Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60-69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0-10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612-0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6-75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2-81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Management of Liver Metastases from Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Preliminary Study.

INTRODUCTION: Liver metastases are common in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms. The role of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is not well understood in this population. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SABR in treating well-differentiated neuroendocrine liver metastases (WD-NELM). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with WD-NELM treated with SABR was conducted between January 2015 and July 2019. Demographic, treatment, and clinical/radiographic follow-up data were abstracted. RECIST 1.1 criteria were applied to each individual target to evaluate the response to treatment. Local control (LC) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier methodology. Toxicity was reported according to the CTCAE v5.0. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with a total of 53 liver metastases treated with SABR were identified. Most patients (68%) had midgut tumors, were grade 2 (80%), and had high-volume intrahepatic and/or extrahepatic disease (76%). The median number of liver metastases treated was 2, with a median size of 2.5 cm. The median radiation dose delivered was 50 Gy/5 fractions. The median follow-up was 14 months; 24 of the 25 patients were alive at the time of analysis. The objective response rate was 32%, with improvement or stability in 96% of lesions treated. The median time to best response was 9 months. The 1-year LC and PFS were 92 and 44%, respectively. No grade 3/4 acute or late toxicity was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Liver SABR is a safe and promising means of providing LC for WD-NELM. This treatment modality should be evaluated in selected patients in concert with strategies to manage systemic disease.

Developing and Evaluating Multimedia Patient Education Tools to Better Prepare Prostate-Cancer Patients for Radiotherapy Treatment (Randomized Study).

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of multimedia educational tools to improve CT planning preparation for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. Many patients are not prepared when given verbal preparation instructions to have a full bladder and empty rectum for their IMRT and require being rescanned, which results in additional costs for the patient and the hospital. A pamphlet and video outlining the proper preparation for prostate IMRT was created to decrease additional scans and the associated costs, while increasing patient satisfaction. A controlled, randomized experimental group study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the multimedia tools (the video and the pamphlet), as compared to the pamphlet only, in preparing patients for their planning CT appointment. We found no statistical difference between the multimedia group and the pamphlet group in patients' preparedness for their appointments and the rescanning rate. However, patients in the multimedia group indicated that they felt more prepared about their treatment after watching the video and stated that they would recommend the video to other patients with prostate cancer. Furthermore, patients who had to wait longer for their planning CT appointment felt less prepared by the materials than those with a shorter wait time. We recommend reducing wait times between appointments as much as possible to increase patients' preparedness for the planning CT. We conclude that providing multimedia treatment information and minimizing wait times increases patients' feelings of preparedness leading to a more positive treatment experience and reducing costly rescans. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02410291.

Improving prostate cancer care collaboratively - a multidisciplinary, formal, consensus-based approach.

INTRODUCTION: There are numerous standard treatment options for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Multidisciplinary consultation before decision-making is a consensus- and quality-based objective in Ontario. With the goals of working together more collaboratively and to provide higher quality information for patients at the time of decision-making, a prostate cancer community partnership consensus (PCPC) panel was formed among six partnering centers in the Greater Toronto Area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five iterative meetings were held among 40 prostate cancer specialists (32 urologists and 8 radiation oncologists) who participate in multidisciplinary clinics. The meetings defined the goals of the partnership as well as the topics and questions the group would address together. Answers to these questions were developed by formal consensus: >= 75% of participants had to agree with wording based on secret ballots to achieve consensus. RESULTS: All six groups wanted to participate to improve patient care/decision-making. Forty-one questions addressing 30 issues were derived from the literature and the group's collective experience. These issues were cross-tabbed against five management options: active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, low dose rate brachytherapy, high dose rate brachytherapy boost and external beam radiation. Answers common to all modalities were coalesced. Eighty-six issues were subjected to formal consensus. After three rounds of secret ballots, consensus was achieved for the answers to all issues. CONCLUSIONS: A formal consensus-based partnership between urology and radiation oncology to support newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients was feasible and resulted in a patient information guide which may improve decision-making.

A novel prospective descriptive analysis of nausea and vomiting among patients receiving gastrointestinal radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Nausea and vomiting are common side effects from radiotherapy that can interfere with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients' quality of life (QOL). This study described the subjective experience of patients with radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) and its relation to QOL. METHODS: Forty-eight patients treated with abdominal radiotherapy alone or with concomitant chemoradiotherapy were followed in a prospective study. All episodes of nausea, vomiting, and antiemetic use were recorded daily for the treatment period and the week following completion of therapy. QOL was assessed weekly using the Functional Living Index-Emesis QOL Tool (FLIE) and the EORTC QLQ-C30 core questionnaire (C30). RESULTS: In total, 351 episodes of nausea severity, duration, onset time, and 154 outcomes of vomiting onset times and contents were documented. The median nausea severity experienced per episode was 5 (on a scale from 1 to 10), and the most common durations of nausea were 30 min or less and constant nausea all day and night. The most common location of nausea was the abdomen. Longer nausea duration, great nausea severities, and the location of nausea experienced had significant adverse relationships to multiple QOL items on both the FLIE and the C30. In addition, the onset timing and number of vomiting episodes were related to the majority of all FLIE and QOL scores. CONCLUSION: Patient's subjective experiences of RINV directly correlated to the worsening of QOL outcomes. The identification and amelioration of these RINV experiences could improve QOL.

A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: In active surveillance (AS) patients: (i) To compare the ability of a multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-ultrasound biopsy system to detect clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer with systematic 12-core biopsy (R-TRUSBx), and (ii) To assess the predictive value of mpMRI with biopsy as the reference standard. METHODS: Seventy-two men on AS prospectively underwent 3T mpMRI . MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy (UroNavBx) and R-TRUSBx was performed. CS cancer was defined using two thresholds: 1) GS ≥ 7 (CS7) and 2) GS = 6 with >50% involvement (GS6). CS cancer detection rates and predictive values were determined. RESULTS: CS7 cancers were found in 19/72 (26%), 7 (37%) identified by UroNavBx alone, 2 (11%) by R-TRUSBx alone (P = 0.182). UroNav targeted biopsy was 6.3× more likely to yield a core positive for CS7 cancer compared with R-TRUSBx (25% of 141 versus 4% of 874, P < 0.001). Upgrading of GS occurred in 15/72 patients (21%), 13 (87%) detected by UroNavBx and 10 (67%) by R-TRUSBx. The NPV of mpMRI for CS7 cancer was 100%. MRI suspicion level significantly predicted CS cancer on multivariate analysis (OR 3.6, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: UroNavBx detected CS cancer with far fewer cores compared with R-TRUSBx, and mpMRI had a perfect negative predictive value in this population.

Symptom clusters of gastrointestinal cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) quality-of-life tool.

OBJECTIVE: The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) instrument is a validated nausea and vomiting specific quality of life (QOL) tool originally created as a 3-day test of the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on cancer patients' daily life. The primary objective of the present study was to retrospectively explore the use of the FLIE from data obtained in a previously published study of patients with gastrointestinal radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) and compare the extracted symptom clusters on a weekly basis for the entirety of gastrointestinal cancer patients' radiotherapy treatments. METHODS: QOL was assessed on a weekly basis using the 18-item FLIE questionnaire for patients' radiotherapy treatments. A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed at each visit. The internal consistency and reliability of the derived clusters was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Robust relationship and correlation among symptoms was displayed with biplot graphics. RESULTS: A total of 460 FLIE assessments were completed for the 86 gastrointestinal patients who underwent radiotherapy. Two components were consistently identified except for week 5 where only one component was identified. Component 1 contained the items "Q10-Q18" which included all vomiting items. Component 2 included all nausea items from "Q1 to Q9". All the variables were well accounted for by two components for most weeks of treatment with excellent internal consistency. Biplots indicate that the two symptom clusters were evident at each week, with the exception of the first week of treatment. Strong correlations were seen between the effect of nausea on patients' ability to make meals, patients' ability to do tasks within the home, and patients' willingness to spend time with family and friends. CONCLUSION: The high internal consistency at all timepoints indicates that the FLIE QOL instrument is useful for the RINV population.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy: an effective local treatment modality for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Although liver-directed therapies such as surgery or ablation can cure hepatocellular carcinoma, few patients are eligible due to advanced disease or medical comorbidities. In advanced disease, systemic therapies have yielded only incremental survival benefits. Historically, radiotherapy for liver cancer was dismissed due to concerns over unacceptable toxicities from even moderate doses. Although implementation requires more resources than standard radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy can deliver reproducible, highly conformal ablative radiotherapy to tumors while minimizing doses to nearby critical structures. Trials of stereotactic body radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma have demonstrated promising local control and survival results with low levels of toxicity in Child-Pugh class A patients. We review the published literature and make recommendations for the future of this emerging modality.

A prospective study of gastrointestinal radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: Nausea and vomiting are common side effects from radiotherapy that can interfere with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients' quality of life (QOL). A prospective study among patients with GI cancers was conducted to document the timing, incidence and risk factors of radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). METHODS: Forty-eight patients planned to receive curative or palliative intent abdominal and/or pelvic radiotherapy alone or with concomitant chemoradiotherapy were followed prospectively. All episodes of nausea, vomiting, retching and antiemetic use were recorded daily for the entire treatment period and for the week following completion of therapy. QOL was assessed weekly using the Functional Living Index--Emesis Quality of Life Tool and the EORTC QLQ-C30 core questionnaire. RESULTS: Nausea occurred in 83 % of patients and emesis in 54 %. Pancreatic cancer was significantly correlated to higher proportions of nausea and emesis (p = 0.002 and p = 0.0003) compared to other primary sites. There were no significant difference between concomitant chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy only patients for nausea and emesis. Patients had significantly greater proportions of RINV during the first, second and fifth weeks of treatment and during the first week following treatment. Vomiting was found to impair patients' usual recreation or leisure activities and enjoyment of their meals. Worse physical, role and social functioning and greater fatigue and appetite loss over the course of treatment correlated directly with the timing of RINV symptoms. CONCLUSION: RINV worsened QOL and was experienced even after treatment was completed; physicians should therefore be cognizant and monitor patients in the week following radiotherapy. Concomitant chemoradiotherapy should potentially be included in the moderate emetogenic risk category.

Randomized Trial of Concomitant Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Boost Versus Conventionally Fractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Boost for Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer (pHART2-RCT).

PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to report on the results of a phase 2 randomized trial of moderately hypofractionated (MH) versus conventionally fractionated (CF) radiation therapy to the prostate with elective nodal irradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a single-center, prospective, phase 2 randomized study. Patients with high-risk disease (cT3, prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/mL, or Gleason score 8-10) were eligible. Patients were randomized to either MH using a simultaneous integrated boost (68 Gy in 25 fractions to prostate; 48 Gy to pelvis) or CF (46 Gy in 23 fractions with a sequential boost to the prostate of 32 Gy in 16 fractions), with long-term androgen deprivation therapy. The primary endpoint was grade ≥2 acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0). Secondary endpoints included late GI and GU toxicity, quality of life, and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: One-hundred eighty patients were enrolled; 90 were randomized to and received MH and 90 to CF. The median follow-up was 67.4 months. Seventy-five patients (41.7%) experienced a grade ≥2 acute GI and/or GU toxicity, including 34 (37.8%) in the MH and 41 (45.6%) in the CF arms, respectively (P = .29). Late grade ≥2 GI (P = .07) and GU (P = .25) toxicity was not significantly different between arms; however, late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was worse in the MH group (P = .01). There were no statistically significant quality-of-life differences between the 2 treatments. There were no statistically significant differences observed in cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (P = .71) or distant metastasis (P = .31) and overall survival (P = .46). CONCLUSIONS: MH to the prostate and pelvis with androgen deprivation therapy for men with high-risk localized prostate cancer was not significantly different than CF with regard to acute toxicity, quality of life, and oncologic efficacy. However, late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was more common in the MH arm.

Elective pelvic nodal irradiation in the setting of ultrahypofractionated versus moderately hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Outcomes from 3 prospective clinical trials.

Background and purpose: Data is needed regarding the use of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHRT) in the context of prostate cancer elective nodal irradiation (ENI), and how this compares to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) ENI with CFRT or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) to the prostate. Materials and methods: Between 2011-2019, 3 prospective clinical trials of unfavourable intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer receiving CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions to prostate; 46 Gy in 23 fractions to pelvis), MHRT (68 Gy in 25 fractions to prostate; 48 Gy to pelvis), or UHRT (35-40 Gy in 5 fractions to prostate +/- boost to 50 Gy to intraprostatic lesion; 25 Gy to pelvis) were conducted. Primary endpoints included biochemical failure (Phoenix definition), and acute and late toxicities (CTCAE v3.0/4.0). Results: Two-hundred-forty patients were enrolled: 90 (37.5 %) had CFRT, 90 (37.5 %) MHRT, and 60 (25 %) UHRT. Median follow-up time was 71.6 months (IQR 53.6-94.8). Cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (95 % CI) at 5-years was 11.7 % (3.5-19.8 %) for CFRT, 6.5 % (0.8-12.2 %) MHRT, and 1.8 % (0-5.2 %) UHRT, which was not significantly different between treatments (p = 0.38). Acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicity was significantly worse for UHRT versus CFRT and MHRT, but not for acute grade ≥ 3 genitourinary, or acute gastrointestinal toxicities. UHRT was not associated with worse late toxicities. Conclusion: ENI with UHRT resulted in similar oncologic outcomes to CFRT ENI with prostate CFRT/MHRT, with worse acute grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity but no differences in late toxicity. Randomized phase 3 trials of ENI using UHRT techniques are much anticipated.

Prostate high dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: Efficacy results from a randomized phase II clinical trial of one fraction of 19 Gy or two fractions of 13.5 Gy: A 9-year update.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: High dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a monotherapy is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer, but the optimal dose and fractionation schedule remain unknown. We report on the efficacy of a randomized Phase II trial comparing HDR monotherapy delivered as 27 Gy in 2 fractions vs. 19 Gy in 1 fraction with a median follow-up of 9 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrolled patients had low or intermediate-risk disease, <60 cc prostate volume and no androgen deprivation use. Patients were randomized to 27 Gy in 2 fractions delivered one week apart vs a single fraction of 19 Gy. RESULTS: 170 patients were randomized: median age 65 years, median follow-up 107 months and median baseline PSA 6.35 ng/ml. NCCN risk categories comprised low (19 %), favourable (51 %), and unfavourable intermediate risk (30 %). The median PSA at 8 years was 0.08 ng/ml in the 2-fraction arm vs. 0.89 ng/ml in the single-fraction arm. The cumulative incidence of local failure at 8 years was 11.2 % in the 2-fraction arm vs. 35.9 % in the single-fraction arm (p < 0.001). The incidence of distant failure at 8 years was 3.8 % in the 2-fraction arm and 2.5 % in the single-fraction arm (p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: HDR monotherapy delivered in two fractions of 13.5 Gy demonstrated a persistent cancer control rate at 8 years and was well-tolerated. Single-fraction monotherapy yielded poor oncologic control and is not recommended. These findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on optimal HDR monotherapy strategies for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: 10-Year Outcomes From Three Prospective Trials.

PURPOSE: SABR is growingly accepted for the treatment of localized prostate cancer with recent randomized trials showing noninferiority compared with conventional or moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. The natural history of prostate cancer necessitates extended surveillance for recurrence; however, there are a few prospective studies reporting long-term outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study included patients with low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer from 3 Canadian clinical trials enrolled from 2006 to 2013. All patients received SABR to the prostate consisting of 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions over 11 to 29 days. Prostate specific antigen, distant metastasis, and vital status were prospectively recorded. The occurrence of a second malignancy after treatment was assessed by a chart review and classified using modified Cahan's criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-seven patients were included. Median follow-up was 10.3 years (interquartile range, 7.8-12.7). Ten-year biochemical failure (95% confidence interval) was 7.7% (3.9%-11.5%); 10-year overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and freedom from metastasis were 84.1% (79.3%-89.1%), 99.2% (98.1%-100%), and 98.8% (97.5%-100%), respectively. Twenty-seven of 267 (10.1%) patients experienced a second malignancy (SM), with 6/27 patients (22.2%) classified as having a SM likely (n = 3) or possibly (n = 3) related to prior radiation therapy. Ten-year freedom from SM was 89.2%. CONCLUSIONS: SABR shows excellent long-term disease control for low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. Patients treated for prostate cancer have a moderate risk of SM, consistent with background rates for the population.

Potentiating Salvage Radiotherapy in Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer Through Anti-CTLA4 Therapy: Implications from a Syngeneic Model.

High-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is a leading cause in cancer death and can elicit significant morbidity and mortality. Currently, the salvage of local disease recurrence after radiation therapy (RT) is a major clinical problem. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which enhance immune activation, have demonstrated clinical therapeutic promise in combination with ionizing radiation (IR) in certain advanced cancers. We generated the TRAMP-C2 HF radiorecurrent syngeneic mouse model to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of ICIs in combination with RT. The administration of anti-PDL1 and/or anti-CTLA4 did not achieve a significant tumor growth delay compared to the control. The combination of IR and anti-PDL1 did not yield additional a growth delay compared to IR and the isotype control. Strikingly, a significant tumor growth delay and complete cure in one-third of the mice were seen with the combination of IR and anti-CTLA4. Immune cells in tumor-draining lymph nodes and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes from mice treated with IR and anti-CTLA4 demonstrated an upregulation of genes in T-cell functions and enrichment in both CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell populations compared to mice given IR and the isotype control. Taken together, these results indicate enhancement of T-cell response in radiorecurrent PCa by IR and anti-CTLA4.

Best of International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society Congress 2013: stereotactic body radiation therapy. Part I: spinal tumors.

The 11th biennial International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society Congress represented another historical gathering of professionals in the field of stereotactic radiosurgery. This congress was held on 16-20 June 2013 in Toronto (ON, Canada), and the chairman was Arjun Sahgal, the co-chair was Michael Schwartz and president of the society was Jean Regis. The congress attracted 550 attendants from all over the world and over 300 abstracts were presented. Among the abstracts presented, 62 (36 oral) were pertaining to stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Exciting new findings were presented by colleagues from North America, Europe and Asia. This short conference scene (part I) provides a summary of the best abstracts on SBRT for spinal tumors presented in the congress. A separate conference scene on SBRT for nonspinal tumors (part II) also appears in this issue of Future Oncology.

Best of International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society Congress 2013: stereotactic body radiation therapy. Part II: nonspinal tumors.

The 11th biennial International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society Congress represented another historical gathering of professionals in the field of stereotactic radiosurgery. This congress was held on 16-20 June 2013 in Toronto (ON, Canada), and the chairman was Arjun Sahgal, co-chair was Michael Schwartz and president of the society was Jean Regis. The congress attracted 550 attendants from all over the world and over 300 abstracts were presented. Among the abstracts presented, 62 (36 oral) were pertaining to stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Exciting new findings were presented by colleagues from North America, Europe and Asia. This short conference scene (part II) provides a summary of the best abstracts on SBRT for nonspinal tumors presented in the congress. A separate conference scene on SBRT for spinal tumors (part I) also appears in this issue of Future Oncology.

Two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy with simultaneous boost to MRI-defined dominant intra-prostatic lesion - Results from the 2SMART phase 2 trial.

PURPOSE: This is the first report of the 2SMART Phase II trial evaluating the safety of two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with focal boost to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) defined dominant intra-prostatic lesion (DIL) for localised prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with low or intermediate risk prostate cancer were eligible for the study. The gross tumour volume (GTV) was MRI-defined DIL, and the clinical target volume (CTV) was entire prostate gland. The planning target volume (PTV) was a 2 mm expansion anteroposterior and lateral, and 2.5 mm superoinferior. The prescribed dose was 32 Gy to GTV, and 26 Gy to CTV. Primary endpoint was minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in quality of life (QOL) within 3-months of SABR, assessed using the EPIC-26 questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were acute and late toxicities (assessed using CTCAEv4), PSA nadir, and biochemical failure (based on Phoenix criteria). RESULTS: Thirty men were enrolled in the study - 2 (7%) had low-risk and 28 (93%) had intermediate risk prostate cancer. The median follow-up was 44 months (range:39-49 months). The median PSA nadir was 0.25 ng/mL, with median time to nadir of 37 months. One patient (3%) had biochemical failure at 44 months post-treatment. Ten (33%), six (20%), and three (10%) men had acute MCIC in urinary, bowel, and sexual QOL domains respectively. No acute or late grade ≥ 3 urinary or bowel toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: This novel protocol of two-fraction prostate SABR with MRI-defined DIL boost is a safe approach for dose-escalation, with minimal impact on acute QOL and no grade ≥ 3 toxicities.

To Boost or Not to Boost: Pooled Analyses From 2-Fraction SABR Trials for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Focal boost to dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) is an approach for dose escalation in prostate radiation therapy. In this study, we aimed to report the outcomes of 2-fraction SABR ± DIL boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included 60 patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer enrolled in 2 phase 2 trials (30 patients in each trial). In the 2STAR trial (NCT02031328), 26 Gy (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions = 105.4 Gy) was delivered to the prostate. In the 2SMART trial (NCT03588819), 26 Gy was delivered to the prostate, with up to 32 Gy boost to magnetic resonance imaging-defined DIL (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions = 156.4 Gy). The reported outcomes included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (ie, <0.4 ng/mL) at 4 years (4yrPSARR), biochemical failure (BF), acute and late toxicities, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: In 2SMART, median DIL D99% of 32.3 Gy was delivered. Median follow-up was 72.7 months (range, 69.1-75.) in 2STAR and 43.6 months (range, 38.7-49.5) in 2SMART. The 4yrPSARR was 57% (17/30) in 2STAR and 63% (15/24) in 2SMART (P = 0.7). The 4-year cumulative BF was 0% in 2STAR and 8.3% in 2SMART (P = 0.1). The 6-year BF in 2STAR was 3.5%. For genitourinary toxicities, there were differences in grade ≥1 urinary urgency in the acute (0% vs 47%; P < .001) and late settings (10% vs 67%; P < .001) favoring 2STAR. For urinary QOL, no difference was observed in the acute setting, but lower proportion in 2STAR had minimal clinically important changes in urinary QOL score in the late setting (21% vs 50%; P = .03). There were no significant differences in gastrointestinal and sexual toxicities and QOL in both acute and late settings between the 2 trials. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first prospective data comparing 2-fraction prostate SABR ± DIL boost. The addition of DIL boost resulted in similar medium-term efficacy (in 4yrPSARR and BF), with impact on late urinary QOL outcomes.

Dosimetric correlates of toxicities and quality of life following two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: There is no evidence-based data to guide dose constraints in two-fraction prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Using individual patient-data from two prospective trials, we aimed to correlate dosimetric parameters with toxicities and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 60 patients who had two-fraction prostate SABR in the 2STAR (NCT02031328) and 2SMART (NCT03588819) trials. The prescribed dose was 26 Gy to the prostate+/-32 Gy boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesions. Toxicities and QoL data were prospectively collected using CTCAEv4 and EPIC-26 questionnaire. The outcomes evaluated were acute and late grade ≥ 2 toxicities, and late minimal clinical important changes (MCIC) in QoL domains. Dosimetric parameters for bladder, urethra, rectum, and penile bulb were evaluated. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 56 months (range: 39-78 months). The cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual toxicities were 62%, 3%, and 17% respectively in the acute setting (<3 months), and 57%, 15%, and 52% respectively in late setting (>6 months). There were 36%, 28%, and 29% patients who had late MCIC in urinary, bowel and sexual QoL outcomes respectively. Bladder 0.5 cc was significant predictor for late grade ≥ 2 GU toxicities, with optimal cut-off of 25.5 Gy. Penile bulb D5cc was associated of late grade ≥ 2 sexual toxicities (no optimal cut-off was identified). No dosimetric parameters were identified to be associated with other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Using real-life patient data from prospective trials with medium-term follow-up, we identified additional dose constraints that may mitigate the risk of late treatment-related toxicities for two-fraction prostate SABR.

International Validation of the EORTC QLQ-ANL27, a Field Study to Test the Anal Cancer-Specific Health-Related Quality-of-Life Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) health-related quality of life questionnaire for anal cancer (QLQ-ANL27) supplements the EORTC cancer generic measure (QLQ-C30) to measure concerns specific to people with anal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. This study tested the psychometric properties and acceptability of the QLQ-ANL27. METHODS AND MATERIALS: People with anal cancer were recruited from 15 countries to complete the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-ANL27 and provide feedback on the QLQ-ANL27. Item responses, scale structure (multitrait scaling, factor analysis), reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) and sensitivity (known group comparisons and responsiveness to change) of the QLQ-ANL27 were evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 382 people were included in the analyses. The EORTC QLQ-ANL27 was acceptable, comprehensive, and easy to complete, taking an average 8 minutes to complete. Psychometric analyses supported the EORTC QLQ-ANL27 items and reliability (Cronbach's α ranging from 0.71-0.93 and test-retest coefficients above 0.7) and validity of the scales (particularly nonstoma bowel symptoms and pain/discomfort). Most scales distinguished people according to treatment phase and performance status. Bowel (nonstoma), pain/discomfort, and vaginal symptoms were sensitive to deteriorations over time. The stoma-related scales remained untested because of low numbers of people with a stoma. Revisions to the scoring and question ordering of the sexual items were proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The QLQ-ANL27 has good psychometric properties and is available in 16 languages for people treated with chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer. It is used in clinical trials and has a potential role in clinical practice.