Incidental Coronary Arterial Calcification for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Men With Prostate Cancer Undergoing PET/CT Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is common among men with prostate cancer and the leading cause of death in this population. There is a need for CV risk assessment tools that can be easily implemented in the prostate cancer treatment setting. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for recurrent prostate cancer at a single institution from 2012 to 2017 were identified retrospectively. Clinical data and coronary calcification on nongated CT imaging were obtained. The primary outcome was major adverse CV event (MACE; myocardial infarction, coronary or peripheral revascularization, stroke, heart failure hospitalization, or all-cause mortality) occurring within 5 years of PET/CT. RESULTS: Among 354 patients included in the study, there were 98 MACE events that occurred in 74 patients (21%). All-cause mortality was the most common MACE event (35%), followed by coronary revascularization/myocardial infarction (26%) and stroke (19%). Coronary calcification was predictive of MACE (HR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1-3.4, P = .03) using adjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis. As a comparator, the Framingham risk score was calculated for 198 patients (56%) with complete clinical and laboratory data available. In this subgroup, high baseline Framingham risk (corresponding to 10-year risk of CV disease > 20%) was not predictive of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: MACE was common (21%) in men with recurrent prostate cancer undergoing PET/CT over 5 years of follow-up. Incidental coronary calcification on PET/CT was associated with increased risk of MACE and may have utility as a CV risk predictor that is feasible to implement among all prostate cancer providers.

Handling Patient Emergencies During Radiopharmaceutical Therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) is a rapidly growing treatment modality. Though uncommon, patients may experience complications during their RPT treatment, which may trigger a rapid response from the hospital team. However, members of this team are typically not familiar with precautions for radiation safety. During these events, it is important to prioritize the patient's health over all else. There are some practices that can help minimize the risk of radiation contamination spread and exposure to staff while tending to the patient. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We formed a team to develop a standard protocol for handling patient emergencies during RPT treatment. This team consisted of an authorized user, radiation safety officer, medical physicist, nurse, RPT administration staff, and a quality/safety coordinator. The focus for developing this standardized protocol for RPT patient emergencies was 3-fold: (1) stabilize the patient; (2) reduce radiation exposure to staff; and (3) limit the spread of radiation contamination. RESULTS: We modified our hospital's existing rapid response protocol to account for the additional staff and tasks needed to accomplish all 3 of these goals. Each team member was assigned specific responsibilities, which include serving as a gatekeeper to restrict traffic, managing the crash cart, performing chest compressions, timing chest compressions, documenting the situation, and monitoring/managing radiation safety in the area. We developed a small, easy-to-read card for rapid response staff to read while they are en route to the area so they can be aware of and prepare for the unique circumstances that RPT treatments present. CONCLUSIONS: Though rapid response events with RPT patients are uncommon, it is important to have a standardized protocol for how to handle these situations beforehand rather than improvise in the moment. We have provided an example of how our team adapted our hospital's current rapid response protocol to accommodate RPT patients.

A Prospective Phase I/II Clinical Trial of High-Dose Proton Therapy for Chordomas and Chondrosarcomas.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of dose-escalated proton beam therapy for treating chordomas and chondrosarcomas of the skull base and spine. Methods: A prospective cohort of 54 patients (42 with chordomas and 12 with chondrosarcomas) was enrolled between 2010 and 2018. The primary endpoints were feasibility and <20% rate of acute grade ≥3 toxicity, and secondary endpoints included cancer-specific outcomes and toxicities. Patients were followed with magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography at 3-month intervals. Proton beam therapy was delivered with doses up to 79.2 Gy using protons only, combination protons/intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or IMRT only. Results: Feasibility endpoints were met, with only 2 out of 54 patient radiation therapy plans failing to meet dosimetric constraints with protons, and 4 out of 54 experiencing a delay or treatment break >5 days, none for toxicities related to treatment. There were no grade 4 acute toxicities and 1 grade 3 acute toxicity (sensory neuropathy). The only 2 grade 3 late toxicities recorded, osteoradionecrosis and intranasal carotid blowout (mild and not emergently treated), occurred in a single patient. We report overall survival as 83% at 5 years, with local failure-free survival and progression-free survival rates of 72% and 68%, respectively. Five patients developed distant disease, and among the 9/54 patients who died, 4 deaths were not attributed to treatment or recurrence. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that high-dose proton therapy alone or in combination with IMRT is a safe and effective treatment option for chordomas and chondrosarcomas of the skull base and spine.

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.