensity-weighted MVA showed that combined modality treatment with CRT was associated with improved OS relative to radiation alone (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.62, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI): 0.44-0.88, P = .007). Four-year OS for the CRT vs. RT alone was 36% and 19%, respectively (log-rank P <.008). CONCLUSION: For patients with HGT1 bladder cancer, concurrent CRT was associated with improved OS compared with radiation alone in a retrospective cohort. These results are hypothesis-generating. The NRG is currently developing a phase II randomized clinical trial comparing CRT to other novel, bladder preservation strategies.

Effect of Brachytherapy With External Beam Radiation Therapy Versus Brachytherapy Alone for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: NRG Oncology RTOG 0232 Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether addition of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to brachytherapy (BT) (COMBO) compared with BT alone would improve 5-year freedom from progression (FFP) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer stage cT1c-T2bN0M0, Gleason Score (GS) 2-6 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10-20 or GS 7, and PSA < 10 were eligible. The COMBO arm was EBRT (45 Gy in 25 fractions) to prostate and seminal vesicles followed by BT prostate boost (110 Gy if 125-Iodine, 100 Gy if 103-Pd). BT arm was delivered to prostate only (145 Gy if 125-Iodine, 125 Gy if 103-Pd). The primary end point was FFP: PSA failure (American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ASTRO] or Phoenix definitions), local failure, distant failure, or death. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-eight men were randomly assigned; 579 were eligible: 287 and 292 in COMBO and BT arms, respectively. The median age was 67 years; 89.1% had PSA < 10 ng/mL, 89.1% had GS 7, and 66.7% had T1 disease. There were no differences in FFP. The 5-year FFP-ASTRO was 85.6% (95% CI, 81.4 to 89.7) with COMBO compared with 82.7% (95% CI, 78.3 to 87.1) with BT (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.26; Greenwood T P = .18). The 5-year FFP-Phoenix was 88.0% (95% CI, 84.2 to 91.9) with COMBO compared with 85.5% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.6) with BT (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.30; Greenwood T P = .19). There were no differences in the rates of genitourinary (GU) or GI acute toxicities. The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 2+ toxicity is 42.8% (95% CI, 37.0 to 48.6) for COMBO compared with 25.8% (95% CI, 20.9 to 31.0) for BT (P < .0001). The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 3+ toxicity is 8.2% (95% CI, 5.4 to 11.8) compared with 3.8% (95% CI, 2.0 to 6.5; P = .006). CONCLUSION: Compared with BT, COMBO did not improve FFP for prostate cancer but caused greater toxicity. BT alone can be considered as a standard treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Cellular states are coupled to genomic and viral heterogeneity in HPV-related oropharyngeal carcinoma.

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) includes a subset of cancers driven by human papillomavirus (HPV). Here we use single-cell RNA-seq to profile both HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal tumors, uncovering a high level of cellular diversity within and between tumors. First, we detect diverse chromosomal aberrations within individual tumors, suggesting genomic instability and enabling the identification of malignant cells even at pathologically negative margins. Second, we uncover diversity with respect to HNSCC subtypes and other cellular states such as the cell cycle, senescence and epithelial-mesenchymal transitions. Third, we find heterogeneity in viral gene expression within HPV-positive tumors. HPV expression is lost or repressed in a subset of cells, which are associated with a decrease in HPV-associated cell cycle phenotypes, decreased response to treatment, increased invasion and poor prognosis. These findings suggest that HPV expression diversity must be considered during diagnosis and treatment of HPV-positive tumors, with important prognostic ramifications.

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

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

A clinical and time savings evaluation of a deep learning automatic contouring algorithm.

Automatic contouring algorithms may streamline clinical workflows by reducing normal organ-at-risk (OAR) contouring time. Here we report the first comprehensive quantitative and qualitative evaluation, along with time savings assessment for a prototype deep learning segmentation algorithm from Siemens Healthineers. The accuracy of contours generated by the prototype were evaluated quantitatively using the Sorensen-Dice coefficient (Dice), Jaccard index (JC), and Hausdorff distance (Haus). Normal pelvic and head and neck OAR contours were evaluated retrospectively comparing the automatic and manual clinical contours in 100 patient cases. Contouring performance outliers were investigated. To quantify the time savings, a certified medical dosimetrist manually contoured de novo and, separately, edited the generated OARs for 10 head and neck and 10 pelvic patients. The automatic, edited, and manually generated contours were visually evaluated and scored by a practicing radiation oncologist on a scale of 1-4, where a higher score indicated better performance. The quantitative comparison revealed high (> 0.8) Dice and JC performance for relatively large organs such as the lungs, brain, femurs, and kidneys. Smaller elongated structures that had relatively low Dice and JC values tended to have low Hausdorff distances. Poor performing outlier cases revealed common anatomical inconsistencies including overestimation of the bladder and incorrect superior-inferior truncation of the spinal cord and femur contours. In all cases, editing contours was faster than manual contouring with an average time saving of 43.4% or 11.8 minutes per patient. The physician scored 240 structures with > 95% of structures receiving a score of 3 or 4. Of the structures reviewed, only 11 structures needed major revision or to be redone entirely. Our results indicate the evaluated auto-contouring solution has the potential to reduce clinical contouring time. The algorithm's performance is promising, but human review and some editing is required prior to clinical use.

Assessing the impact of brachytherapy boost and androgen deprivation therapy on survival outcomes for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations regarding radiotherapy treatment for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa) include external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) ± brachytherapy boost (BT) ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The ideal radiotherapy treatment approach for UIR-PCa has not been well-defined. We hypothesized that EBRT+BT±ADT is associated with improved overall survival (OS) relative to EBRT±ADT in men with UIR-PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to retrospectively identify 32,246 men diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with UIR-PCa who received EBRT (n = 13,265), EBRT+ADT (n = 13,123), EBRT+BT (n = 3440), or EBRT+BT+ADT (n = 2418). OS was the primary outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for covariable imbalances and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis using Cox regression modeling was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 60 months (range: 3-168 months). EBRT+ADT correlated with improved OS relative to EBRT alone on multivariable analysis (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.92, [95% Confidence Interval: 0.87-0.98], p = 0.005). Compared to EBRT+ADT, EBRT+BT (HR: 0.77 [0.69-0.85], p = 3 × 10-7) and EBRT+BT+ADT (HR: 0.75 [0.67-0.83], p = 6 × 10-8) were associated with improved OS. Eight-years OS for the EBRT+ADT versus EBRT+BT+ADT was 70% and 78% (p < 0.0001), which is similar to historical clinical trials (ASCENDE-RT 9-year OS: 74% vs. 78%, p = 0.29). Relative to EBRT+BT, EBRT+BT+ADT was not associated with improved OS (HR: 0.99 [0.87-1.11], p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In a large retrospective cohort, the addition of brachytherapy to EBRT correlated with improved survival in men with UIR-PCa. Men receiving EBRT+ADT+BT had improved OS relative to EBRT+ADT. The addition of ADT to EBRT, but not to EBRT+BT, correlated with improved OS.

Treatment Patterns and Overall Survival Outcomes Among Patients Aged 80 yr or Older with High-risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) present a therapeutic dilemma of balancing treatment of a potentially lethal malignancy with overtreatment of a cancer that may not threaten life expectancy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate treatment patterns and overall survival outcomes in this group of patients. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. We queried the National Cancer Database for high-risk PCa in patients aged 80 yr or older diagnosed during 2004-2016. INTERVENTION: Eligible patients underwent no treatment following biopsy (ie, observation), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, radiation therapy (RT) alone, RT + ADT, or surgery. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Kaplan-Meier, log rank, and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression was performed to compare overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 19 920 men were eligible for analysis, and the most common treatment approach was RT + ADT (7401 patients; 37.2%). Observation and ADT alone declined over time (59.3% in 2004 vs 47.5% in 2016). There was no observed difference in OS between observation and ADT alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.09; p = 0.105). Definitive local treatment was associated with improved OS compared with ADT alone (RT alone, HR 0.54, 95% CI, 0.50-0.59, p < 0.0001; ADT + RT, HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.46-0.50, p < 0.0001; surgery, HR 0.50, 95% CI, 0.42-0.59, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that the use of definitive local therapy, including surgery or RT ± ADT, is increasing and is associated with a 50% reduction in overall mortality compared with observation or ADT alone. While prospective validation is warranted, elderly men with high-risk disease eligible for definitive management should be counseled on the risks, including a possible compromise in OS, with deferring definitive management. PATIENT SUMMARY: Elderly men are more often diagnosed with higher-risk prostate cancer but are less likely to receive curative treatment options than younger men. Our analysis demonstrates that for men ≥80 yr of age with high-risk prostate cancer, definitive local therapy, including surgery or radiation therapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy, is associated with a 50% reduction in overall mortality compared with observation or androgen deprivation therapy alone. We therefore recommend that life expectancy (ie, physiologic age) be taken into account, over chronologic age, and that elderly men with good life expectancy (eg, >5 yr; minimal comorbidity) should be offered definitive, life-prolonging therapy.

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

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

Assessing Inter-Fraction Changes in The Size and Position of The Penile Bulb During Daily MR-Guided Radiation Therapy to The Prostate Bed: Do We Need to Adjust How We Plan Radiation in The Post-Radical Prostatectomy Setting to Reduce Risk of Erectile Dysfunction?

BACKGROUND: We evaluated inter-fraction penile bulb (PB) changes in prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing MR-guided RT in the post-radical prostatectomy (RP) setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 10 patients with PCa status-post RP received MR-guided RT from 2017-2019. Patients received daily setup volumetric MRI scans prior to RT delivery for alignment and target localization. Setup MRI datasets from Fx 1, Fx 19, and Fx 37 were fused for each patient based on soft tissue anatomy. The PB was contoured on each MRI. Data on volume (cc), superior/inferior positional change (cm), and mean dose (Gy) was collected. Differences were assessed by Student's t-test (sig. p<0.05). RESULTS: The mean PB volume change from Fx 1→ 19 was +0.34 ± 0.34 cc (p=0.11) and from Fx 1→ 37 was +0.22 ± 0.28 cc (p=0.31). The mean positional change from Fx 1→ 19 was +0.08±0.26 cm (p=0.37) and from Fx 1→ 37 was +0.05 ±0.25 cm (p=0.57). The mean change in mean PB dose from Fx 1→ 19 was +0.19±4.86 Gy (p=0.98) and from Fx 1→ 37 was -1.51≖7.46 Gy (p=0.88). CONCLUSION: We present the first study evaluating inter-fraction changes to the PB during MR-guided RT. We found no clinically meaningful difference in the volume, positional change, or mean dose during RT in the post-prostatectomy setting, suggesting that PB organ motion may not need to be accounted for in radiation treatment planning.

Assessing the role of external beam radiation therapy in combination with brachytherapy versus brachytherapy alone for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Definitive treatment options for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa) include external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) ± brachytherapy boost ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The role of brachytherapy ± ADT in the absence of EBRT is not well defined. We hypothesized that EBRT+BT±ADT is associated with improved overall survival (OS) relative to BT±ADT for UIR-PCa. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men with UIR-PCa diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Inverse propensity of treatment weighting was used to balance covariables that influenced treatment allocation and outcomes, and propensity-weighted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: A total of 11,721 men were stratified into four treatment groups: (1) BT without ADT (n = 4,535), (2) BT+ADT (n = 1,303), (3) EBRT+BT (n = 3,446), or (4) EBRT+BT+ADT (n = 2,437). Relative to patients treated with BT alone, BT+ADT (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.86 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.76-0.99], p = 0.03), EBRT+BT (HR: 0.79 [0.70-0.88], p = 0.00002), and EBRT+BT+ADT (HR: 0.76 [0.67-0.85], p = 0.000003) were associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to BT alone, EBRT+BT correlated with improved OS on weight-adjusted MVA (HR: 0.82 [0.75-0.89], p = 0.000005). 10-year OS for BT vs. EBRT+BT was 62.4% [60.1-64.7] vs. 69.3% [67.5-71.2], respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: EBRT+BT correlated with improved OS relative to BT alone in men with UIR-PCa, reaffirming current NCCN recommendations recommending EBRT+BT over BT alone. While prior studies reported no benefit to adding EBRT to BT with optimal implant dosimetry, this study suggests men benefit from EBRT in a population of variable implant quality.

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

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

Propensity-Weighted Survival Analysis of SBRT vs. Conventional Radiotherapy in Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), which delivers high-dose precision treatment in ≤5 fractions, is a shorter, more convenient, and less expensive alternative to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRFT; ∼44 fractions) or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MFRT; 20-28 fractions). SBRT has not been widely adopted but may have radiobiologic advantages over CFRT/MFRT. We hypothesized that SBRT would be associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus CFRT or MFRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for unfavorable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa). METHODS: Men with UIR-PCa treated with SBRT (35-40Gy in ≤5 fractions) or biologically equivalent doses of CFRT (72-86.4Gy in 1.8-2.0Gy/fraction) or MRFT (≥60Gy in 2.4-3.2Gy/fraction; biologically effective doses ≥120) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Unweighted and propensity-weighted multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: Of 28,028 men with UIR-PCa who received CFRT with (n = 12,872) or without ADT (n = 12,984); MFRT with (n = 251) or without ADT (n = 281); and SBRT with (n = 212) or without ADT (n = 1,428) were identified. Relative to CFRT without ADT, CFRT+ ADT (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97, P = .002) and SBRT without ADT (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.89, P = .002) were both associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to CFRT+ADT, SBRT without ADT correlated with improved OS on MVA (HR:0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = .04). Propensity-weighted MVA demonstrated that SBRT (HR:0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = .036) and ADT (HR:0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97, P = .002) correlated with improved OS. SBRT was not associated with improved OS versus MFRT. CONCLUSION: SBRT, which offers a cheaper and shorter treatment course that mitigates COVID-19 exposure, was associated with improved OS versus CFRT for UIR-PCa. These results confirm guideline-based recommendations that SBRT is a viable option for UIR prostate cancer. The results from this large retrospective study require further validation in clinical trials.

Feasibility of Same-Day Prostate Fiducial Markers, Perirectal Hydrogel Spacer Placement, and Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Simulation for External Beam Radiation Therapy for Low-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The use of prostate fiducial markers and perirectal hydrogel spacers can reduce the acute and late toxic effects associated with prostate radiation therapy. These procedures are usually performed days to weeks before simulation during a separate clinic visit to ensure resolution of procedure-related inflammation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether same-day intraprostatic fiducial marker placement, perirectal hydrogel injection, and computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation were feasible without adversely affecting hydrogel volume, perirectal spacing, or rectal dose. If feasible, performing these procedures on the same day as simulation would expedite the start of radiation therapy, improve patient convenience, and reduce costs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were enrolled on a prospective clinical trial (NCT01617161) underwent same-day marker placement, hydrogel injection, and CT and MRI simulation, then underwent T2 MRI verification scans 3 to 4 weeks later. The MRI scans were fused to the CT planning scans by clinical target volumes (CTVs) to generate comparison treatment plans (70 Gy in 28 fractions). Hydrogel volume and symmetry, perirectal spacing, CTV dose, and organ-at-risk dose were evaluated. RESULTS: Verification scans occurred a mean of 24.9 ± 4.6 days after simulation and 9.3 ± 4.9 days after treatment start. Prostate volume did not change between scans (median, 67.3 ± 22.1 cm3 vs 64.1 ± 21.8 cm3; P = .64). The median hydrogel change between simulation and verification was -1.8% ± 4.5% (P = .27). No significant differences in perirectal spacing (midgland: 1.33 ± 0.45 cm vs 1.3 ± 0.7 cm; 1 cm superior: 1.25 ± 0.95 cm vs 1.43 ± 0.91 cm; 1 cm inferior: 1.16 ± 0.28 cm vs 1.41 ± 0.49 cm) were identified. No significant differences in rectal V66 (median 2.3 ± 2.18% vs 2.3 ± 2.28%; P = .99), V35 (median 14.79 ± 7.61 vs 14.67 ± 8.4; P = .73), or D1cc (65.7 ± 9.2 Gy vs 68.2 ± 9.0 Gy; P = .80) were found. All plans met CTV and organ-at-risk constraints. CONCLUSION: Same-day placement of intraprostatic fiducial markers, perirectal hydrogel, and simulation scans was feasible and did not significantly affect hydrogel volume, position, CTV coverage, or rectal dose.

Impact of human papillomavirus on the tumor microenvironment in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

Increasing evidence has elucidated the clinicopathological significance of tumor microenvironment (TME) cells. However, TME differences associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) have not been well characterized. In our study, we comprehensively determined the TME infiltration patterns in 315 OPSCC patients, and systematically correlated the TME phenotypes with genomic characteristics and clinical features of OPSCCs. In this way, we observed the enrichment of high endothelial cells and adaptive immune cells in HPV-positive (HPV+) OPSCCs, in contrast to the enrichment of fibroblasts and capillary endothelial cells in HPV- negative (HPV-) OPSCCs. By focusing on immune checkpoint genes, we constructed a coexpression network using genes that were differentially expressed between HPV+ and HPV- OPSCCs. Functional analysis of the network indicated that HPV+ OPSCCs had elevated immune activities by promoting adaptive immune response and suppressing activities related to extracellular matrix organization. Subsequently, clinical analysis showed that identified TME-relevant genes were closely associated with the prognosis and therapy response in OPSCC. Importantly, results from the TME analysis were further validated using an independent OPSCC cohort.

The Clinical Cell-Cycle Risk (CCR) Score Is Associated With Metastasis After Radiation Therapy and Provides Guidance on When to Forgo Combined Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Dose-Escalated Radiation.

PURPOSE: The clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which combines the University of California, San Francisco's Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) and the cell cycle progression (CCP) molecular score, has been validated to be prognostic of disease progression for men with prostate cancer. This study evaluated the ability of the CCR score to prognosticate the risk of metastasis in men receiving dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study included men with localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk prostate cancer (N = 741). Patients were treated with dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. The primary outcome was time to metastasis. RESULTS: The CCR score prognosticated metastasis with a hazard ratio (HR) per unit score of 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.89; P < .001). The CCR score better prognosticated metastasis than NCCN risk group (CCR, P < .001; NCCN, P = .46), CAPRA score (CCR, P = .002; CAPRA, P = .59), or CCP score (CCR, P < .001; CCP, P = .59) alone. In bivariable analyses, CCR score remained highly prognostic when accounting for ADT versus no ADT (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.61-2.96; P < .001), ADT duration as a continuous variable (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.79; P < .001), or ADT given at or below the recommended duration for each NCCN risk group (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.69-2.86; P < .001). Men with CCR scores below or above the multimodality threshold (CCR score, 2.112) had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7% and 21.24%, respectively. Men with below-threshold scores receiving RT alone had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7%, and for men receiving RT plus ADT, the 10-year risk of metastasis was also 3.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The CCR score accurately and precisely prognosticates metastasis and adds clinically actionable information relative to guideline-recommended therapies based on NCCN risk in men undergoing dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. For men with scores below the multimodality threshold, adding ADT may not significantly reduce their 10-year risk of metastasis.

Technical Report: Development and Implementation of an Open Source Template Interpretation Class Library for Automated Treatment Planning.

PURPOSE: Widespread implementation of automated treatment planning in radiation therapy remains elusive owing to variability in clinic and physician preferences, making it difficult to ensure consistent plan parameters. We have developed an open-source class library with the aim to improve efficiency and consistency for automated treatment planning in radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An open-source class library has been developed that interprets clinical templates within a commercial treatment planning system into a treatment plan for automated planning. This code was leveraged for the automated planning of 39 patients and retrospectively compared with the 78 clinically approved manual plans. RESULTS: From the initial 39 patients, 74 of 78 plans were successfully generated without manual intervention. The target dose was more homogeneous for automated plans, with an average homogeneity index of 3.30 for manual plans versus 3.11 for automated plans (P = .107). The generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) was decreased in the femurs and rectum for automated plans, with a mean gEUD of 3746 cGy versus 3338 cGy (P ≤ 0.001) and 5761 cGy versus 5634 cGy (P ≤ 0.001) for the femurs and rectum, respectively. Dose metrics for the bladder and rectum (V6500 cGy and V4000 cGy) showed recognizable but insignificant improvements. All automated plans delivered for quality assurance passed a gamma analysis (>95%), with an average composite pass rate of 99.3% for pelvis plans and 98.8% for prostate plans. Deliverability parameters such as total monitor units and aperture complexity indicated deliverable plans. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer and pelvic node radiation therapy can be automated using volumetric modulated arc therapy planning and clinical templates based on a standardized clinical workflow. The class library developed in this study conveniently interfaced between the plan template and the treatment planning system to automatically generate high-quality plans on customizable templates.

Quality of Life Implications of Dose-Escalated External Beam Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of a Prospective Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trial, NRG/RTOG 0126.

PURPOSE: External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) dose escalation has been tested in multiple prospective trials. However, the impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs) associated with higher doses of EBRT remain poorly understood. We sought to assess the differences in PROs between men treated with a dose of 70.2 Gy versus 79.2 Gy of EBRT for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The phase 3 clinical trial RTOG 0126 randomized 1532 patients with prostate cancer between March 2002 and August 2008 to 79.2 Gy over 44 fractions versus 70.2 Gy over 39 fractions. Eligible patients participated in the PRO data collection. PROs completed included the International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire (IIEF), Functional Alterations due to Changes in Elimination (FACE), and the Spitzer Quality of Life Index (SQLI). The timepoints for the IIEF were collected pre-entry and at 6, 12, and 24 months. The FACE and SQLI were collected pre-entry and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The impact of EBRT dose to normal structures (penile bulb, rectum, and bladder) on PROs was also examined. Mixed effects models were used to analyze trends across time. RESULTS: In total, 1144 patients completed baseline IIEF forms and of these, 56%, 64%, and 61% completed the IIEF at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively; 1123 patients completed the FACE score at baseline and 50%, 61%, 73%, 61%, and 65% completed all 15 items for the FACE metric at timepoints of 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. Erectile dysfunction at 12 months based on the single question was not significantly different between arms (38.1% for the standard dose radiation therapy arm vs 49.7% for the dose escalated radiation therapy arm; P = .051). Treatment arm (70.2 vs 79.2) had no significant impact on any PRO metrics measured across all collected domains. Comprehensive dosimetric analyses are presented and reveal multiple significant differences to regional organs at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with PRO data collection was lower than anticipated in this phase 3 trial. Examining the available data, dose escalated EBRT did not appear to be associated with any detriment to PROs across numerous prospectively collected domains. These data, notwithstanding limitations, add to our understanding of the implications of EBRT dose escalation in prostate cancer. Furthermore, these results illustrate challenges associated with PRO data collection.