Bladder Preservation With Twice-a-Day Radiation Plus Fluorouracil/Cisplatin or Once Daily Radiation Plus Gemcitabine for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: NRG/RTOG 0712-A Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Fluorouracil plus cisplatin and radiation twice a day (FCT) is an established chemoradiation (CRT) regimen for selective bladder-sparing treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Gemcitabine and once daily radiation (GD) is a well-supported alternative. The current trial evaluates these regimens. METHODS: Patients with cT2-4a muscle-invasive bladder cancer were randomly assigned to FCT or GD. Patients underwent transurethral resection and induction CRT to 40 Gy. Patients who achieved a complete response (CR) received consolidation CRT to 64 Gy and others underwent cystectomy. We administered adjuvant gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy. The primary end point was the rate of freedom from distant metastasis at 3 years (DMF3). The trial was not statistically powered to compare regimens, but to assess whether either regimen exceeded a DMF3 benchmark of 75%. Toxicity and efficacy end points, including CR and bladder-intact distant metastasis free survival at 3 years (BI-DMFS3), were assessed. RESULTS: From December 2008 to April 2014, 70 patients were enrolled, of which 66 were eligible for analysis, 33 per arm. Median follow-up was 5.1 years (range, 0.4 to 7.8 years) for eligible living patients. DMF3 was 78% and 84% for FCT and GD, respectively. BI-DMFS3 was 67% and 72%, respectively. Postinduction CR rates were 88% and 78%, respectively. Of 33 patients in the FCT arm, 21 (64%) experienced treatment-related grade 3 and 4 toxicities during protocol treatment, with 18 (55%), two (6%), and two patients (6%) experiencing grade 3 and 4 hematologic, GI, and genitourinary toxicity, respectively. For the 33 patients in the GD arm, these figures were 18 (55%) overall and 14 (42%), three (9%) and two patients (6%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Both regimens demonstrated DMF3 greater than 75%. There were fewer toxicities observed in the GD arm. Either gemcitabine and once daily radiation or a cisplatin-based regimen could serve as a base for future trials of systemic therapy.

Comparison of high-dose proton radiotherapy and brachytherapy in localized prostate cancer: a case-matched analysis.

PURPOSE: To report a case-matched analysis comparing high-dose external-beam radiation (EBRT) for prostate cancer delivered on Proton Radiation Oncology Group (PROG) 95-09, a randomized trial, with permanent prostate brachytherapy over the same era. METHODS: From 1996 to 1999, 196 patients were accrued to the high-dose arm (79.2 Gray equivalent (GyE) using photons and protons) of PROG 95-09 at the Massachusetts General Hospital and Loma Linda University Medical Center. Entry criteria specified T1-2 and prostate-specific antigen ≤ 15 ng/mL. When Gleason score >7 was excluded, 177 men were left for case matching. At Massachusetts General Hospital, 203 similar patients were treated by a single brachytherapist from 1997 to 2002. Minimum follow-up was 3 years. Case matching, based on T stage, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen, and age resulted in 141 matches (282 patients). Median follow-up was 8.6 and 7.4 years for EBRT and brachytherapy, respectively. The primary endpoint was biochemical failure (BF). RESULTS: Using the Phoenix definition, the 8-year BF rates were 7.7% and 16.1% for EBRT and brachytherapy, respectively (p = 0.42). A stratified analysis was performed by risk group. In the EBRT group, 113 and 28 patients were low and intermediate risk, respectively. In the brachytherapy group, 118 and 23 were. When stratified by risk group, the BF rates were similar by either technique. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose EBRT and brachytherapy result in similar BF rates for men with localized prostate cancer. Comparative quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness studies are warranted.

Risk of lymphedema after regional nodal irradiation with breast conservation therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the risk factors for lymphedema in patients receiving breast conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1982 and 1995, 727 Stage I-II breast cancer patients were treated with breast conservation therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital. A retrospective analysis of the development of persistent arm edema was performed. Lymphedema was defined as a >2-cm difference in forearm circumference compared with the untreated side. The median follow-up was 72 months. Breast and regional nodal irradiation (BRNI) was administered in 32% of the cases and breast irradiation alone in 68%. RESULTS: Persistent arm lymphedema was documented in 21 patients. The 10-year actuarial incidence was 4.1%. The median time to edema was 39 months. The only significant risk factor for lymphedema was BRNI. The 10-year risk was 1.8% for breast irradiation alone vs. 8.9% for BRNI (p = 0.001). The extent of axillary dissection did not predict for lymphedema even within the subgroups of patients defined by the extent of irradiation. Most patients underwent Level I or II dissection. In this subgroup, the lymphedema risk at 10 years was 10.7% for BRNI vs. 1.0% for breast irradiation alone (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: Nodal irradiation was the only significant risk factor for arm lymphedema in patients receiving breast conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Our data suggest that this risk is low with Level I/II dissection and breast irradiation. However, even after the addition of radiotherapy to the axilla and supraclavicular fossa, the development of lymphedema was only 1 in 10, lower than generally recognized.