On the probability of lymph node negativity in pN0-staged prostate cancer-a theoretically derived rule of thumb for adjuvant needs.

PURPOSE: The extent of lymphadenectomy and clinical features influence the risk of occult nodes in node-negative prostate cancer. We derived a simple estimation model for the negative predictive value (npv) of histopathologically node-negative prostate cancer patients (pN0) to guide adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Approximations of sensitivities in detecting lymph node metastasis from current publications depending on the number of removed lymph nodes were used for a theoretical deduction of a simplified formulation of npv assuming a false node positivity of 0. RESULTS: A theoretical formula of npv = p(N0IpN0) = (100 - prevalence) / (100 - sensitivityâ€¯× prevalence) was calculated (sensitivity and preoperative prevalence in %). Depending on the number of removed lymph nodes (nLN), the sensitivity of pN0-staged prostate cancer was derived for three sensitivity levels accordingly: sensitivity = f(nLN) = 9â€¯× nLN /100 for 0 ≤ nLN ≤ 8 and f(nLN) = (nLN + 70) /100 for 9 ≤ nLN ≤ 29 and f(nLN) = 1 for nLN ≥ 30. CONCLUSION: We developed a theoretical formula for estimation of the npv in pN0-staged prostate cancer patients. It is a sine qua non to use the formula in a clinically experienced context before deciding to electively irradiate pelvic lymph nodes or to intensify adjuvant systemic treatment.

Radiotherapy for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with synchronous low burden of distant metastases.

PURPOSE: The DEGRO Expert Commission on Prostate Cancer has revised the indication for radiation therapy of the primary prostate tumor in patients with synchronous distant metastases with low metastatic burden. METHODS: The current literature in the PubMed database was reviewed regarding randomized evidence on radiotherapy of the primary prostate tumor with synchronous low metastatic burden. RESULTS: In total, two randomized trials were identified. The larger study, the STAMPEDE trial, demonstrated an absolute survival benefit of 8% after 3 years for patients with low metastatic burden treated with standard of care (SOC) and additional radiotherapy (RT) (EQD2 ≤ 72 Gy) of the primary tumor. Differences in the smaller Horrad trial were not statistically significant, although risk reduction in the subgroup (< 5 bone metastases) was equal to STAMPEDE. The STOPCAP meta-analysis of both trials demonstrated the benefit of local radiotherapy for up to 4 bone lesions and an additional subanalysis of STAMPEDE also substantiated this finding in cases with M1a-only metastases. CONCLUSION: Therefore, due to the survival benefit after 3 years, current practice is changing. New palliative SOC is radiotherapy of the primary tumor in synchronously metastasized prostate cancer with low metastatic burden (defined as ≤ 4 bone metastases, with or without distant nodes) or in case of distant nodes only detected by conventional imaging.

Radiotherapy and hyperthermia for breast cancer patients at high risk of recurrence.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of combined radiotherapy (RT) and hyperthermia (HT) in a large mono-institutional cohort of breast cancer (BC) patients affected by recurrent, newly diagnosed non-resectable or high risk resected tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of BC patients treated with RT + HT between 1995 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. RT doses of 50-70 Gy concurrent to a twice per week superficial HT were applied. For HT, a temperature between 41 and 42 °C was applied for approximately 1 h. Primary endpoint was local control (LC), secondary endpoints comprised toxicity, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 191 patients and 196 RT + HT treatments were analyzed. In 154 cases (78.6%) RT + HT was performed for patients with recurrent BC. Among these, 93 (47.4% of the entire cohort) had received RT prior to RT + HT. Median follow up was 12.7 years. LC at 2, 5, and 10 years was 76.4, 72.8, and 69.5%, respectively. OS at 2, 5, and 10 years was 73.5, 52.3, and 35.5%, respectively. PFS at 2, 5, and 10 years was 55.6, 41, and 33.6%, respectively. Predictive factors for LC were tumor stage, distant metastases, estrogen/progesterone receptor expression, resection status and number of HT fractions. At multivariate analysis tumor stage and receptor expression were significant. No acute or late toxicities higher than grade 3 were observed. CONCLUSION: Combined RT + HT offers long-term high LC rates with acceptable toxicity for patients with recurrent, newly diagnosed non-resectable or resected BC at high risk of relapse.

Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy as definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer: Pattern of practice in German-speaking countries : A survey of the Prostate Cancer Expert Panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) and the Working Party on Radiation Oncology of the German Cancer Society (DKG-ARO).

PURPOSE: Various randomized phase III clinical trials have compared moderately hypofractionated to normofractionated radiotherapy (RT). These modalities showed similar effectiveness without major differences in toxicity. This project was conducted by the Prostate Cancer Expert Panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) and the Working Party on Radiation Oncology of the German Cancer Society. We aimed to investigate expert opinions on the use of moderately hypofractionated RT as a definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer in German-speaking countries. METHODS: A 25-item, web-based questionnaire on moderate-hypofractionation RT was prepared by an internal committee. The experts of the DEGRO were asked to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS: Fourteen active members of DEGRO completed the questionnaire. The questions described indications for selecting patients eligible to receive moderate hypofractionation based on clinical and pathological factors such as age, urinary symptoms, and risk-group. The questions also collected information on the technical aspects of selection criteria, including the definition of a clinical target volume, the use of imaging, protocols for bladder and rectal filling, the choice of a fractionation schedule, and the use of image guidance. Moreover, the questionnaire collected information on post-treatment surveillance after applying moderately hypofractionated RT. CONCLUSION: Although opinions varied on the use of moderate-hypofractionation RT, the current survey reflected broad agreement on the notion that moderately hypofractionated RT could be considered a standard treatment for localized prostate cancer in German-speaking countries.

Radiotherapy in nodal oligorecurrent prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The current article encompasses a literature review and recommendations for radiotherapy in nodal oligorecurrent prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review focused on studies comparing metastasis-directed stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) vs. external elective nodal radiotherapy (ENRT) and studies analyzing recurrence patterns after local nodal treatment was performed. The DEGRO Prostate Cancer Expert Panel discussed the results and developed treatment recommendations. RESULTS: Metastasis-directed radiotherapy results in high local control (often > 90% within a follow-up of 1-2 years) and can be used to improve progression-free survival or defer androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) according to prospective randomized phase II data. Distant progression after involved-node SABR only occurs within a few months in the majority of patients. ENRT improves metastases-free survival rates with increased toxicity in comparison to SABR according to retrospective comparative studies. The majority of nodal recurrences after initial local treatment of pelvic nodal metastasis are detected within the true pelvis and common iliac vessels. CONCLUSION: ENRT with or without a boost should be preferred to SABR in pelvic nodal recurrences. In oligometastatic prostate cancer with distant (extrapelvic) nodal recurrences, SABR alone can be performed in selected cases. Application of additional systemic treatments should be based on current guidelines, with ADT as first-line treatment for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Only in carefully selected patients can radiotherapy be initially used without additional ADT outside of the current standard recommendations. Results of (randomized) prospective studies are needed for definitive recommendations.

Ultrahypofractionation of localized prostate cancer : Statement from the DEGRO working group prostate cancer.

Due to its low fractionation sensitivity, also known as "alpha/beta ratio," in relation to its surrounding organs at risk, prostate cancer is predestined for hypofractionated radiation schedules assuming an increased therapeutic ratio compared to normofractionated regimens. While moderate hypofractionation (2.2-4 Gy) has been proven to be non-inferior to normal fractionation in several large randomized trials for localized prostate cancer, level I evidence for ultrahypofractionation (>4 Gy) was lacking until recently. An accumulating body of non-randomized evidence has recently been strengthened by the publication of two randomized studies comparing ultrahypofractionation with a normofractionated schedule, i.e., the Scandinavian HYPO-RT trial by Widmark et al. and the first toxicity results of the PACE­B trial. In this review, we aim to give a brief overview of the current evidence of ultrahypofractionation, make an overall assessment of the level of evidence, and provide recommendations and requirements that should be followed before introducing ultrahypofractionation into routine clinical use.

Management of Germ Cell Tumours of the Testes in Adult Patients: German Clinical Practice Guideline, PART II - Recommendations for the Treatment of Advanced, Recurrent, and Refractory Disease and Extragonadal and Sex Cord/Stromal Tumours and for the Management of Follow-Up, Toxicity, Quality of Life, Palliative Care, and Supportive Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: We developed the first German evidence- and consensus-based clinical guideline on diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of germ cell tumours (GCT) of the testes in adult patients. We present the guideline content in 2 separate publications. The present second part summarizes therecommendations for the treatment of advanced disease stages and for the management of follow-up and late effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel of 42 experts including 1 patient representative developed the guideline content. Clinical recommendations and statements were based on scientific evidence and expert consensus. For this purpose, evidence tables for several review questions, which were based on systematic literature searches (last search in March 2018), were provided. Thirty-one experts, who were entitled to vote, rated the final clinical recommendations and statements. RESULTS: Here we present the treatment recommendations separately for patients with metastatic seminoma and non-seminomatous GCT (stages IIA/B and IIC/III), for restaging and treatment of residual masses, and for relapsed and refractory disease stages. The recommendations also cover extragonadal and sex cord/stromal tumours, the management of follow-up and toxicity, quality-of-life aspects, palliative care, and supportive therapy. CONCLUSION: Physicians and other medical service providers who are involved in the diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up of GCT (all stages, outpatient and inpatient care as well as rehabilitation) are the users of the present guideline. The guideline also comprises quality indicators for measuring the implementation of the guideline recommendations in routine clinical care; these data will be presented in a future publication.

Management of Germ Cell Tumours of the Testis in Adult Patients. German Clinical Practice Guideline Part I: Epidemiology, Classification, Diagnosis, Prognosis, Fertility Preservation, and Treatment Recommendations for Localized Stages.

INTRODUCTION: This is the first German evidence- and consensus-based clinical guideline on diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up on germ cell tumours (GCTs) of the testis in adult patients. We present the guideline content in two publications. Part I covers the topic's background, methods, epidemiology, classification systems, diagnostics, prognosis, and treatment recommendations for the localized stages. METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel of 42 experts including 1 patient representative developed the guideline content. Clinical recommendations and statements were based on scientific evidence and expert consensus. For this purpose, evidence tables for several review questions, which were based on systematic literature searches (last search was in March 2018) were provided. Thirty-one experts entitled to vote, rated the final clinical recommendations and statements. RESULTS: We provide 161 clinical recommendations and statements. We present information on the quality of cancer care and epidemiology and give recommendations for staging and classification as well as for diagnostic procedures. The diagnostic recommendations encompass measures for assessing the primary tumour as well as procedures for the detection of metastases. One chapter addresses prognostic factors. In part I, we separately present the treatment recommendations for germ cell neoplasia in situ, and the organ-confined stages (clinical stage I) of both seminoma and nonseminoma. CONCLUSION: Although GCT is a rare tumour entity with excellent survival rates for the localized stages, its management requires an interdisciplinary approach, including several clinical experts. Quality of care is highly related to institutional expertise and can be reassured by established online-based second-opinion boards. There are very few studies on diagnostics with good level of evidence. Treatment of metastatic GCTs must be tailored to the risk according to the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaboration Group classification after careful diagnostic evaluation. An interdisciplinary approach as well as the referral of selected patients to centres with proven experience can help achieve favourable clinical outcomes.

[Primary treatment of prostate cancer using 1.5 T MR-linear accelerator]. / Stellenwert des 1,5-T-MR-Linearbeschleunigers für die primäre Therapie des Prostatakarzinoms.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid devices of MR-scanners and linear accelerators (MR-Linacs) represent a new and promising extension of radiotherapeutic options for prostate cancer. The potential advantage of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over computed tomography (CT) for soft tissue contrast is well-known and leads to more consistent and smaller target volumes and improved normal tissue sparing. OBJECTIVES: This article presents an overview of clinical experience, indications, advantages and challenges of utilizing a 1.5 T MR-Linac in the setting of radiotherapy of prostate cancer. RESULTS: All current indications for radiotherapy of prostate cancer can be treated with an MR-Linac. The advantages include daily MR-based imaging in treatment position and daily adaption of the treatment plan on current anatomy (adaptive radiotherapy). Additionally, functional MRI sequences might be exploited to enhance treatment individualization and response assessment. Ultimately treatment on an MR-Linac might further increase the therapeutic window. The limitations of using MR-Linac include treatment complexity and the duration of each session. CONCLUSIONS: MR-Linacs expand the spectrum of radiotherapeutic options for prostate cancer. Increased precision can be reached with daily MRI-based target volume definition and plan adaption. Clinical studies are necessary to identify patient groups who would benefit most from radiotherapy on a MR-Linac.

Treatment strategies to prevent and reduce gynecomastia and/or breast pain caused by antiandrogen therapy for prostate cancer : Statement from the DEGRO working group prostate cancer.

AIM: To provide an overview on the available treatments to prevent and reduce gynecomastia and/or breast pain caused by antiandrogen therapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: The German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) expert panel summarized available evidence published and assessed the validity of the information on efficacy and treatment-related toxicity. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials and one meta-analysis were identified. Two randomized trials demonstrated that prophylactic radiation therapy (RT) using 1â€¯× 10 Gy or 2â€¯× 6 Gy significantly reduced the rate of gynecomastia but not breast pain, as compared to observation. A randomized dose-finding trial identified the daily dose of 20 mg tamoxifen (TMX) as the most effective prophylactic dose and another randomized trial described that daily TMX use was superior to weekly use. Another randomized trial showed that prophylactic daily TMX is more effective than TMX given at the onset of gynecomastia. Two other randomized trials described that TMX was clearly superior to anastrozole in reducing the risk for gynecomastia and/or breast pain. One comparative randomized trial between prophylactic RT using 1â€¯× 12 Gy and TMX concluded that prophylactic TMX is more effective compared to prophylactic RT and furthermore that TMX appears to be more effective to treat gynecomastia and/or breast pain when symptoms are already present. A meta-analysis confirmed that both prophylactic RT and TMX can reduce the risk of gynecomastia and/or breast pain with TMX being more effective; however, the rate of side effects after TMX including dizziness and hot flushes might be higher than after RT and must be taken into account. Less is known regarding the comparative effectiveness of different radiation fractionation schedules and more modern RT techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic RT as well as daily TMX can significantly reduce the incidence of gynecomastia and/or breast pain. TMX appears to be an effective alternative to RT also as a therapeutic treatment in the presence of gynecomastia but its side effects and off-label use must be considered.

Role of combined radiation and androgen deprivation therapy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer : Statement from the DEGRO working group on prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This article aims to provide an overview of the role of combined radiation and androgen deprivation (ADT) therapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The current German, European, and NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines as well as relevant literature in the PubMed database which provide information on sub-classification within the intermediate-risk group and the use of ADT in terms of oncological outcome were reviewed. RESULTS: Different recommendations for risk-group assessment of patients with localized prostate cancer are available. Subdivision of intermediate risk into a favorable and an unfavorable group seems to be justified to allow for a more individualized therapy in a quite heterogenous group of patients. So far, multiple randomized trials have shown a benefit when radiation therapy (RT) is combined with ADT. The use of dose-escalated RT without ADT also appears to be an adequate therapy associated with a very low rate of cancer-specific deaths. Therefore, taking into account the increased rate of toxicity associated with ADT, dose-escalated RT alone might be justified, especially in favorable intermediate-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Dose-escalated RT alone appears to be an appropriate treatment in favorable intermediate-risk patients. Addition of short course ADT (4-6 months) might improve outcomes in unfavorable intermediate-risk patients.

Prognostic risk classification for biochemical relapse-free survival in patients with oligorecurrent prostate cancer after [68Ga]PSMA-PET-guided metastasis-directed therapy.

PURPOSE: Since the success of prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) imaging for patients with oligorecurrent prostate cancer (ORPC), it is increasingly used for radiotherapy as metastasis-directed therapy (MDT). Therefore, we developed a prognostic risk classification for biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) for patients after PSMA-PET-guided MDT after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: We analyzed 292 patients with local recurrence (LR) and/or pelvic lymph node (LN) lesions and/or up to five distant LN, bone (BM), or visceral metastases (VM) detected with [68Ga]PSMA-PET imaging. Median follow-up was 16 months (range 0-57). The primary endpoint was bRFS after MDT. Cox regression analysis for risk factors was incorporated into a recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) with classification and regression tree method. RESULTS: PSA at recurrence ≥ 0.8 ng/mL, BM, and VM was significantly associated with biochemical relapse. RPA showed five groups with tenfold cross-validation of 0.294 (SE 0.032). After building risk classes I to IV (p < 0.0001), mean bRFS was 36.3 months (95% CI 32.4-40.1) in class I (PSA < 0.8 ng/mL, no BM) and 25.8 months (95% CI 22.5-29.1) in class II (PSA ≥ 0.8 ng/mL, no BM, no VM). LR and/or pelvic LNs caused relapse in classes I and II. Mean bRFS was 16.0 months (95% CI 12.4-19.6) in class III (PSA irrelevant, present BM) and 5.7 months (95% CI 2.7-8.7) in class IV (PSA ≥ 0.8 ng/mL, no BM, present VM). CONCLUSION: We developed and internally validated a risk classification for bRFS after PSMA-PET-guided MDT. Patients with PSA < 0.8 ng/mL and local relapse only (LR and/or pelvic LNs) had the most promising bRFS. PSA ≥ 0.8 ng/mL and local relapse only (LR and/or pelvic LNs) indicated intermediate risk for failure. Patients with BM were at higher risk regardless of the PSA. However, those patients still show satisfactory bRFS. In patients with VM, bRFS is heavily decreased. MDT in such cases should be discussed individually.

Efficacy of PSMA ligand PET-based radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A substantial number of patients will develop further biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RP) and salvage radiotherapy (sRT). Recently published data using prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography (PSMA - PET) for re-staging suggest that those recurrences are often located outside the prostate fossa and most of the patients have a limited number of metastases, making them amenable to metastasis-directed treatment (MDT). METHODS: We analyzed 78 patients with biochemical progression after RP and sRT from a retrospective European multicenter database and assessed the biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS; PSA < nadir + 0.2 ng/ml or no PSA decline) as well as the androgen deprivation therapy- free survival (ADT-FS) using Kaplan-Meier curves. Log-rank test and multivariate analysis was performed to determine influencing factors. RESULTS: A total of 185 PSMA - PET positive metastases were detected and all lesions were treated with radiotherapy (RT). Concurrent ADT was prescribed in 16.7% (13/78) of patients. The median PSA level before RT was 1.90 ng/mL (range, 0.1-22.1) and decreased statistically significantly to a median PSA nadir level of 0.26 ng/mL (range, 0.0-12.25; p < 0.001). The median PSA level of 0.88 ng/mL (range, 0.0-25.8) at the last follow-up was also statistically significantly lower (p = 0.008) than the median PSA level of 1.9 ng/mL (range, 0.1-22.1) before RT. The median bRFS was 17.0 months (95% CI, 14.2-19.8). After 12 months, 55.3% of patients were free of biochemical progression. Multivariate analyses showed that concurrent ADT was the most important independent factor for bRFS (p = 0.01). The median ADT-FS was not reached and exploratory statistical analyses estimated a median ADT-FS of 34.0 months (95% CI, 16.3-51.7). Multivariate analyses revealed no significant parameters for ADT-FS. CONCLUSIONS: RT as MDT based on PSMA - PET of all metastases of recurrent prostate cancer after RP and sRT represents a viable treatment option for well-informed and well-selected patients.

Target miss using PTV-based IMRT compared to robust optimization via coverage probability concept in prostate cancer.

Purpose: Cure- and toxicity rates of prostate IGRT can both be affected by ill-chosen planning target volume (PTV) margins. For dose-escalated prostate radiotherapy, we studied the potential for organ at risk (OAR) sparing and compensation of prostate motion with robust plan optimization using the coverage probability (CovP) concept compared to conventional PTV-based IMRT.Material and methods: We evaluated plan quality of CovP-plans for 27 intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated in a prospective study (78 Gy/39 fractions). Clinical target volume (CTV) and OARs were contoured on three separate CTs to capture movement and deformation. To define the internal target volume (ITV), the union of CTV1-3 was encompassed by an isotropic margin of 7 mm for the planning process. CovP-dose distribution is optimized considering weight factors for IMRT constraints derived from probabilities of systematic organ displacement in the three CTs. CovP-dose volume histograms (DVHs) were compared with additionally calculated conventional PTV-based IMRT plans. PTV-based IMRT was planned on one-single CT with an isotropically expanded CTV to generate the PTV (i.e., CTV1 + 7mm) and was evaluated on the two other CTs.Results: The CovP-concept showed higher robustness in target volume coverage. Target miss was frequently observed with PTV-based IMRT, resulting in cold spots until 70 Gy with the CovP-concept. The target dose at 74 Gy was comparable, while further the dose-escalation (75-78 Gy) was improved with PTV-based IMRT. However, dose-escalation with PTV-based IMRT was associated with increased OAR-doses, especially in high-dose areas.Conclusions: Probabilistic dose-escalated IMRT was feasible in this prospective study. Comparison of the CovP-concept with PTV-based IMRT revealed superiority with regard to target-coverage and sparing of OARs. The CovP-concept implements a robust plan optimization strategy for organ deformation and motions and could, therefore, serve as a less demanding compromise on the way to adaptive IGRT avoiding daily time-consuming re-planning. SUMMARYWe evaluated the robustness of coverage probability (CovP)-based IMRT plans within a prospective study for prostate cancer radiotherapy. The treatment plans were compared with newly calculated conventional PTV-based IMRT plans. We were able to show that CovP led to a clearly more robust target coverage by avoiding hot spots at OARs compared to conventional PTV-based IMRT. In addition, negative consequences of an inflated PTV can be ameliorated by a more relaxed CovP-based dose prescription.

[German S3 guideline for renal cell carcinoma : Presentation and discussion of essential aspects for the radiation oncologist]. / Die deutsche S3-Leitlinie zum Nierenzellkarzinom : Darstellung und Diskussion wesentlicher Aspekte für den Radioonkologen.

PURPOSE: We aim to introduce and discuss the statements and recommendations of the German S3 guideline on renal cell cancer for daily practice of radiation oncologists. METHODS: This report comprises indication, treatment decision, dose prescription and current literature including treatment of oligometastatic disease. RESULTS: According to different stages of the disease and the structure of the guideline we focus on five treatment situations and recommendations for decision making: (1) Neo-/adjuvant treatment before or after nephrectomy: No indication for radiotherapy. (2) Small renal mass: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy is currently seen as experimental option due to small patient numbers reported in the literature. However, local tumor control achieved by SBRT appears favourable with >90% at 2 years. (3) Oligometastasis: Radiation treatment with higher local doses or stereotactic treatment is possible after interdisciplinary discussion. Indications for palliative (4) and symptomatic treatment (5) are not different compared to other tumor entities. CONCLUSION: Currently, there is no evidence-based indication for radiation treatment in the primary setting (adjuvant/neoadjuvant or definitive) of renal cell cancer. In the future stereotactic radiotherapy should have a stronger role in the treatment of medically inoperable patients with primary renal cell cancer and especially in the setting of oligometastasis.

Radiotherapy and hyperthermia with curative intent in recurrent high risk soft tissue sarcomas.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy before or after resection is one of the pillars of treatment for localised high risk soft tissue sarcomas. Treatment intensification has been described with concurrent chemotherapy and hyperthermia. The aim of this study is to assess local control after multimodal treatment, focussing on the treatment of local recurrences after surgery only. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 42 patients treated in a prospective protocol with radiotherapy and hyperthermia, nine were treated for isolated local recurrences without metastatic spread. Most patients were treated with trimodal therapy including chemotherapy with ifosfamide and underwent resection whenever possible. Median follow-up was 1.4 years. RESULTS: The treatment was well tolerated. Estimated disease free survival, distant metastases free survival and local control for the whole cohort after 1.5 years were 66, 73 and 88%, respectively. Neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant treatment influenced local control with a trend to statistical significance. Resection status did not influence local control. The cohort of patients treated for local recurrence after surgery alone had a significantly impaired local control compared to multimodal treatment at primary diagnosis (100 vs. 52%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: With multimodal therapy including radiotherapy and hyperthermia local tumour control is achievable even in locally recurrent tumours. The clear-cut difference of the treatment of local recurrence in contrast to primary diagnosis might either reflect difficulties in diagnosis and treatment of local recurrences or biological aggressiveness of recurrent tumours. However, we recommend to consider multimodal treatment at primary diagnosis of high risk soft tissue sarcomas.

Importance and outcome relevance of central pathology review in prostatectomy specimens: data from the SAKK 09/10 randomized trial on prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a central pathology review within a randomized clinical trial on salvage radiation therapy (RT) in the presence of biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy to assess whether this results in changes in histopathological prognostic factors, such as Gleason score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 350 patients were randomized and specimens from 279 patients (80%) were centrally reviewed by a dedicated genitourinary pathologist. Gleason score, tumour classification and resection margin status were reassessed and compared with the results of local pathology review. Agreement was assessed using contingency tables and Cohen's kappa coefficient. The association between other histopathological features (e.g. largest diameter of carcinoma) and rapid biochemical progression (up to 6 months after salvage RT) was also investigated. RESULTS: There was good concordance between central and local pathology review for seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b: 91%; κ = 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.89, 1.00]), extraprostatic extension (pT3a/b: 94%; κ = 0.82 [95% CI 0.75, 0.89]) and positive surgical margin (PSM) status (87%; κ = 0.7 [95% CI 0.62, 0.79]). The rate of agreement was lower for Gleason score (78%; κ = 0.61 [95% CI 0.52, 0.70]). The median (range) largest diameter of carcinoma was 16 (3-38) mm. A total of 49 patients (18%) experienced rapid biochemical progression after salvage RT. Largest diameter of carcinoma (odds ratio [OR] 2.04 [95% CI 1.30, 3.20]; P = 0.002), resection margin status (OR 0.36 [95% CI 0.18, 0.72]; P = 0.004) and Gleason score (OR 1.55 [95% CI 1.00, 2.42]; P = 0.05) remained associated with rapid progression after salvage RT after backward selection. CONCLUSION: The results of the central pathology analyses showed concordance between central and local pathology review with regard to seminal vesicle invasion, extraprostatic extension and PSM status, but a lower rate of agreement for Gleason score. Largest diameter of carcinoma was found to be a potential prognostic factor for rapid biochemical progression after salvage RT.

Interdisciplinary consensus statement on indication and application of a hydrogel spacer for prostate radiotherapy based on experience in more than 250 patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to reach a consensus on indication and application of a hydrogel spacer based on multicentre experience and give new users important information to shorten the learning curve for this innovative technique. METHODS: The interdisciplinary meeting was attended by radiation oncologists and urologists, each with experience of 23 - 138 hydrogel injections (SpaceOAR®) in prostate cancer patients before dose-escalated radiotherapy. User experience was discussed and questions were defined to comprise practical information relevant for successful hydrogel injection and treatment. Answers to the defined key questions were generated. Hydrogel-associated side effects were collected to estimate the percentage, treatment and prognosis of potential risks. RESULTS: The main indication for hydrogel application was dose-escalated radiotherapy for histologically confirmed low or intermediate risk prostate cancer. It was not recommended in locally advanced prostate cancer. The injection or implantation was performed under transrectal ultrasound guidance via the transperineal approach after prior hydrodissection. The rate of injection-related G2-toxicity was 2% (n = 5) in a total of 258 hydrogel applications. The most frequent complication (n = 4) was rectal wall penetration, diagnosed at different intervals after hydrogel injection and treated conservatively. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus was reached on the application of a hydrogel spacer. Current experience demonstrated feasibility, which could promote initiation of this method in more centres to reduce radiation-related gastrointestinal toxicity of dose-escalated IGRT. However, a very low rate of a potential serious adverse event could not be excluded. Therefore, the application should carefully be discussed with the patient and be balanced against potential benefits.

Pelvic Irradiation for Node-Positive Prostate Cancer After Prostatectomy: Long-Term Results of the Prospective PLATIN-4 and PLATIN-5 Trials.

PURPOSE: After radical prostatectomy (RP), adjuvant or salvage radiation treatment in node-positive prostate cancer is offered to prevent systemic disease. Prospective long-term survival and toxicity data on patients with radiation for nodal disease are still scarce. This study evaluates safety and feasibility of salvage radiation therapy to the pelvic lymph nodes in node-positive prostate cancer after RP. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2009 and 2018, 78 patients with lymph node recurrence after RP (PLATIN-4 trial) or after RP and prostate bed radiation therapy (PLATIN-5 trial) were treated with salvage pelvic lymph node radiation therapy with boost to the involved nodes as field abutment (PLATIN-5) and boost to the prostate bed (PLATIN-4). Androgen deprivation therapy was started 2 months before radiation and recommended for 24 months. The primary endpoint was safety and feasibility of the intensity modulated radiation therapy-image guided radiation therapy technique based on the rate of treatment discontinuations and incidence of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3+ toxicity. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: No treatment discontinuations were reported in either trial. Median overall survival was not reached in PLATIN-4 and was 117 months in PLATIN-5. Median progression-free survival was 66 months in PLATIN-4 and 39 months in PLATIN-5. Late grade 3+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were observed in 4% of patients at 24 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage radiation therapy to the prostate bed and pelvic lymphatic drainage combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy is a curative treatment option for patients with node-positive prostate cancer after RP, with excellent in-field disease control. Pelvic lymph node radiation therapy as field abutment after prostate bed radiation therapy is feasible with long-term survival and no high-grade toxicity.