African American Specific Gene Panel Predictive of Poor Prostate Cancer Outcome.

PURPOSE: Most prostate cancer in African American men lacks the ETS (E26 transforming specific) family fusion event (ETS-). We aimed to establish clinically relevant biomarkers in African American men by studying ETS dependent gene expression patterns to identified race specific genes predictive of outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two multicenter cohorts of a total of 1,427 men were used for the discovery and validation (635 and 792 men, respectively) of race specific predictive biomarkers. We used false discovery rate adjusted q values to identify race and ETS dependent genes which were differentially expressed in African American men who experienced biochemical recurrence within 5 years. Principal component modeling along with survival analysis was done to assess the accuracy of the gene panel in predicting recurrence. RESULTS: We identified 3,047 genes which were differentially expressed based on ETS status. Of these genes 362 were differentially expressed in a race specific manner (false discovery rate 0.025 or less). A total of 81 genes were race specific and over expressed in African American men who experienced biochemical recurrence. The final gene panel included APOD, BCL6, EMP1, MYADM, SRGN and TIMP3. These genes were associated with 5-year biochemical recurrence (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.27-3.06, p = 0.002) and they improved the predictive accuracy of clinicopathological variables only in African American men (60-month time dependent AUC 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: In an effort to elucidate biological features associated with prostate cancer aggressiveness in African American men we identified ETS dependent biomarkers predicting early onset biochemical recurrence only in African American men. Thus, these ETS dependent biomarkers representing ideal candidates for biomarkers of aggressive disease in this patient population.

Having Medicaid insurance negatively impacts outcomes in patients with head and neck malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Patients covered by Medicaid insurance appear to have poorer cancer outcomes. Herein, the authors sought to test whether Medicaid was associated with worse outcomes among patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: The records of 1698 patients with squamous cell HNC without distant metastatic disease were retrospectively reviewed from an institutional database between 1998 and 2011. At the time of diagnosis, insurance status was categorized as Medicaid, Medicare/other government insurance, or private insurance. Outcomes including locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression multivariate analysis (MVA). RESULTS: The median follow-up for all patients was 35 months. Medicaid patients comprised 11% of the population; the remaining patients were privately insured (56%) or had Medicare/government insurance (34%). On MVA, Medicaid patients were younger, were current smokers, had higher tumor T and N classifications, and experienced a longer time from diagnosis to treatment initiation (all P<.005). Medicaid insurance status was associated with a deficit of 13% in LRC (69% vs 82%) and 26% in OS (46% vs 72%) at 3 years (all with P<.001). A time from diagnosis to treatment initiation of >45 days was found to be associated with worse 3-year LRC (77% vs 83%; P = .009) and OS (68% vs 71%; P = .008). On MVA, Medicaid remained associated with a deficit in LRC (P = .002) and OS (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Medicaid insurance more often present with locally advanced HNC and experience a higher rate of treatment delays compared with non-Medicaid patients. Medicaid insurance status appears to be independently associated with deficits in LRC and OS. Improvements in the health care system, such as expediting treatment initiation, may improve the outcomes of patients with HNC. Cancer 2016;122:3529-3537. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Management of Oropharyngeal Cancer in the HPV Era.

BACKGROUND: Historically, oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) has been attributed to risk factors such as smoking and alcohol use. The increased incidence of OPC has been driven by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. METHODS: A search of the literature involving HPV infection and OPC was performed, along with a search of ongoing clinical trials regarding HPV-positive OPC. RESULTS: This review summarizes the differences in epidemiology and prognosis of HPV-positive OPC compared with non-HPV-related OPC. It will also discuss use of de-escalating treatment to minimize toxicity while maintaining excellent outcomes. Disease management is also addressed, including prevention and follow-up recommendations for this cohort of patients. CONCLUSIONS: HPV-positive OPC is a distinct disease, and efforts should be made to personalize its management. Preventive measures and vaccinations, along with de-escalation of treatment, may help optimize outcomes in this population.

Phase 1 Dose Escalation of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Concurrent Cisplatin for Reirradiation of Unresectable, Recurrent Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck.

PURPOSE: Patients with locoregional recurrence of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) have relatively poor outcomes; therefore, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been investigated for this patient population. We performed a phase 1 clinical trial to establish a maximum tolerated dose of SBRT with concurrent cisplatin in previously irradiated locoregional SCCHN. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with recurrent SCCHN who had previously undergone radiation therapy to doses ≥45 Gy to the area of recurrence ≥6 months before enrollment and who were not surgical candidates or refused surgery were eligible. SBRT was delivered every other day for 5 fractions. Starting dose level was 6 Gy × 5 fractions, followed by 7 Gy × 5 fractions and 8 Gy × 5 fractions. Chemotherapy consisted of cisplatin given before every SBRT fraction at a dose of 15 mg/m2. Patients were monitored for dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) that occurred within 3 months from the start of SBRT. Secondary endpoints included locoregional failure, distant metastasis, and overall survival. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled, with 18 patients evaluable for endpoints. One patient at dose level 1 (30 Gy) died of unknown causes 2 weeks following completion of treatment. Therefore, an additional 3 patients were accrued to the 30-Gy dose level, with no further DLTs observed. Three patients were then accrued at dose level 2 (35 Gy) and 9 patients at dose level 3 (40 Gy) without DLTs. At a median follow-up of 9.5 months, cumulative incidence of locoregional failure at 2 years was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%-66%), cumulative incidence of distant metastasis was 11% (95% CI, 74%-100%) at 2 years, and overall survival was 22% (95% CI, 9%-53%) at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent cisplatin and reirradiation with an SBRT dose of ≤40 Gy was safe and feasible in patients with locoregionally recurrent or second primary SCCHN.

Long-Term Update of NRG/RTOG 0522: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial of Concurrent Radiation and Cisplatin With or Without Cetuximab in Locoregionally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: The combination of cisplatin and radiation or cetuximab and radiation improves overall survival of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck carcinoma. NRG Oncology conducted a phase 3 trial to test the hypothesis that adding cetuximab to radiation and cisplatin would improve progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth edition stage T2 N2a-3 M0 or T3-4 N0-3 M0 were accrued from November 2005 to March 2009 and randomized to receive radiation and cisplatin without (arm A) or with (arm B) cetuximab. Outcomes were correlated with patient and tumor features. Late reactions were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3). RESULTS: Of 891 analyzed patients, 452 with a median follow-up of 10.1 years were alive at analysis. The addition of cetuximab did not improve PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.26; P = .74), with 10-year estimates of 43.6% (95% CI, 38.8- 48.4) for arm A and 40.2% (95% CI, 35.4-45.0) for arm B. Cetuximab did not reduce locoregional failure (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.95-1.53; P = .94) or distant metastasis (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54-1.14; P = .10) or improve overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.16; P = .36). Cetuximab did not appear to improve PFS in either p16-positive oropharynx (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.87-1.93) or p16-negative oropharynx or nonoropharyngeal primary (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.73-1.21). Grade 3 to 4 late toxicity rates were 57.4% in arm A and 61.3% in arm B (P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: With a median follow-up of more than 10 years, this updated report confirms the addition of cetuximab to radiation therapy and cisplatin did not improve any measured outcome in the entire cohort or when stratifying by p16 status.

Viral hepatitis associated hepatocellular carcinoma outcomes with yttrium-90 radioembolization.

BACKGROUND: Viral associated (VA) malignancies have recently been correlated with improved outcomes. We sought to evaluate outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with and without viral hepatitis (hepatitis B and C) treated with lobar yttrium-90 radioembolization (Y-90 RE). METHODS: After IRB approval, an institutional database of patients with HCC who received RE between 2009-2014 was queried and 99 patients were identified that received a total of 122 lobar RE. Charts were reviewed to capture previous treatments, viral hepatitis status, α-fetoprotein values (AFP), Child-Pugh class (CP), albumin-bilirubin score (ALBI), portal vein thrombosis (PVT), volumes treated and doses delivered. Comparison was made with Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test. Intrahepatic control (IHC), extrahepatic control (EHC), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method stratified by cause of underlying liver disease (viral vs. non-viral) and survival differences were assessed via the log-rank test. Hazard ratios were calculated using Cox regression. RESULTS: Median follow up for VA HCC and non-VA (NVA) HCC patients was 10.9 months (range, 0.8-46.7 months) and 11.8 months (range, 1.1-62.8 months), respectively. Patients with VA HCC (n=44) were younger (P<0.001) and had smaller pretreatment liver volumes (P<0.001); however, there was no difference with respect to gender, pre-treatment AFP, CP, ALBI, PVT, extrahepatic disease, previous treatment, or dose delivered. Median doses for VA and NVA HCC patients were 129.5 Gy (range, 90-215.8 Gy) and 131 Gy (range, 100.9-265 Gy), respectively (P=0.75). One year IHC showed a strong trend to better control for VA HCC at 67% versus 34% for NVA HCC (P=0.067) but 1 year EHC was significantly worse at 63% for VA HCC versus 86% for NVA HCC (P=0.027). There were no significant differences in survival, with a 1-year PFS of 45% for VA HCC versus 31% for NVA HCC (P=0.56) and 1 year OS of 46% versus 55% (P=0.55). Patients that received salvage treatments, CP A, no PVT, and those without extrahepatic disease had improved OS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with VA HCC had a trend to improved IHC and significantly worse EHC. Prospective investigation of novel systemic therapies following Y-90 RE in patients with VA HCC is warranted to potentially further extend survival in VA HCC patients by addressing extra-hepatic disease.

Patient choice for high-volume center radiation impacts head and neck cancer outcome.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest treatment outcomes may vary between high (HVC)- and low-volume centers (LVC). Radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) requires weeks of treatment, the inconvenience of which may influence a patient's choice for treatment location. We hypothesized that receipt of RT for HNC at a HVC would influence outcomes compared to patients evaluated at a HVC, but who chose to receive RT at a LVC. METHODS: From 1998 to 2011, 1930 HNC patients were evaluated at a HVC and then treated with RT at either a HVC or LVC. Time-to-event outcomes and treatment factors were compared. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 34 months. RT was delivered at a HVC for 1368 (71%) patients and at a LVC in 562 (29%). Patients were more likely to choose HVC-RT if they resided in the HVC's county or required definitive RT (all P < 0.001). HVC-RT was associated with a significant improvement in 3-year LRC (84% vs 68%), DFS (68% vs 48%), and OS (72% vs 57%) (all P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis (MVA), HVC-RT independently predicted for improved LRC, DFS, and OS (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients evaluated at a HVC, the choice of RT location was primarily influenced by their residing distance from the HVC. HVC-RT was associated with improvements in LRC, DFS, and OS in HNC. As treatment planning and delivery are technically demanding in HNC, the choice to undergo treatment at a HVC may result in more optimal delivered dose, RT duration, and outcome.

Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer in Low-resource Settings.

PURPOSE: In areas with limited health care, it is important to identify and implement effective treatment methods and to optimize available resources. We investigated the implementation of a low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy program for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) in a low-resource setting such as Puerto Rico (PR), where PCa is the main cause of cancer-associated death. METHODS AND MATERIALS: After institutional approval, the medical records of patients with nonmetastatic PCa undergoing LDR brachytherapy from 2008 to 2013 were reviewed from PR. The factors analyzed included adequate D90 (radiation dose delivered to 90% of the target volume) coverage (≥140 Gy), early and late toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade >2), and prostate-specific antigen failure. Freedom from biochemical failure was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: The barriers to implementation of LDR brachytherapy in a country with limited resources were identified. These included lack of access to funding for startup costs, specific referral patterns, lack of trained support staff, such as dosimetrists and physicists, and initial opposition from insurance companies for reimbursement. The initial results from 191 patients were included in the present study with a median follow-up period of 26 months. Prostate-specific antigen failure occurred in 6 patients (3%). No early or late gastrointestinal toxicity (grade >2) developed. Only 3 (2%) and 2 (1%) patients experienced early and late genitourinary toxicity (grade >2), respectively. The 2- and 3-year freedom from biochemical failure in this population was 97% and 95.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At present, limited data are available delineating the barriers faced by low-resource settings in the implementation of LDR brachytherapy. Our data highlight the issues unique to this environment and support the use of LDR brachytherapy as a reliable and effective treatment modality for patients with PCa in low-resource settings.

The impact of body mass index on dosimetric quality in low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy has been established as an effective and safe treatment option for men with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. In this retrospective analysis, we sought to study the effect of body mass index (BMI) on post-implant dosimetric quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: After institutional approval, records of patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer treated in Puerto Rico with LDR brachytherapy during 2008-2013 were reviewed. All patients were implanted with 125I seeds to a prescription dose of 145 Gy. Computed tomography (CT) based dosimetry was performed 1 month after implant. Patients with at least 1 year of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) follow-up were included. Factors predictive of adequate D90 coverage (≥ 140 Gy) were compared via the Pearson χ2 or Wilcoxon rank-sum test as appropriate. RESULTS: One-hundred and four patients were included in this study, with 53 (51%) patients having a D90 ≥ 140 Gy. The only factor associated with a dosimetric coverage detriment (D90 < 140 Gy) was BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (p = 0.03). Prostate volume (p = 0.26), initial PSA (p = 0.236), age (p = 0.49), hormone use (p = 0.93), percent of cores positive (p = 0.95), risk group (p = 0.24), tumor stage (p = 0.66), and Gleason score (p = 0.61) did not predict D90. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we show that BMI is a significant pre-implant predictor of D90 (< 140 Gy vs. ≥ 140 Gy). Although other studies have reported that prostate volume also affects D90, our study did not find this correlation to be statistically significant, likely because all of our patients had a prostate volume < 50 cc. Our study suggests that in patients with higher BMI values, more rigorous peri-implant dosimetric parameters may need to be applied in order to achieve a target D90 > 140 Gy.

Treatment delays, race, and outcomes in head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: Patient race has been shown to predict for differences in outcomes and has been attributed to socioeconomic factors such as social support and access to healthcare. In head and neck cancer (HNC), a disease without recommended screening, we sought to investigate the association between race, treatment delays and outcome. METHODS: Records of 1802 patients with non-metastatic squamous cell HNC treated between 1998 and 2013 were retrospectively assessed from an institutional database. Patient demographics, tumor and treatment characteristics, and patient outcomes were abstracted from the chart. Differences between groups were assessed via logistic regression multivariate analysis (MVA). Outcomes including locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) were then estimated via Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression MVA. RESULTS: Median follow up was 34 months. Patient races included white (n=1671, 93%), black (n=80, 4%), Asian (n=18, 1%), and other (n=33, 2%). On logistic regression MVA, Black patients were less likely to be married (39% vs. 63%; OR 0.5 95%CI 0.30-0.83, p=0.007) or be currently employed (43% vs. 61%; OR 0.44 95%CI 0.26-0.74, p=0.002) when compared to non-blacks. Black patients were also younger (54 vs. 59 years, p=0.001), more likely to present with advanced tumor stage (T4: 48% vs. 25%), and more often had >45days elapsed from diagnosis to treatment initiation (DTI) (61% vs. 49%, p=0.028). Delays in treatment, such as delayed diagnosis (advanced disease presentation) and delays in DTI>45days were also associated with marital and employment status. Black patients were associated with a lower 3-year LRC rate (65% vs. 81%, p<0.001) and OS rate (43% vs. 69%, p<0.001), compared to non-black patients. Patients with >45days DTI had a detriment in 3-year LRC (77% vs. 83%, p=0.002) and OS (66% vs. 69%, p=0.009). On Cox MVA, black race was independently prognostic for worse LRC (HR 1.62 95%CI 1.04-2.51, p=0.033) and OS (HR 1.55 95%CI 1.15-2.08, p=0.004) vs. non-blacks. CONCLUSION: Black race is independently prognostic for LRC and OS. Delays in HNC treatment, such as more advanced tumor stage presentation and delays in treatment initiation, may be attributed to socioeconomic factors such as employment status and social support. Efforts to accommodate these factors may expedite treatment, in hopes of improving the race related outcome disparity in HNC.