21 Gy single fraction prostate HDR brachytherapy: 5-year results of a single institution prospective pilot study.

PURPOSE: To present the outcome and toxicity results of a prospective trial of 21 Gy single fraction high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were treated according to an IRB-approved prospective study of single fraction HDR brachytherapy. Eligible patients had low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer with tumor stage ≤ T2b, PSA ≤ 15, and Gleason score ≤ 7. Patients underwent trans-rectal ultrasound-guided trans-perineal implant of the prostate followed by single fraction HDR brachytherapy to a dose of 21 Gy. The primary endpoint was grade ≥ 2 urinary/GI toxicity rates. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled with a median follow up of 5.1 years and median age of 64 years. 88.5% of patients had T1 disease, 15.4% had Gleason score 6 (84.6% Gleason 7), and median pre-treatment PSA was 5.0 ng/mL. Acute and chronic grade ≥ 2 urinary toxicity rates were 38.5% and 38.5%, respectively. There were no grade ≥ 2 acute or chronic GI toxicities. Six (23.1%) patients experienced biochemical failure, six (23.1%) patients experienced radiographic local failure, and five (19.2%) patients had biopsy-proven local failure. No patients developed regional lymph node recurrence or distant metastasis. 5-year overall survival and cause-specific survival were 96.2% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 21 Gy single fraction HDR brachytherapy was associated with modestly higher-than-anticipated chronic urinary toxicity, as well as high biochemical and local failure rates. The results from this prospective pilot study do not support the use of this regimen in standard clinical practice.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy versus as boost in unfavorable intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer: A matched-pair analysis.

PURPOSE: High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy (HDR-M), or as a boost combined with external beam radiotherapy (HDR-B), are both suitable treatments for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, data directly comparing these two approaches for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) patients are lacking. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with NCCN-defined UIR prostate cancer treated from 1997 to 2020 were identified in a prospectively maintained, single institution database. HDR-M and HDR-B patients were matched using three factors: age ±3 years; Gleason score (major and minor); and clinical T stage. Biochemical failure was defined as PSA nadir (nPSA) + 2. Available acute and chronic toxicities are additionally reported. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were identified (170 receiving HDR-B, 77 receiving HDR-M), ultimately yielding 70 matched pairs (140 patients) for inclusion. The median followup time was 5.2 years for HDR-M compared with 9.3 years for HDR-B (p < 0.001). The two cohorts had similar calculated prostate EQD2 (HDR-B 118 Gy vs. HDR-M 115 Gy, p = 0.977). No significant differences in OS, CSS, DM, LRR, or FFBF were identified. HDR-B had an increased rate of any acute grade 2+ gastrointestinal toxicity and worse acute dysuria and diarrhea. Chronic gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity was similar. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective treatment option for selected patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and provides a more favorable gastrointestinal toxicity profile than HDR-B. Prospective trials should be conducted to refine the selection process for this heterogeneous cohort of patients.

Dose-Escalated Radiation Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Total Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Patient-Reported Outcomes From NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of a phase III trial evaluating total androgen suppression (TAS) combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or RT plus TAS (arm 2) consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist with oral antiandrogen for 6 months. The primary PRO was the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50). Secondary PROs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-fatigue and EuroQOL five-dimensions scale questionnaire (EQ-5D). PRO change scores, calculated for each patient as the follow-up score minus baseline score (at the end of RT and at 6, 12, and 60 months), were compared between treatment arms using a two-sample t test. An effect size of 0.50 standard deviation was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: For the primary PRO instrument (EPIC), the completion rates were ≥86% through the first year of follow-up and 70%-75% at 5 years. For the EPIC hormonal and sexual domains, there were clinically meaningful (P < .0001) deficits in the RT + TAS arm. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences by 1 year between arms. There were also no clinically meaningful differences at any time points between arms for PROMIS-fatigue, EQ-5D, and EPIC bowel/urinary scores. CONCLUSION: Compared with dose-escalated RT alone, adding TAS demonstrated clinically meaningful declines only in EPIC hormonal and sexual domains. However, even these PRO differences were transient, and there were no clinically meaningful differences between arms by 1 year.

Dose-Escalated Radiotherapy Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Androgen Deprivation for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results of a Phase III Multi-Institutional Trial.

PURPOSE: It remains unknown whether or not short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) improves survival among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: The NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 study randomly assigned 1,492 patients with stage T2b-T2c, Gleason score 7, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value >10 and ≤20 ng/mL to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or with STAD (arm 2). STAD was 6 months of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist therapy plus antiandrogen. RT modalities were external-beam RT alone to 79.2 Gy or external beam (45 Gy) with brachytherapy boost. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), non-PCSM, distant metastases (DMs), PSA failure, and rates of salvage therapy. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.3 years. Two hundred nineteen deaths occurred, 119 in arm 1 and 100 in arm 2. Five-year OS estimates were 90% versus 91%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.11]; P = .22). STAD resulted in reduced PSA failure (HR, 0.52; P <.001), DM (HR, 0.25; P <.001), PCSM (HR, 0.10; P = .007), and salvage therapy use (HR, 0.62; P = .025). Other-cause deaths were not significantly different (P = .56). Acute grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2% of patients in arm 1 and in 12% for arm 2 (P <.001). Cumulative incidence of late grade ≥3 AEs was 14% in arm 1 and 15% in arm 2 (P = .29). CONCLUSION: STAD did not improve OS rates for men with IRPC treated with dose-escalated RT. Improvements in metastases rates, prostate cancer deaths, and PSA failures should be weighed against the risk of adverse events and the impact of STAD on quality of life.

Salvage prostate brachytherapy in radiorecurrent prostate cancer: An international Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Local recurrences after previous radiotherapy (RT) are increasingly being identified in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Salvage prostate brachytherapy (BT) is an effective and well tolerated treatment option. We sought to generate international consensus statements on the use and preferred technical considerations for salvage prostate BT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: International experts in salvage prostate BT were invited (n = 34) to participate. A three-round modified Delphi technique was utilized, with questions focused on patient- and cancer-specific criteria, type and technique of BT, and follow-up. An a priori threshold for consensus of ≥ 75% was set, with a majority opinion being ≥ 50%. RESULTS: Thirty international experts agreed to participate. Consensus was achieved for 56% (18/32) of statements. Consensus was achieved in several areas of patient selection: 1) A minimum of 2-3 years from initial RT to salvage BT; 2) MRI and PSMA PET should be obtained; and 3) Both targeted and systematic biopsies should be performed. Several areas did not reach consensus: 1) Maximum T stage/PSA at time of salvage; 2) Utilization/duration of ADT; 3) Appropriateness of combining local salvage with SABR for oligometastatic disease and 4) Repeating a second course of salvage BT. A majority opinion preferred High Dose-Rate salvage BT, and indicated that both focal and whole gland techniques could be appropriate. There was no single preferred dose/fractionation. CONCLUSION: Areas of consensus within our Delphi study may serve as practical advice for salvage prostate BT. Future research in salvage BT should address areas of controversy identified in our study.

Normal Tissue Integral Dose as a Result of Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Quantitative Comparison Between High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Modern External Beam Radiation Therapy Techniques.

Purpose: Quantification of integral radiation dose delivered during treatment for prostate cancer is lacking. We performed a comparative quantification of dose to nontarget body tissues delivered via 4 common radiation techniques: conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, pencil-beam scanning proton therapy, and high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Methods and Materials: Plans for each radiation technique were generated for 10 patients with typical anatomy. For brachytherapy plans, virtual needles were placed to achieve standard dosimetry. Standard planning target volume margins or robustness margins were applied as appropriate. A "normal tissue" structure (entire computed tomography simulation volume minus planning target volume) was generated for integral dose computation. Dose-volume histogram parameters for targets and normal structures were tabulated. Normal tissue integral dose was calculated by multiplying normal tissue volume by mean dose. Results: Normal tissue integral dose was lowest for brachytherapy. Pencil-beam scanning protons, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and brachytherapy resulted in 17%, 57%, and 91% absolute reductions compared with standard volumetric modulated arc therapy, respectively. Mean nontarget tissues receiving 25%, 50%, and 75% of the prescription dose were reduced by 85%, 76%, and 83% for brachytherapy relative to volumetric modulated arc therapy, by 79%, 64%, and 74% relative to stereotactic body radiation therapy, and 73%, 60%, and 81% relative to proton therapy. All reductions observed using brachytherapy were statistically significant. Conclusions: High-dose-rate brachytherapy is an effective technique for reducing dose to nontarget body tissues relative to volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and pencil-beam scanning proton therapy.

External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis.

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Interplay Between Duration of Androgen Deprivation Therapy and External Beam Radiotherapy With or Without a Brachytherapy Boost for Optimal Treatment of High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Patient-Level Data Analysis of 3 Cohorts.

IMPORTANCE: Radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a standard of care for high-risk prostate cancer. However, the interplay between radiotherapy dose and the required minimum duration of ADT is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the specific ADT duration threshold that provides a distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) benefit in patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT). DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cohort study of 3 cohorts assembled from a multicenter retrospective study (2000-2013); a post hoc analysis of the Randomized Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy 03/04 (RADAR; 2003-2007) randomized clinical trial (RCT); and a cross-trial comparison of the RADAR vs the Deprivación Androgénica y Radio Terapía (Androgen Deprivation and Radiation Therapy; DART) 01/05 RCT (2005-2010). In all, the study analyzed 1827 patients treated with EBRT and 1108 patients treated with EBRT+BT from the retrospective cohort; 181 treated with EBRT and 203 with EBRT+BT from RADAR; and 91 patients treated with EBRT from DART. The study was conducted from October 15, 2020, to July 1, 2021, and the data analyses, from January 5 to June 15, 2021. EXPOSURES: High-dose EBRT or EBRT+BT for an ADT duration determined by patient-physician choice (retrospective) or by randomization (RCTs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was DMFS; secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Natural cubic spline analysis identified minimum thresholds (months). RESULTS: This cohort study of 3 studies totaling 3410 men (mean age [SD], 68 [62-74] years; race and ethnicity not collected) with high-risk prostate cancer found a significant interaction between the treatment type (EBRT vs EBRT+BT) and ADT duration (binned to <6, 6 to <18, and ≥18 months). Natural cubic spline analysis identified minimum duration thresholds of 26.3 months (95% CI, 25.4-36.0 months) for EBRT and 12 months (95% CI, 4.9-36.0 months) for EBRT+BT for optimal effect on DMFS. In RADAR, the prolongation of ADT for patients receiving only EBRT was not associated with significant improvements in DMFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.65-1.57); however, for patients receiving EBRT+BT, a longer duration was associated with improved DMFS (DMFS HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87; P = .01). For patients receiving EBRT alone (DART), 28 months of ADT was associated with improved DMFS compared with 18 months (RADAR HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.80; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These cohort study findings suggest that the optimal minimum ADT duration for treatment with high-dose EBRT alone is more than 18 months; and for EBRT+BT, it is 18 months or possibly less. Additional studies are needed to determine more precise minimum durations.

Performance of a Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography-Derived Risk-Stratification Tool for High-risk and Very High-risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can detect low-volume, nonlocalized (ie, regional or metastatic) prostate cancer that was occult on conventional imaging. However, the long-term clinical implications of PSMA PET/CT upstaging remain unclear. Objectives: To evaluate the prognostic significance of a nomogram that models an individual's risk of nonlocalized upstaging on PSMA PET/CT and to compare its performance with existing risk-stratification tools. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients diagnosed with high-risk or very high-risk prostate cancer (ie, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level >20 ng/mL, Gleason score 8-10, and/or clinical stage T3-T4, without evidence of nodal or metastatic disease by conventional workup) from April 1995 to August 2018. This multinational study was conducted at 15 centers. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: Curative-intent radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy (BT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: PSMA upstage probability was calculated from a nomogram using the biopsy Gleason score, percentage positive systematic biopsy cores, clinical T category, and PSA level. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Fine-Gray and Cox regressions. Model performance was quantified with the concordance (C) index. Results: Of 5275 patients, the median (IQR) age was 66 (60-72) years; 2883 (55%) were treated with RP, 1669 (32%) with EBRT, and 723 (14%) with EBRT plus BT; median (IQR) PSA level was 10.5 (5.9-23.2) ng/mL; 3987 (76%) had Gleason grade 8 to 10 disease; and 750 (14%) had stage T3 to T4 disease. Median (IQR) follow-up was 5.1 (3.1-7.9) years; 1221 (23%) were followed up for at least 8 years. Overall, 1895 (36%) had BCR, 851 (16%) developed DM, and 242 (5%) died of prostate cancer. PSMA upstage probability was significantly prognostic of all clinical end points, with 8-year C indices of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61-0.65) for BCR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71) for DM, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) for PCSM, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.62) for PCSM (P < .001). The PSMA nomogram outperformed existing risk-stratification tools, except for similar performance to Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate (STAR-CAP) for PCSM (eg, DM: PSMA, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.71] vs STAR-CAP, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.68]; P < .001; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.54-0.60]; P < .001; Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment groups, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.51-0.56]; P < .001). Results were validated in secondary cohorts from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and the National Cancer Database. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that PSMA upstage probability is associated with long-term, clinically meaningful end points. Furthermore, PSMA upstaging had superior risk discrimination compared with existing tools. Formerly occult, PSMA PET/CT-detectable nonlocalized disease may be the main driver of outcomes in high-risk patients.

Correlation between tumor voxel dose response matrix and tumor biomarker profile in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We have developed a novel imaging analysis procedure that is highly predictive of local failure after chemoradiation in head and neck cancer. In this study we investigated whether any pretreatment biomarkers correlated with key imaging parameters. METHODS: Pretreatment biopsy material was available for 28 patients entered into an institutional trial of adaptive radiotherapy in which FDG-PET images were collected weekly during treatment. The biopsies were immunohistochemically stained for CD44, EGFR, GLUT1, ALDH1, Ki-67 and p53 and quantified using image analysis. Expression levels were correlated with previously derived imaging parameters, the pretreatment SUVmax and the dose response matrix (DRM). RESULTS: The different parameters of the SUVmax and DRM did not correlate with each other. We observed a positive and highly significant (p = 0.0088) correlation between CD44 expression and volume of tumor with a DRM greater than 0.8. We found no correlation between any DRM parameter and GLUT1, p53, Ki-67 and EGFR or ALDH1. GLUT1 expression did correlate with the maximum SUV0 and the volume of tumor with an SUV0 greater than 20. CONCLUSIONS: The pretreatment SUVmax and DRM are independent imaging parameters that combine to predict local recurrence. The significant correlation between CD44 expression, a known cancer stem cell (CSC) marker, and volume of tumor with a DRM greater than 0.8 is consistent with concept that specific foci of cells are responsible for tumor recurrence and that CSCs may be randomly distributed in tumors in specific niches. Dose painting these small areas may lead to improved tumor control.

Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features.

Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Patterns of Clinical Progression in Radiorecurrent High-risk Prostate Cancer.

The natural history of radiorecurrent high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) is not well-described. To better understand its clinical course, we evaluated rates of distant metastases (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in a cohort of 978 men with radiorecurrent HRPCa who previously received either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT, n = 654, 67%) or EBRT + brachytherapy (EBRT + BT, n = 324, 33%) across 15 institutions from 1997 to 2015. In men who did not die, median follow-up after treatment was 8.9 yr and median follow-up after biochemical recurrence (BCR) was 3.7 yr. Local and systemic therapy salvage, respectively, were delivered to 21 and 390 men after EBRT, and eight and 103 men after EBRT + BT. Overall, 435 men developed DM, and 248 were detected within 1 yr of BCR. Measured from time of recurrence, 5-yr DM rates were 50% and 34% after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. Measured from BCR, 5-yr PCSM rates were 27% and 29%, respectively. Interval to BCR was independently associated with DM (p < 0.001) and PCSM (p < 0.001). These data suggest that radiorecurrent HRPCa has an aggressive natural history and that DM is clinically evident early after BCR. These findings underscore the importance of further investigations into upfront risk assessment and prompt systemic evaluation upon recurrence in HRPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: High-risk prostate cancer that recurs after radiation therapy is an aggressive disease entity and spreads to other parts of the body (metastases). Some 60% of metastases occur within 1 yr. Approximately 30% of these patients die from their prostate cancer.

Inter/intra-tumoral dose response variations assessed using FDG-PET/CT feedback images: Impact on tumor control and treatment dose prescription.

PURPOSE: To quantify inter/intra-tumoral variations of baseline metabolic activity and dose response. To evaluate their impact on tumor control and treatment dose prescription strategies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Tumor voxel baseline metabolic activity, SUV0, and dose response matrix, DRM, quantified using the pre-treatment and weekly FDG-PET/CT imaging feedback for each of 34 HNSCC patients (25 HPV+ and 9 HVP-) were evaluated. Inter/intra-tumoral variations of tumor voxel (SUV0, DRM) for each of the HPV- and HPV+ tumor groups were quantified and used to evaluate the variations of individual tumor control probabilities and the efficiency of uniform vs non-uniform treatment dose prescription strategies. RESULTS: Tumor voxel dose response variation of all tumor voxels assessed using FDG-PET/CT imaging feedback had the mean(CV) = 0.47(47%), which was consistent with those of previously published in vitro tumor clonogenic assay. The HPV- tumors had the mean(CV) dose response, 0.53(49%), significantly larger than those of the HPV+ tumors, 0.45(43%). However, their baseline SUVs were opposite, 6.5(56%) vs 7.7(65%). Comparing to the inter-tumoral variations, both HPV-/+ tumor groups showed larger intra-tumoral variations, (53%, 58%) vs (20%, 31%) for the baseline SUV and (38%, 37%) vs (31%, 21%) for the dose response. Due to the large dose response variations, treatment dose to control the tumor voxels has very broad range with CV of TCD50 = 97% for the HPV- and 67% for the HPV+ tumor group respectively. As a consequence, heterogeneous prescription dose could potentially reduce the treatment integral dose for 92% of the HPV+ tumors and 78% of the HPV- tumors. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that tumor dose response assessed using FDG-PET/CT feedback images had a similar distribution to those assessed conventionally using in vitro tumor clonogenic assay. Inter-tumoral dose response variation seems larger for HPV- tumors, but intra-tumoral dose response variations are similar for both HPV groups. These variations cause very large variation on the individual tumor control probability and limit the efficacy of dose escalation and de-escalation in conventional clinical practice. On the other hand, heterogeneous dose prescription guided by metabolic imaging feedback has a potential advantage in radiotherapy.

Pulsed radiation therapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed radiation therapy (PRT) has shown effective tumor control and superior normal-tissue sparing ability compared with standard radiotherapy (SRT) in preclinical models and retrospective clinical series. This is the first prospective trial to investigate PRT in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: This is a single-arm, prospective study. Patients with newly diagnosed GBM underwent surgery, followed by 60 Gy of PRT with concurrent temozolomide (TMZ). Each day, a 2-Gy fraction was divided into ten 0.2-Gy pulses, separated by 3-minute intervals. Patients received maintenance TMZ. Neurocognitive function (NCF) and quality of life (QoL) were monitored for 2 years using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test‒Revised and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 QoL questionnaire. Change in NCF was evaluated based on a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold of 0.5 standard deviation. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 21 months. Median age was 60 years. Forty percent underwent subtotal resection, and 60% underwent gross total resection. One patient had an isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutated tumor. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 10.7 and 20.9 months, respectively. In a post-hoc comparison, median OS for the prospective cohort was longer, compared with a matched cohort receiving SRT (20.9 vs 14 mo, P = 0.042). There was no decline in QoL, and changes in NCF scores did not meet the threshold of an MCID. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of newly diagnosed GBM with PRT is feasible and produces promising effectiveness while maintaining neurocognitive function and QoL. Validation of our results in a larger prospective trial warrants consideration.

Investigation of the Prognostic Significance of Neuroendocrine Differentiation in Gleason Score 7 to 10 Prostate Adenocarcinoma in Patients With Distant Metastasis After Definitive Radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the prognostic implications of neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) in prostate adenocarcinoma detected by chromogranin A (CgA) in patients who developed distant metastasis (DM) after radiotherapy. METHODS: Patients with Gleason score 7 to 10 conventional acinar prostate adenocarcinoma treated with definitive radiotherapy and with core biopsy CgA staining completed were reviewed. Patients who developed DM, defined as disease beyond the primary tumor or pelvic lymph nodes, underwent detailed chart review. Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Meier estimates and descriptive statistics to compare based on quantification of CgA staining. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients had confirmed DM. Twenty-five patients had less than 1% of cells staining positive for CgA, and 10 patients had more than 1%. Median overall survival (OS) time was 3.26 and 1.04 years, respectively (P = .52). Median cause-specific survival (CSS) was 6.15 and 1.04 years, respectively (P = .21). Fifty-six percent of patients with CgA less than 1% died of prostate cancer compared with 90% of those with CgA more than 1% (P = .059). There were no significant differences in sites of metastatic disease or administration of systemic therapies. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in OS and CSS were observed based on NED detected by CgA. Reduced median survival time and increased cancer-related death in cases with focal NED generates the hypothesis of inferior outcomes among patients with documented DM.

Effect of uncertainties in quantitative 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging feedback for intratumoral dose-response assessment and dose painting by number.

PURPOSE: Intratumoral dose response can be detected using serial fluoro-2-deoxyglucose-(FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging feedback during treatment and used to guide adaptive dose painting by number (DPbN). However, to reliably implement this technique, the effect of uncertainties in quantitative PET/CT imaging feedback on tumor voxel dose-response assessment and DPbN needs to be determined and reduced. METHODS: Three major uncertainties, induced by (a) PET imaging partial volume effect (PVE) and (b) tumor deformable image registration (DIR), and (c) variation of the time interval between FDG injection and PET image acquisition (TI), were determined using serial FDG-PET/CT images acquired during chemoradiotherapy of 18 head and neck cancer patients. PET imaging PVE was simulated using the discrepancy between with and without iterative deconvolution-based PVE corrections. Effect of tumor DIR uncertainty was simulated using the discrepancy between two DIR algorithms, including one with and one without soft-tissue mechanical correction for the voxel displacement. The effect of TI variation was simulated using linear interpolation on the dual-point PET/CT images. Tumor voxel pretreatment metabolic activity (SUV0 ) and dose-response matrix (DRM) discrepancies induced by each of the three uncertainties were quantified, respectively. Adverse effects of tumor voxel SUV0 and DRM discrepancies on tumor control probability (TCP) in DPbN were assessed. RESULTS: Partial volume effect and TI variations of 10 mins induced a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of tumor voxel SUV0 discrepancies to be -0.7% ± 9.2% and 0% ± 4.8%, respectively. Tumor voxel DRM discrepancies induced by PVE, tumor DIR discrepancy, and TI variations were 0.6% ± 8.9%, 1.7% ± 9.1%, and 0% ± 7%, respectively. Partial volume effect induced SUV0 and DRM discrepancies correlated significantly with the tumor shape and FDG uptake heterogeneity. Tumor DIR uncertainty-induced DRM discrepancy correlated significantly with the tumor volume and shrinkage during treatment. Among the three uncertainties, PVE dominated the adverse effects on the TCP, with a mean ± SD of TCP reduction to be 12.7% ± 9.8% for all tumors if no compensation was applied for. CONCLUSIONS: Effect of uncertainties in quantitative FDG-PET/CT imaging feedback on intratumoral dose-response quantification was not negligible. These uncertainties primarily caused by PVE and tumor DIR were highly dependent on individual tumor shape, volume, shrinkage during treatment, and pretreatment SUV heterogeneity, which can be managed individually. The adverse effects of these uncertainties could be minimized by using proper PVE corrections and DIR methods and compensated for in the clinical implementation of DPbN.

Predictors of radiation necrosis in long-term survivors after Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: The long-term risk of necrosis after radiosurgery for brain metastases is uncertain. We aimed to investigate incidence and predictors of radiation necrosis for individuals with more than 1 year of survival after radiosurgery for brain metastases. METHODS: Patients who had a diagnosis of brain metastases treated between December 2006 and December 2014, who had at least 1 year of survival after first radiosurgery were retrospectively reviewed. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator, and the incidence of radiation necrosis was estimated with death or surgical resection as competing risks. Patient and treatment factors associated with radiation necrosis were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients with 732 lesions were analyzed. Thirty-four lesions required salvage radiosurgery and 10 required salvage surgical resection. Median follow-up was 24 months. The estimated median survival for this population was 25.4 months. The estimated per-lesion incidence of radiation necrosis at 4 years was 6.8%. Medical or surgical therapy was required for 60% of necrosis events. Tumor volume and male sex were significant factors associated with radiation necrosis. The per-lesions incidence of necrosis for patients undergoing repeat radiosurgery was 33.3% at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this large series of patients undergoing radiosurgery for brain metastases, patients continued to be at risk for radiation necrosis throughout their first 4 years of survival. Repeat radiosurgery of recurrent lesions greatly exacerbates the risk of radiation necrosis, whereas treatment of larger target volumes increases the risk modestly.

Rates of rectal toxicity in patients treated with high dose rate brachytherapy as monotherapy compared to dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Using a prospectively collected institutional database, we compared rectal toxicity following high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy as monotherapy relative to dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: 2683 patients treated with HDR or EBRT between 1994 and 2017 were included. HDR fractionation was 38 Gy/4 fractions (n = 321), 24 Gy/2 (n = 96), or 27 Gy/2 (n = 128). EBRT patients received a median dose of 75.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions [range 70.2-82.8 Gy], using either 3D conformal or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). EBRT patients underwent 3D image guidance via an off-line adaptive process. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 7.5 years (7.4 years for EBRT and 7.9 years for HDR). 545 patients (20.3%) received HDR brachytherapy and 2138 (79.7%) EBRT. 69.1% of EBRT patients received IMRT. Compared to EBRT, HDR was associated with decreased rates of acute grade ≥2 diarrhea (0.7% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001), rectal pain/tenesmus (0.6% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.001), and rectal bleeding (0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001). Rates of chronic grade ≥2 rectal bleeding (1.3% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001) and radiation proctitis (0.9% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.001) favored HDR over EBRT. Rates of any chronic rectal toxicity grade ≥2 were 2.4% vs. 10.5% (p < 0.001) for HDR versus EBRT, respectively. In those treated with IMRT, acute and chronic rates of any grade ≥2 GI toxicity were significantly reduced but remained significantly greater than those treated with HDR. CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy, HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective strategy for reducing rectal toxicity.