A pooled patient-reported outcomes analysis of moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy and photon-based intensity modulated radiation therapy for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize and compare late patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This multi-institutional analysis included low- or intermediate-risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient-reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction. RESULTS: 287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional analysis of low- or intermediate-risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 3.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarizes much of the panel's discussions for the 4.2022 and 1.2023 updates to the guidelines regarding systemic therapy for metastatic prostate cancer.

Comparison of perioperative and subacute postoperative complications between LDR and HDR monotherapy brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We aim to investigate perioperative and subacute postoperative complications in patients undergoing LDR or HDR monotherapy for prostate cancer. We hypothesize a low rate of complications, and a favorable toxicity profile in patients treated with HDR compared to LDR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively collected institutional database was queried for patients treated with HDR or LDR prostate monotherapy between 1998 and 2021. Toxicities were determined per CTCAE. Claims based billing codes were obtained to identify additional events. Events occurring within 4 months of treatment were defined as perioperative or subacute postoperative complications. RESULTS: 759 patients were identified, 446 received LDR with 125I, and 313 received HDR with 192Ir. HDR patients had higher risk features: 75.7% with Gleason score 7+ versus 2.4% of LDR, and 16% with initial PSA 10+ ng/mL versus 2.7% of LDR. Toxicities were mild with the most common being grade 1 GU frequency and nocturia at ∼50%. HDR patients had significantly less grade 2 dysuria (2.6% vs. 9.0%), frequency (4.8% vs. 9.4%), hematuria (1.0% vs. 5.2%), nocturia (3.8% vs. 9.4%), and urinary obstructive symptoms (7.3% vs. 11.2%), all statistically significant. 11 (1.4%) patients had infection requiring antibiotics: 8 (1.8%) from the LDR group and 3 (1%) from the HDR group. Cardiopulmonary events were low at <2% overall, without difference between HDR and LDR. CONCLUSIONS: Overall toxicity rates support the safety of prostate brachytherapy. HDR monotherapy is associated with significantly less perioperative and subacute postoperative GU events when compared to LDR monotherapy. Cardiopulmonary events were equally rare in both groups.

Predictors of Distant Recurrence Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize patients at an increased risk of distant metastasis (DM) following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients undergoing SBRT for stage I NSCLC between 2005 and 2016. Patients with a prior lung cancer diagnosis, receiving a biological effective dose <100 Gy, or receiving chemotherapy were excluded. Patients underwent pretreatment staging and were classified according to the American Joint Committee for Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition staging. The primary endpoint was DM. The Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival analysis and to identify predictors of DM. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients were included, with a median age 75 years (range, 49 to 96 y) and a median follow-up of 24 months (range, 3 to 123 mo). The 2- and 4-year cumulative incidences of DM were 14.2% and 19.1%, respectively. Patients who developed DM had worse overall survival versus patients developing a locoregional recurrence (P=0.023). On multivariable analysis, having stage IB disease (hazard ratio: 2.95; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-8.23; P=0.039) or a lower/middle lobe tumor (hazard ratio: 2.67; 95% confidence interval: 1.07-6.69; P=0.036) was associated with increased risk of DM. The 2-year cumulative incidences of DM were 10.9% and 35.7% (P=0.002) for patients with stage IA versus IB tumors, respectively, and 11.3% and 19.7% (P=0.049) for patients with upper lobe versus lower/middle lobe tumors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage IB disease or lower/middle lobe tumors may have an increased risk of DM following SBRT. Randomized controlled trials are needed to further identify patients who may benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy after SBRT for stage I NSCLC.