Consensuses, controversies, and future directions in treatment deintensification for human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer.

The most common cancer caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the United States is oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and its incidence has been rising since the turn of the century. Because of substantial long-term morbidities with chemoradiation and the favorable prognosis of HPV-positive OPC, identifying the optimal deintensification strategy for this group has been a keystone of academic head-and-neck surgery, radiation oncology, and medical oncology for over the past decade. However, the first generation of randomized chemotherapy deintensification trials failed to change the standard of care, triggering concern over the feasibility of de-escalation. National database studies estimate that up to one third of patients receive nonstandard de-escalated treatments, which have subspecialty-specific nuances. A synthesis of the multidisciplinary deintensification data and current treatment standards is important for the oncology community to reinforce best practices and ensure optimal patient outcomes. In this review, the authors present a summary and comparison of prospective HPV-positive OPC de-escalation trials. Chemotherapy attenuation compromises outcomes without reducing toxicity. Limited data comparing transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with radiation raise concern over toxicity and outcomes with TORS. There are promising data to support de-escalating adjuvant therapy after TORS, but consensus on treatment indications is needed. Encouraging radiation deintensification strategies have been reported (upfront dose reduction and induction chemotherapy-based patient selection), but level I evidence is years away. Ultimately, stage and HPV status may be insufficient to guide de-escalation. The future of deintensification may lie in incorporating intratreatment response assessments to harness the powers of personalized medicine and integrate real-time surveillance.

Comprehensive review of the use of hydrogel spacers prior to radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive narrative review of the published data on the impact of hydrogel spacers on rectal dosimetry and toxicity and to outline the practicalities of inserting hydrogel spacers. RESULTS: A growing body of evidence suggests that the administration of hydrogel spacers is safe and is associated with limited peri-operative morbidity. The impact on rectal dosimetry has been clearly established and use of hydrogel spacers is associated with reduced rectal morbidity. These results have been corroborated by several Phase II and III clinical trials and subsequent meta-analysis. There are several areas for future research, including the role of hydrogel spacers in prostate stereotactic beam radiotherapy and post-radiotherapy local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrogel spacers provide a low-morbidity method to potential reduce rectal toxicity after radiation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Data outlining sexual function and oncological outcomes are limited to date. Future studies, currently being conducted, may provide further clarification of the role of hydrogel spacers in prostate cancer management.

Dermatological Adverse Events in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with the Androgen Receptor Inhibitor Apalutamide.

PURPOSE: Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with apalutamide frequently develop rash. We aim to characterize apalutamide-related dermatological adverse events (dAEs) and management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed 303 patients with PCa treated with apalutamide. DAE frequency and time to onset were calculated and clinicopathological features and management described. Associations between dAE occurrence and clinical trial participation, as well as abiraterone/prednisone exposure were detected using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Seventy-one (23.4%) patients had all-grade dAE occurring at a median of 77 (IQR: 30-135) days post-exposure. Twenty (6.6%) dAE-related therapy interruptions included: 8 (2.6%) with dose maintained on rechallenge, 7 (2.3%) with dose reduction and 5 (1.7%) with discontinuation. Common dAEs were maculopapular rashes (33.8%) and xerosis (32.4%). Seven (77.8%) of 9 histological analyses of skin biopsies supported a drug reaction. No significant differences in laboratory hematological, hepatic and renal function were detected between dAE and no dAE cohorts. Most treated grade 1/2 dAEs (29, 40.8%) required topical steroids (14, 19.7%); few required oral steroids (3, 4.2%) ± oral antihistamines. Most grade 3 dAEs (8, 11.3%) required oral/topical steroids (5, 7.0%); few required topical steroids (3, 4.2%) ± oral antihistamines. Clinical trial patients (180, 59.4%) were more likely to report dAEs than those in the off-trial setting (OR=5.1 [95% CI 2.55-10.12]; p <0.001). Of clinical trial patients, concomitant abiraterone/prednisone recipients (109 of 180, 60.6%) were more likely to report dAEs (OR=3.1 [95% CI 1.53-6.17]; p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Apalutamide-related dAEs are frequent and can be managed with topical ± oral steroids. With expanded approval of apalutamide, dAE identification and management are essential.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. Part III: Principles of Radiation and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part III of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of radiation and offering several future directions of further relevant study in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts I and II for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of active surveillance and surgery and follow-up (Part II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding management of patients using radiation therapy as well as important future directions of research are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of active surveillance and surgery as well as follow-up for patients after primary treatment. Please refer to Parts I and III for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding active surveillance, surgical management, and patient follow-up are detailed. CONCLUSION: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Influence of hydrogel spacer placement with prostate brachytherapy on rectal and urinary toxicity.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of rectal hydrogel spacer placement (HSP) on late rectal toxicity outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy, with or without supplemental external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 224 patients underwent LDR brachytherapy with HSP, as monotherapy or combined with EBRT, between January 2016 and December 2019. Dosimetric variables reflecting the extent of rectal sparing and late rectal toxicity outcomes were evaluated. This spacer cohort was retrospectively compared to a similar patient group (n = 139) in whom HSP was not used. RESULTS: Hydrogel spacer placement was associated with significantly reduced rectal doses for all dosimetric variables; the median percentage rectal dose to 1 cc of rectum and rectal dose to 2 cc of rectum of the spacer cohort were all significantly lower compared to the non-spacer cohort. The incidence rates of overall (any grade) and grade ≥2 rectal toxicity were lower in patients with HSP compared to patients who did not undergo HSP: 12% and 1.8% vs 31% and 5.8%, respectively. The 3-year cumulative incidence of overall rectal toxicity was significantly lower with HSP than without (15% vs 33%; P < 0.001), corresponding to an overall rectal toxicity reduction on univariable analysis (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.73; P = 0.001). In this patient cohort treated with prostate brachytherapy, none of the urethral dosimetric variables or the presence or absence of HSP was associated with late urinary toxicity. CONCLUSION: Hydrogel rectal spacer placement is a safe procedure, associated with significantly reduced rectal dose. HSP translates to a decrease in overall late rectal toxicity in patients receiving dose-escalated brachytherapy-based procedures.

Any day, split halfway: Flexibility in scheduling high-dose cisplatin-A large retrospective review from a high-volume cancer center.

High-dose (HD) cisplatin remains the standard of care with chemoradiation for locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Cooperative group trials mandate bolus-HD (100 mg/m2 × 1 day, every 3 weeks) cisplatin administration at the beginning of the week to optimize radiosensitization-a requirement which may be unnecessary. This analysis evaluates the impact of chemotherapy administration day of week (DOW) on outcomes. We also report our institutional experience with an alternate dosing schedule, split-HD (50 mg/m2 × 2 days, every 3 weeks). We retrospectively reviewed 435 definitive chemoradiation OPC patients from 10 December 2001 to 23 December 2014. Those receiving non-HD cisplatin regimens or induction chemotherapy were excluded. Data collected included DOW, dosing schedule (bolus-HD vs split-HD), smoking, total cumulative dose (TCD), stage, Karnofsky Performance Status, human papillomavirus status and creatinine (baseline, peak and posttreatment baseline). Local failure (LF), regional failure (RF), locoregional failure (LRF), distant metastasis (DM), any failure (AF, either LRF or DM) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from radiation therapy start. Median follow-up was 8.0 years (1.8 months-17.0 years). DOW, dosing schedule and TCD were not associated with any outcomes in univariable or multivariable regression models. There was no statistically significant difference in creatinine or association with TCD in split-HD vs bolus-HD. There was no statistically significant association between DOW and outcomes, suggesting that cisplatin could be administered any day. Split-HD had no observed differences in outcomes, renal toxicity or TCD compared to bolus-HD cisplatin. Our data suggest that there is some flexibility of when and how to give HD cisplatin compared to clinical trial mandates.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and doxorubicin in thyroid cancer: A prospective phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of external-beam radiotherapy for locally advanced nonanaplastic thyroid cancer remains controversial. This prospective study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with or without concurrent chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced thyroid cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted a nonrandomized phase 2 trial of IMRT with or without concurrent doxorubicin in patients with gross residual or unresectable nonanaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01882816). The primary end point was 2-year locoregional progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled: 12 (44.4%) with unresectable disease and 15 (55.6%) with gross residual disease. The median follow-up was 45.6 months (interquartile range, 42.0-51.6 months); the 2-year cumulative incidences of locoregional PFS and OS were 79.7% and 77.3%, respectively. The rate of grade 3 or higher acute and late toxicities was 33.4%. There were no significant functional differences 12 months after treatment (assessed objectively by the modified barium swallow study). Patient-reported quality of life in the experimental group was initially lower but returned to the baseline after 6 months and improved thereafter. In a post hoc analysis, concurrent chemotherapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (CC-IMRT) resulted in significantly less locoregional failure at 2 years (no failure vs 50%; P = .001), with higher rates of grade 2 or higher acute dermatitis, mucositis, and dysphagia but no difference in long-term toxicity, functionality, or patient-reported quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the excellent locoregional control rates achieved with CC-IMRT and its acceptable toxicity profile as confirmed by functional assessments and patient-reported outcomes, CC-IMRT may be preferred over IMRT alone.

Case study of the integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes as standard of care in a head and neck oncology practice: Obstacles and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow for the direct measurement of functional and psychosocial effects related to treatment. However, technological barriers, survey fatigue, and clinician adoption have hindered the meaningful integration of PROs into clinical care. The objective of the authors was to develop an electronic PROs (ePROs) program that meets a range of clinical needs across a head and neck multidisciplinary disease management team. METHODS: The authors developed the ePROs module using literature review and stakeholder input in collaboration with health informatics. They designed an ePROs platform that was integrated as the standard of care for personalized survey delivery by diagnosis across the disease management team. Tableau software was used to create dashboards for data visualization and monitoring at the clinical enterprise, disease subsite, and patient levels. All patients who were treated for head and neck cancer were eligible for ePROs assessment as part of the standard of care. A descriptive analysis of ePROs program implementation is presented herein. RESULTS: The Head and Neck Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center has integrated ePROs into clinical care. Surveys are delivered via the patient portal at the time of diagnosis and longitudinally through care. From August 1, 2018, to February 1, 2020, a total of 4154 patients completed ePROs surveys. The average patient participation rate was 69%, with a median time for completion of 5 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of the head and neck ePROs program as part of clinical care is feasible and could be used to assess value and counsel patients in the future. Continued qualitative assessments of stakeholders and workflow will refine content and enhance the health informatics platform. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with head and neck cancer experience significant changes in their quality of life after treatment. Measuring and integrating patient-reported outcomes as a part of clinical care have been challenging given the multimodal treatment options, vast subsites, and unique domains affected. The authors present a case study of the successful integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes into a high-volume head and neck cancer practice.

Sildenafil Citrate and Risk of Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radiation Therapy: Post-Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sildenafil citrate has been shown to be protective of sexual function when given concurrently and following prostate radiation therapy (RT), but some evidence suggests an increased biochemical recurrence (BCR) risk in patients taking sildenafil after radical prostatectomy. AIM: To evaluate whether sildenafil use is associated with increased risk of BCR in patients receiving prostate RT, we performed a secondary analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled trial (RPCT) that compared sildenafil citrate to placebo during and after prostate RT. METHODS: The study population consisted of prostate cancer patients who initiated radiation treatment at our institution and participated in our multi-institutional RPCT that compared 6 months of sildenafil 50 mg once a day to placebo with a 24-month follow-up. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was allowed. Prostate cancer prognostic risk grouping was not an exclusion criterion, but most study participants had low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank testing. OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes of this report were biochemical recurrence and overall survival rates, where BCR was defined according to the Phoenix definition. RESULTS: Data of 162 men were analyzed. Nine men had inadequate PSA follow-up and the remaining 153 men were included in the final report. Median age was 61 years. At a median follow-up of 8.3 years (range: 3.0-12.2), 5/94 (5.3%) and 2/59 (3.4%) patients developed BCR in the sildenafil and placebo groups, respectively. The 6-year BCR-free survival was 98.8% for all patients, 98.1% for the sildenafil cohort, and 100% for the placebo cohort. The 10-year BCR-free survival was 94.4% for all patients, 95.6% for the sildenafil cohort, and 92.9% for the placebo cohort. There was no difference in BCR-free survival between the sildenafil and placebo groups by log-rank comparison (p = 0.36). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This analysis informs clinical decision making about the safety of using sildenafil during and after prostate RT. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study included patients who were treated in the setting of a prospective, randomized placebo-controlled trial, and who attained high medication compliance. However, the study was limited by the post-hoc nature of the analysis, use of ADT in some patients, inadequate study power to detect a difference in BCR between sildenafil and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic sildenafil citrate was not associated with biochemical recurrence risk in prostate cancer patients treated with radiation. However, the study was inadequately powered to definitively conclude a negative finding.

Current considerations for radiotherapy in HPV-associated head and neck cancer.

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-mediated oncogenesis confers increased sensitivity to radiotherapy and HPV head and neck cancer is associated with improved patient outcomes. As such, management of HPV-related head and neck cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach that balances maximizing locoregional control with minimizing treatment-related toxicity. We highlight considerations in radiation dose and target delineation, as well as considerations for chemoradiation, postoperative radiotherapy, and single modality, definitive radiotherapy.

Platinum-based regimens versus cetuximab in definitive chemoradiation for human papillomavirus-unrelated head and neck cancer.

For patients ineligible for cisplatin with definitive radiotherapy (CP-CRT) for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC), concurrent cetuximab (C225-RT) is a popular substitute. Carboplatin-based chemoradiation (CB-CRT) is another option; however, relative efficacies of CP-CRT, CB-CRT and C225-RT are unclear, particularly in the human papillomavirus (HPV)-unrelated population. We identified 316 patients with stage III-IVB cancers of the oropharynx (24.7%), larynx (58.2%) and hypopharynx (17.1%) undergoing definitive C225-RT (N = 61), CB-CRT (N = 74) or CP-CRT (N = 181). Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence functions were generated to estimate overall survival (OS), locoregional failure (LRF) and distant metastasis (DM). Cox proportional hazards were used to determine the association of survival endpoints with clinical characteristics. Respectively, 3-year cumulative incidences for CP-CRT, CB-CRT and C225-RT were: LRF (0.19, 0.18 and 0.48, p ≤ 0.001), DM (0.17, 0.12 and 0.25, p = 0.32). Kaplan-Meier estimates for 3 year OS were: CP-CRT: 71%; CB-CRT: 59% and C225-RT: 54%; p = 0.0094. CP-CRT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.336; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.203-0.557, p < 0.01) and CB-CRT (HR 0.279; 95% CI 0.141-0.551, p < 0.01) were associated with reduced hazard for LRF on multivariable analysis. CP-CRT (HR 0.548; 95% CI 0.355-0.845, p < 0.01) and CB-CRT (HR 0.549; 95% CI 0.334-0.904, p = 0.02) were associated with a reduced hazard for death on multivariable analysis. Propensity matching confirmed reduced hazards with a combined CP/CB-CRT group compared to C225-RT for LRF: HR 0.384 (p = 0.018) and OS: HR 0.557 (p = 0.045) and CB-CRT group compared to C225-RT for LRF: HR 0.427 (p = 0.023). In conclusion, CB-CRT is an effective alternative to CP-CRT in HPV-unrelated LA-HNSCC with superior locoregional control and OS compared to C225-RT.

Treating the SARS-CoV-2-positive patient with cancer: A proposal for a pragmatic and transparent ethical process.

The treatment of patients with cancer who test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses unique challenges. In this commentary, the authors describe the ethical rationale and implementation details for the creation of a novel, multidisciplinary treatment prioritization committee, including physicians, frontline staff, an ethicist, and an infectious disease expert. Organizational obligations to health care workers also are discussed. The treatment prioritization committee sets a threshold of acceptable harm to patients from decreased cancer control that is justified to reduce risk to staff. The creation of an ethical, consistent, and transparent decision-making process involving such frontline stakeholders is essential as departments across the country are faced with decisions regarding the treatment of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with cancer.

Outcomes of multimodal therapy in a large series of patients with anaplastic thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of radiotherapy (RT) in the treatment of patients with anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) for local tumor control is critical because mortality often is secondary to complications of tumor volume rather than metastatic disease. Herein, the authors report the long-term outcomes of RT for patients with ATC. METHODS: A total of 104 patients with histologically confirmed ATC were identified who presented to the study institution between 1984 and 2017 and who received curative-intent or postoperative RT. Locoregional progression-free survival (LPFS), overall survival (OS), and distant metastasis-free survival were assessed. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 63.5 years. The median follow-up was 5.9 months (interquartile range, 2.7-17.0 months) for the entire cohort and 10.6 months (interquartile range, 5.3-40.0 months) for surviving patients. Thirty-one patients (29.8%) had metastatic disease prior to the initiation of RT. Concurrent chemoradiation was administered in 99 patients (95.2%) and 53 patients (51.0%) received trimodal therapy. Systemic therapy included doxorubicin (73.7%), paclitaxel with or without pazopanib (24.3%), and other systemic agents (2.0%). The 1-year OS and LPFS rates were 34.4% and 74.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, RT ≥60 Gy was associated with improved LPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.135; P = .001) and improved OS (HR, 0.487; P = .004), and trimodal therapy was associated with improved LPFS (HR, 0.060; P = .017). The most commonly observed acute grade 3 adverse events included dermatitis (20%) and mucositis (13%), with no grade 4 subacute or late adverse events noted (adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). CONCLUSIONS: RT appears to demonstrate a dose-dependent, persistent LPFS and OS benefit in patients with locally advanced ATC with an acceptable toxicity profile. Aggressive RT should be strongly considered for the treatment of patients with ATC as part of a trimodal treatment approach.

Outcomes and toxicities of definitive radiotherapy and reirradiation using 3-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated (pencil beam) proton therapy for patients with nasal cavity and paranasal sinus malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy (PT) improves outcomes in patients with nasal cavity (NC) and paranasal sinus (PNS) cancers. Herein, the authors have reported to their knowledge the largest series to date using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in the treatment of these patients. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2018, a total of 86 consecutive patients (68 of whom were radiation-naive and 18 of whom were reirradiated) received PT to median doses of 70 grays and 67 grays relative biological effectiveness, respectively. Approximately 53% received IMPT. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 23.4 months (range, 1.7-69.3 months) for all patients and 28.1 months (range, 2.3-69.3 months) for surviving patients. The 2-year local control (LC), distant control, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83%, 84%, 74%, and 81%, respectively, for radiation-naive patients and 77%, 80%, 54%, and 66%, respectively for reirradiated patients. Among radiation-naive patients, when compared with 3-dimensional conformal proton technique, IMPT significantly improved LC (91% vs 72%; P < .01) and independently predicted LC (hazard ratio, 0.14; P = .01). Sixteen radiation-naive patients (24%) experienced acute grade 3 toxicities; 4 (6%) experienced late grade 3 toxicities (osteoradionecrosis, vision loss, soft-tissue necrosis, and soft tissue fibrosis) (grading was performed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 5.0]). Slightly inferior LC was noted for patients undergoing reirradiation with higher complications: 11% experienced late grade 3 toxicities (facial pain and brain necrosis). Patients treated with reirradiation had more grade 1 to 2 radionecrosis than radiation-naive patients (brain: 33% vs 7% and osteoradionecrosis: 17% vs 3%). CONCLUSIONS: PT achieved remarkable LC for patients with nasal cavity and paranasal sinus cancers with lower grade 3 toxicities relative to historical reports. IMPT has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio in these malignancies and is worthy of further investigation.

The 3 Bs of cancer care amid the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: "Be safe, be smart, be kind"-A multidisciplinary approach increasing the use of radiation and embracing telemedicine for head and neck cancer.

Because of the national emergency triggered by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, government-mandated public health directives have drastically changed not only social norms but also the practice of oncologic medicine. Timely head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment must be prioritized, even during emergencies. Because severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 predominantly resides in the sinonasal/oral/oropharyngeal tracts, nonessential mucosal procedures are restricted, and HNCs are being triaged toward nonsurgical treatments when cures are comparable. Consequently, radiation utilization will likely increase during this pandemic. Even in radiation oncology, standard in-person and endoscopic evaluations are being restrained to limit exposure risks and preserve personal protective equipment for other frontline workers. The authors have implemented telemedicine and multidisciplinary conferences to continue to offer standard-of-care HNC treatments during this uniquely challenging time. Because of the lack of feasibility data on telemedicine for HNC, they report their early experience at a high-volume cancer center at the domestic epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis.

Long-term survival in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with metastasis-directed therapy.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the outcomes of metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) by disease burden with an emphasis on metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) in patients with limited metastatic disease burden. METHODS: In total, 186 patients who developed metastatic disease after definitive therapy for HNSCC were included. Clinically and radiographically apparent metastases were enumerated. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate survival. Cox regression was used to assess the association between clinical variables. RESULTS: Patients with a single metastasis had a 5-year overall survival (OS) of 35% (95% CI 16-54%) in contrast to patients with multiple metastases with a 5-year OS of 4% (95% CI 2-9%). Thirty patients (16.1%) underwent MDT. On multivariable analysis, oral cavity or sinonasal primary (HR 2.22 95% CI 1.16-4.25, p = 0.015; HR 4.88, 95% CI 1.10-21.70, p = 0.037, respectively) were associated with higher risk of death, whereas receipt of MDT (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.74, p = 0.006) was associated with lower hazard of death. Median subsequent metastasis-free survival and 5-year survival after MDT (n = 30) were estimated at 26.4 months (95% CI: 9.8-54.0) and 31%, (95% CI: 15-48%). CONCLUSIONS: HNSCC patients with limited metastatic disease may derive significant benefit from MDT. Prospective trials evaluating MDT in HNSCC are warranted.

Long-Term Implications of a Positive Posttreatment Biopsy in Patients Treated with External Beam Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We determined the prognostic importance of a positive posttreatment biopsy after prostate radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 382 patients underwent a posttreatment biopsy after external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Posttreatment biopsies were classified as positive (prostatic adenocarcinoma without typical radiation induced changes), negative (no evidence of carcinoma) or adenocarcinoma with a severe treatment effect. Median followup in survivors was 9 years. Competing risks regression was used to assess relationships between prognostic predictors and cause specific mortality, distant metastasis and prostate specific antigen failure. RESULTS: The prevalence of positive biopsy, treatment effect and negative biopsy was 30%, 22% and 48%, respectively. Androgen deprivation therapy omission and high risk disease were associated with a 2.6 and 1.8-fold increase, respectively, in the odds of positive posttreatment biopsy. The 15-year PSA relapse rate associated with negative, severe treatment effect and positive posttreatment biopsies was 34%, 36% and 79%, respectively (p <0.001). After controlling for known predictors the risk of distant metastasis was 2.6-fold higher in patients with a positive biopsy (p <0.001) and cause specific mortality was twice as high in patients with a positive biopsy compared to those with negative and severe treatment effect biopsy outcomes (HR 2.00, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: A positive posttreatment biopsy after external beam radiotherapy was associated with a higher risk of distant metastasis and prostate cancer related death. Patients with severe treatment effect classified biopsies have biological characteristics more like patients with a negative biopsy than a positive biopsy. Posttreatment biopsies were more often positive in the setting of external beam radiotherapy alone without androgen deprivation therapy or in the presence of high risk disease.

Comparing Kadish, TNM, and the modified Dulguerov staging systems for esthesioneuroblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Esthesioneuroblastoma (ENB) is a rare neuroendocrine tumor. The purpose of this study was to compare the Kadish, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM), and Dulguerov's modified TNM staging in order to determine the impact of the stage on primary surgical treatment selection, margin status, and survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients diagnosed with ENB between 2004 to 2015. Patients were excluded based on the ability to properly stage their disease as well as the availability of treatment data. RESULTS: Eight-hundred eighty-three patients had sufficient data for analysis. On multivariate analysis, age and government insurance were associated with primary surgical treatment, whereas tumor stage, gender, race, hospital type and volume, and comorbidity score were not. Age, charlson-deyo comorbidity (CDCC) score, hospital volume, and nodal status were found to be predictors of survival. Multivariate-analysis controlling for stage failed to demonstrate clear survival differences between staging in both TNM and Kadish systems. T-stage and the presence of regional nodal metastasis were associated with an increased risk of positive margins on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Although primary surgical management and positive margins can be predicted by certain patient and tumor factors, clinical staging systems for ENB poorly predict prognosis over a 10-year horizon.