Implementation and Impact of a Risk-Stratified Prostate Cancer Screening Algorithm as a Clinical Decision Support Tool in a Primary Care Network.

BACKGROUND: Implementation methods of risk-stratified cancer screening guidance throughout a health care system remains understudied. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a preliminary analysis of the implementation of a risk-stratified prostate cancer screening algorithm in a single health care system. DESIGN: Comparison of men seen pre-implementation (2/1/2016-2/1/2017) vs. post-implementation (2/2/2017-2/21/2018). PARTICIPANTS: Men, aged 40-75 years, without a history of prostate cancer, who were seen by a primary care provider. INTERVENTIONS: The algorithm was integrated into two components in the electronic health record (EHR): in Health Maintenance as a personalized screening reminder and in tailored messages to providers that accompanied prostate-specific antigen (PSA) results. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: percent of men who met screening algorithm criteria; percent of men with a PSA result. Logistic repeated measures mixed models were used to test for differences in the proportion of individuals that met screening criteria in the pre- and post-implementation periods with age, race, family history, and PSA level included as covariates. KEY RESULTS: During the pre- and post-implementation periods, 49,053 and 49,980 men, respectively, were seen across 26 clinics (20.6% African American). The proportion of men who met screening algorithm criteria increased from 49.3% (pre-implementation) to 68.0% (post-implementation) (p < 0.001); this increase was observed across all races, age groups, and primary care clinics. Importantly, the percent of men who had a PSA did not change: 55.3% pre-implementation, 55.0% post-implementation. The adjusted odds of meeting algorithm-based screening was 6.5-times higher in the post-implementation period than in the pre-implementation period (95% confidence interval, 5.97 to 7.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary analysis, following implementation of an EHR-based algorithm, we observed a rapid change in practice with an increase in screening in higher-risk groups balanced with a decrease in screening in low-risk groups. Future efforts will evaluate costs and downstream outcomes of this strategy.

Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment. METHODS: The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07-13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18-17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3-33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7-28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9-24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0-35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. INTERPRETATION: In this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Quantitative comparison of automatic and manual IMRT optimization for prostate cancer: the benefits of DVH prediction.

A recent publication indicated that the patient anatomical feature (PAF) model was capable of predicting optimal objectives based on past experience. In this study, the benefits of IMRT optimization using PAF-predicted objectives as guidance for prostate were evaluated. Three different optimization methods were compared.1) Expert Plan: Ten prostate cases (16 plans) were planned by an expert planner using conventional trial-and-error approach started with institutional modified OAR and PTV constraints. Optimization was stopped at 150 iterations and that plan was saved as Expert Plan. 2) Clinical Plan: The planner would keep working on the Expert Plan till he was satisfied with the dosimetric quality and the final plan was referred to as Clinical Plan. 3) PAF Plan: A third sets of plans for the same ten patients were generated fully automatically using predicted DVHs as guidance. The optimization was based on PAF-based predicted objectives, and was continued to 150 iterations without human interaction. DMAX and D98% for PTV, DMAX for femoral heads, DMAX, D10cc, D25%/D17%, and D40% for bladder/rectum were compared. Clinical Plans are further optimized with more iterations and adjustments, but in general provided limited dosimetric benefits over Expert Plans. PTV D98% agreed within 2.31% among Expert, Clinical, and PAF plans. Between Clinical and PAF Plans, differences for DMAX of PTV, bladder, and rectum were within 2.65%, 2.46%, and 2.20%, respectively. Bladder D10cc was higher for PAF but < 1.54% in general. Bladder D25% and D40% were lower for PAF, by up to 7.71% and 6.81%, respectively. Rectum D10cc, D17%, and D40% were 2.11%, 2.72%, and 0.27% lower for PAF, respectively. DMAX for femoral heads were comparable (< 35 Gy on average). Compared to Clinical Plan (Primary + Boost), the average optimization time for PAF plan was reduced by 5.2 min on average, with a maximum reduction of 7.1min. Total numbers of MUs per plan for PAF Plans were lower than Clinical Plans, indicating better delivery efficiency. The PAF-guided planning process is capable of generating clinical-quality prostate IMRT plans with no human intervention. Compared to manual optimization, this automatic optimization increases planning and delivery efficiency, while maintainingplan quality.

Palliative radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Radiotherapy is an effective tool for the palliation of symptoms commonly caused by prostate cancer. The majority of painful bone metastases respond equally well to single or multiple fractions of external radiotherapy. Retreatment with a second course of radiation induces pain responses in approximately 50% of patients. For more diffuse metastases, either hemibody radiation or systemic radiopharmaceuticals can reduce pain, and radium-223 is associated with improved survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Hematuria, bladder outlet obstruction, and rectal compression are all improved with palliative radiotherapy. The ability of stereotactic body radiation therapy to reduce pain compared with standard external radiation is being investigated, as is its role in treating those with limited metastatic disease.

Does the multidisciplinary approach improve oncological outcomes in men undergoing surgical treatment for prostate cancer?

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether oncological outcomes are improved in prostate cancer patients by using a multidisciplinary strategy as compared with a standard clinic paradigm, and whether time to treatment is delayed when using a multidisciplinary approach. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who were evaluated and pursued radical prostatectomy as primary treatment, by the same surgeons, in the prostate cancer multidisciplinary clinic (n = 194) and standard urology clinic (n = 741) at Duke University Medical Center from 2005 to 2009. Comparisons of baseline characteristics were examined using rank sum and χ(2) -tests. Differences in time to radical prostatectomy and oncological outcomes were evaluated using multivariate linear and Cox regression, respectively. RESULTS: A greater proportion of high-risk patients (D'Amico criteria) were evaluated at the multidisciplinary clinic compared with the urology clinic (23.2% vs 15.6%, P = 0.014). Mean-adjusted time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy was shorter for multidisciplinary clinic patients (85.6 vs 96.8 days, P = 0.006). After a median follow up of 21 months, no significant difference was found between the multidisciplinary clinic and urology clinic in the risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy, whether controlling for clinical (hazard ratio 0.71, P = 0.249) or pathological variables (hazard ratio 0.75, P = 0.349). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher-risk disease, men evaluated using the multidisciplinary approach have similar oncological outcomes compared with men undergoing standard evaluation. Furthermore, time to radical prostatectomy is not delayed by the multidisciplinary management of these patients.

Radiation technique and outcomes following moderately hypofractionated treatment of low risk prostate cancer: a secondary analysis of RTOG 0415.

BACKGROUND: While moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) for prostate cancer (PC) is commonly delivered by intensity modulated radiation therapy, IMRT has not been prospectively compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in this context. We conducted a secondary analysis of the phase III RTOG 0415 trial comparing survival and toxicity outcomes for low-risk PC following MHRT with IMRT versus 3D-CRT. METHODS: RTOG 0415 was a phase III, non-inferiority trial randomizing low-risk PC patients to either MHRT or conventionally fractionated radiation with stratification by RT technique. A secondary analysis for differences in overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence free survival (BRFS), or toxicity by EPIC scores and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was performed. RESULTS: 1079 patients received the allocated intervention with a median follow up of 5.8 years. 79.1% of patients were treated with IMRT and radiation technique was balanced between arms. Across all patients, RT technique was not associated with significant differences in BRFS, OS, or rates of acute and late toxicities. For patients completing MHRT, there was a difference in the late GU toxicity distribution between 3D-CRT and IMRT but no difference in late grade 2 or greater GU or GI toxicity. Stratifying patients by RT technique and fractionation, no significant differences were observed in the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in EPIC urinary and bowel scores following RT. CONCLUSIONS: RT technique did not impact clinical outcomes following MHRT for low-risk PC. Despite different late GU toxicity distributions in patients treated with MHRT by IMRT or 3D-CRT, there was no difference in late Grade 2 or greater GU or GI toxicity or patient reported toxicity. Increases in late GU and GI toxicity following MHRT compared to CFRT, as demonstrated in the initial publication of RTOG 0415, do not appear related to a 3D-CRT treatment technique.

Updated 5-year results for short course abiraterone acetate and LHRH agonist for unfavorable intermediate and favorable high-risk prostate cancer.

Combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) improves outcomes for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Treatment intensification with abiraterone acetate/prednisone (AAP) provides additional benefit for high-risk disease. We previously reported 3-year outcomes of a single-arm prospective multicenter trial (AbiRT trial) of 33 patients with unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) and favorable high risk (FHR) prostate cancer undergoing short course, combination therapy with ADT, AAP, and RT. Here we report the final analysis demonstrating a high rate of testosterone recovery (97%) and excellent biochemical progression-free survival (97%) at 5 years. These data support comparative prospective studies of shorter, more potent ADT courses in favorable high-risk prostate cancer.

Long-Term Analysis of NRG Oncology RTOG 0415: A Randomized Phase III Noninferiority Study Comparing Two Fractionation Schedules in Patients With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 is a randomized phase III noninferiority (NI) clinical trial comparing conventional fractionation (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions) radiotherapy (C-RT) with hypofractionation (H-RT; 70 Gy in 28) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The study included 1,092 protocol-eligible patients initially reported in 2016 with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Updated results with median follow-up of 12.8 years are now presented. The estimated 12-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 56.1% (95% CI, 51.5 to 60.5) for C-RT and 61.8% (95% CI, 57.2 to 66.0) for H-RT. The DFS hazard ratio (H-RT/C-RT) is 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03), confirming NI (P < .001). Twelve-year cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (BF) was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.8 to 20.5) for C-RT and 9.9% (95% CI, 7.5 to 12.6) for H-RT. The HR (H-RT/C-RT) comparing biochemical recurrence between the two arms was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.78). Late grade ≥3 GI adverse event (AE) incidence is 3.2% (C-RT) versus 4.4% (H-RT), with relative risk (RR) for H-RT versus C-RT 1.39 (95% CI, 0.75 to 2.55). Late grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) AE incidence is 3.4% (C-RT) versus 4.2% (H-RT), RR 1.26 (95% CI, 0.69 to 2.30). Long-term DFS is noninferior with H-RT compared with C-RT. BF is less with H-RT. No significant differences in late grade ≥3 GI/GU AEs were observed between assignments (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773).

Second generation anti-androgens and androgen deprivation therapy with radiation therapy in the definitive management of high-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evolving data suggest that men with high-risk localized prostate cancer may benefit from more potent androgen receptor inhibition in the context of curative intent radiotherapy. Recently updated American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) evidence-based guidelines and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines have updated recommendations for the consideration of adding second generation anti-androgens to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men receiving radiation therapy (RT) for noncastrate locally advanced high and very high risk nonmetastatic or node positive prostate cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a comprehensive review of existing published and abstract presented evidence behind RT with ADT for the definitive management of high-risk prostate cancer, particularly focused on the current phase II and III trial evidence for the addition of second generation anti-androgens to ADT in definitive RT treatment of high-risk prostate cancer and specifically focused on the recent STAMPEDE trial results with abiraterone acetate. We review the biological mechanisms in which second generation anti-androgens may help mitigate ADT resistance and provide radiosensitization through inhibition of DNA repair. Finally, we discuss ongoing clinical trials of potent androgen receptor (AR) inhibitors with ADT in this non-metastatic high-risk radiotherapy setting that may inform on future treatment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Recent data suggest an overall survival benefit as well as increased probabilities of disease free and metastasis free survival in men with high and very high-risk localized, node positive, and oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer with abiraterone acetate and prednisone and support the use of potent AR inhibitors in this setting after informed decision making.

Toxicity and Outcomes of Moderately Hypofractionated Radiation for Prostate Cancer With Seminal Vesicle Involvement.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the toxicity and outcomes following treatment of prostate cancer with seminal vesicle involvement (SVI) evident on magnetic resonance imaging or clinical examination with moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (MHRT). Methods and Materials: Forty-one patients treated with MHRT to the prostate and 1 or both seminal vesicles from 2013 to 2021 at a single institution were identified and propensity score matched to 82 patients treated during the same period with prescription dose given to the prostate alone. Dosimetry of the planning target volume, bladder, and rectum were compared. Urinary and bowel toxicity were scored by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Clinical outcomes including freedom from biochemical recurrence, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were assessed. Results: Of the 41 patients identified with SVI, 26.8% had SVI by clinical examination and 95.1% had high-risk prostate cancer. Compared with the cohort without SVI, treatment plans to include SVI had a larger planning target volume (152.2 vs 109.9 cc; P < .001), maximum point dose (107.9% vs 105.8%; P < .001), and volume receiving 100% of the prescription dose (143.1 vs 95.9 cc; P < .001). No difference in bladder dosimetric variables between cohorts was observed, but there was an increase in the rectal maximum point dose (103.9% vs 102.8%; P = .030) and rectal volume receiving 100% of the prescription dose (1.8 vs 1.2 cc; P = .016). Despite these differences, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade 2+ urinary (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.39-1.35; P = .31) or bowel (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.04-3.03; P = .34) toxicity. Freedom from biochemical recurrence (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.16-1.38; P = .17), prostate cancer-specific survival (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.04-2.49; P = .31), and overall survival (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.10-1.16; P = .09) also did not differ with or without SVI, respectively. Conclusions: Treatment of SVI to prescription dose with MHRT for localized prostate cancer does not increase bowel or urinary toxicity. Similar clinical outcomes were also observed with or without SVI.

Neighborhood Deprivation and Rurality Associated With Patient-Reported Outcomes and Survival in Men With Prostate Cancer in NRG Oncology RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: Rurality and neighborhood deprivation can contribute to poor patient-reported outcomes, which have not been systematically evaluated in patients with specific cancers in national trials. Our objective was to examine the effect of rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic and environmental deprivation on patient-reported outcomes and survival in men with prostate cancer in NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from men with prostate cancer in trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 were analyzed; 1,092 men were randomized to receive conventional radiation therapy or hypofractionated radiation therapy. Rurality was categorized as urban or rural. Neighborhood deprivation was assessed using the area deprivation index and air pollution indicators (nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers) via patient ZIP codes. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured cancer-specific quality of life. The Hopkins symptom checklist measured anxiety and depression. EuroQoL-5 Dimension assessed general health. RESULTS: We analyzed 751 patients in trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. At baseline, patients from the most deprived neighborhoods had worse bowel (P = .011), worse sexual (P = .042), and worse hormonal (P = .015) scores; patients from the most deprived areas had worse self-care (P = .04) and more pain (P = .047); and patients from rural areas had worse urinary (P = .03) and sexual (P = .003) scores versus patients from urban areas. Longitudinal analyses showed that the 25% most deprived areas (P = .004) and rural areas (P = .002) were associated with worse EuroQoL-5 Dimension visual analog scale score. Patients from urban areas (hazard ratio, 1.81; P = .033) and the 75% less-deprived neighborhoods (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .053) showed relative decrease in risk of recurrence or death (disease-free survival). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prostate cancer from the most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas had low quality of life at baseline, poor general health longitudinally, and worse disease-free survival. Interventions should screen populations from deprived neighborhoods and rural areas to improve patient access to supportive care services.

Utilization trends at a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic: initial 5-year experience from the Duke Prostate Center.

PURPOSE: The multidisciplinary approach is becoming increasingly encouraged but little is known about the multidisciplinary experience compared to routine care. For patients with prostate cancer the goal is to provide evaluations by urologists, medical and radiation oncologists at a single visit. Although additional resources are required, this strategy may enhance the overall health care experience. We compared utilization determinants between a multidisciplinary and a urology prostate cancer clinic at Duke University Medical Center and identified factors associated with pursuing treatment at the university medical center for multidisciplinary clinic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data on patients referred for primary prostate cancer treatment evaluation at Duke University Medical Center from 2005 to 2009. Comparisons between 701 multidisciplinary clinic and 1,318 urology prostate cancer clinic patients were examined with the rank sum and chi-square tests. Predictive factors for pursuing treatment at the university medical center were assessed using multivariate adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared to patients at the urology prostate cancer clinic those at the multidisciplinary clinic were more likely to be younger and white, have a higher income and travel a longer distance for evaluation. Of multidisciplinary clinic patients 58% pursued primary treatment at the university medical center. They were more likely to be younger, black and physician referred, have a lower income and reside closer to the medical center. Factors predictive of pursuing treatment at the medical center included high risk disease and physician referral. Factors predictive of not receiving care at the university medical center were income greater than $40,000 and a distance traveled of greater than 100 miles. CONCLUSIONS: A different patient demographic is using the multidisciplinary approach. However, when treatment is pursued at the institution providing multidisciplinary services, the patient demographic resembles that of the treating institution.

Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group.

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Very few comparative studies to date evaluate the results of treatment options for prostate cancer using the most sensitive measurement tools. PSA has been identified as the most sensitive tool for measuring treatment effectiveness. To date, comprehensive unbiased reviews of all the current literature are limited for prostate cancer. This is the first large scale comprehensive review of the literature comparing risk stratified patients by treatment option and with long-term follow-up. The results of the studies are weighted, respecting the impact of larger studies on overall results. The study identified a lack of uniformity in reporting results amongst institutions and centres. A large number of studies have been conducted on the primary therapy of prostate cancer but very few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. The comparison of outcomes from individual studies involving surgery (radical prostatectomy or robotic radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation (EBRT) (conformal, intensity modulated radiotherapy, protons), brachytherapy, cryotherapy or high intensity focused ultrasound remains problematic due to the non-uniformity of reporting results and the use of varied disease outcome endpoints. Technical advances in these treatments have also made long-term comparisons difficult. The Prostate Cancer Results Study Group was formed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments. This international group conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify all studies involving treatment of localized prostate cancer published during 2000-2010. Over 18,000 papers were identified and a further selection was made based on the following key criteria: minimum/median follow-up of 5 years; stratification into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups; clinical and pathological staging; accepted standard definitions for prostate-specific antigen failure; minimum patient number of 100 in each risk group (50 for high-risk group). A statistical analysis (standard deviational ellipse) of the study outcomes suggested that, in terms of biochemical-free progression, brachytherapy provides superior outcome in patients with low-risk disease. For intermediate-risk disease, the combination of EBRT and brachytherapy appears equivalent to brachytherapy alone. For high-risk patients, combination therapies involving EBRT and brachytherapy plus or minus androgen deprivation therapy appear superior to more localized treatments such as seed implant alone, surgery alone or EBRT. It is anticipated that the study will assist physicians and patients in selecting treatment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Quantitative analysis of the factors which affect the interpatient organ-at-risk dose sparing variation in IMRT plans.

PURPOSE: The authors present an evidence-based approach to quantify the effects of an array of patient anatomical features of the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs-at-risk (OARs) and their spatial relationships on the interpatient OAR dose sparing variation in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans by learning from a database of high-quality prior plans. METHODS: The authors formulized the dependence of OAR dose volume histograms (DVHs) on patient anatomical factors into feature models which were learned from prior plans by a stepwise multiple regression method. IMRT plans for 64 prostate, 82 head-and-neck (HN) treatments were used to train the models. Two major groups of anatomical features were considered in this study: the volumetric information and the spatial information. The geometry of OARs relative to PTV is represented by the distance-to-target histogram, DTH. Important anatomical and dosimetric features were extracted from DTH and DVH by principal component analysis. The final models were tested by additional 24 prostate and 24 HN plans. RESULTS: Significant patient anatomical factors contributing to OAR dose sparing in prostate and HN IMRT plans have been analyzed and identified. They are: the median distance between OAR and PTV, the portion of OAR volume within an OAR specific distance range, and the volumetric factors: the fraction of OAR volume which overlaps with PTV and the portion of OAR volume outside the primary treatment field. Overall, the determination coefficients R(2) for predicting the first principal component score (PCS1) of the OAR DVH by the above factors are above 0.68 for all the OARs and they are more than 0.53 for predicting the second principal component score (PCS2) of the OAR DVHs except brainstem and spinal cord. Thus, the above set of anatomical features combined has captured significant portions of the DVH variations for the OARs in prostate and HN plans. To test how well these features capture the interpatient organ dose sparing variations in general, the DVHs and specific dose-volume indices calculated from the regression models were compared with the actual DVHs and dose-volume indices from each patient's plan in the validation dataset. The dose-volume indices compared were V99%, V85%, and V50% for bladder and rectum in prostate plans and parotids median dose in HN plans. The authors found that for the bladder and rectum models, 17 out of 24 plans (71%) were within 6% OAR volume error and 21 plans (85%) were within 10% error; For the parotids model, the median dose values for 30 parotids out of 48 (63%) were within 6% prescription dose error and the values in 40 parotids (83%) were within 10% error. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis of patient anatomical features and their correlation with OAR dose sparing has identified a number of important factors that explain significant amount of interpatient DVH variations in OARs. These factors can be incorporated into evidence-based learning models as effective features to provide patient-specific OAR dose sparing goals.

Impact of Race on Outcomes of High-Risk Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in an Equal Access Setting.

Background: Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer; however, limited MHRT data address high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) and/or African American patients. We report clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles for individuals with HRPC treated in an equal access system. Methods: We identified patients with HRPC treated with MHRT at a US Department of Veterans Affairs referral center. Exclusion criteria included < 12 months follow-up and elective nodal irradiation. MHRT included 70 Gy over 28 fractions or 60 Gy over 20 fractions. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Clinical endpoints, including biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes, acute toxicity, and late toxicity-free survival were compared between African American and White patients with logistic regression and log-rank testing. Results: Between November 2008 and August 2018, 143 patients with HRPC were treated with MHRT and followed for a median of 38.5 months; 82 (57%) were African American and 61 were White patients. Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was provided for 138 (97%) patients for a median duration of 24 months. No significant differences between African American and White patients were observed for 5-year OS (73% [95% CI, 58%-83%] vs 77% [95% CI, 60%-97%]; P = .55), PCSS (90% [95% CI, 79%-95%] vs 87% [95 % CI, 70%-95%]; P = .57), DMFS (91% [95% CI, 80%-96%] vs 81% [95% CI, 62%-91%]; P = .55), or BRFS (83% [95% CI, 70%-91%] vs 71% [95% CI, 53%-82%]; P = .57), respectively. Rates of acute grade 3+ GU and GI were low overall (4% and 1%, respectively). Late toxicities were similarly favorable with no significant differences by race. Conclusions: Individuals with HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access setting demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes that did not differ by race, alongside acceptable rates of acute and late toxicities.

The Influence of the Pretreatment Immune State on Response to Radiation Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Validation Study From NRG/RTOG 0521.

PURPOSE: The immunoinflammatory state has been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after radiation therapy (RT). We conducted an a priori designed validation study using serum specimens from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0521. It was hypothesized the pretreatment inflammatory state would correlate with clinical outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients on RTOG 0521 had serum banked for biomarker validation. This study was designed to validate previous findings showing an association between elevations in C-reactive protein (CRP) and shorter biochemical disease free survival (bDFS). CRP levels were measured in pretreatment samples. An exploratory panel of related cytokines was also measured including: monocyte chemotactic protein-1, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interferon-γ, interleukin (IL)-1b, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, IL-13, IL-17A, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor. The primary endpoint examined was bDFS. Additional exploratory endpoints included overall survival, distant metastases, and toxicity events attributed to RT. RESULTS: Two hundred and two patients in RTOG/NRG 0521 had serum samples available. Median age was 66 years (48-83), and 90% of patients were White. There was not an association between CRP and bDFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.07 per 1 log increase in CRP; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.38; P = .60). In the exploratory, unplanned analysis, pretreatment IL-10 was significantly associated with worse bDFS (adjusted HR, 1.61 per log increase; P = .0027) and distant metastases (HR, 1.55 per log increase; P = .028). The association of IL-10 with bDFS was maintained on a multiplicity adjustment. The exploratory analyses of pretreatment levels of interferon-γ, IL-1b, IL-2, IL-13, IL-23 were negatively associated with grade 2 or higher pollakiuria (adjusted odds ratio, 0.64, 0.65, 0.71, 0.72, and 0.74, respectively, all P < .05), and IL-6 was negatively associated with grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.62; P = .027). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment CRP was not associated with a poorer bDFS after RT. In a hypothesis- generating analysis, higher baseline levels of IL-10 were associated with lower rates of bDFS. These findings require additional prospective evaluation.