Magnetic resonance linear accelerator technology and adaptive radiation therapy: An overview for clinicians.

Radiation therapy (RT) continues to play an important role in the treatment of cancer. Adaptive RT (ART) is a novel method through which RT treatments are evolving. With the ART approach, computed tomography or magnetic resonance (MR) images are obtained as part of the treatment delivery process. This enables the adaptation of the irradiated volume to account for changes in organ and/or tumor position, movement, size, or shape that may occur over the course of treatment. The advantages and challenges of ART maybe somewhat abstract to oncologists and clinicians outside of the specialty of radiation oncology. ART is positioned to affect many different types of cancer. There is a wide spectrum of hypothesized benefits, from small toxicity improvements to meaningful gains in overall survival. The use and application of this novel technology should be understood by the oncologic community at large, such that it can be appropriately contextualized within the landscape of cancer therapies. Likewise, the need to test these advances is pressing. MR-guided ART (MRgART) is an emerging, extended modality of ART that expands upon and further advances the capabilities of ART. MRgART presents unique opportunities to iteratively improve adaptive image guidance. However, although the MRgART adaptive process advances ART to previously unattained levels, it can be more expensive, time-consuming, and complex. In this review, the authors present an overview for clinicians describing the process of ART and specifically MRgART.

Early Prostate-Specific Antigen Response by 6 Months Is Predictive of Treatment Effect in Metastatic Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Exploratory Analysis of the TITAN Trial.

PURPOSE: Early PSA response has been found to be prognostic of outcomes in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer. We performed a secondary analysis of the TITAN trial to determine if early PSA response was predictive of treatment efficacy in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Early PSA response was defined as achieving a PSA level of ≤ 0.2 ng/mL by 6 months of random assignment. A Cox proportional hazard model was constructed in a landmark population with an interaction term between the treatment and early PSA response to determine differential treatment effect on overall survival (OS). We applied multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model with time to early PSA response fitted with restricted cubic spline to determine the association of time to early PSA response with OS. RESULTS: Approximately 24% (124/524) of patients in the androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone group and 61% (321/524) in the apalutamide group had PSA response ≤ 0.2 ng/mL by 6 months. Longer time to early PSA response was associated with significantly superior OS in the apalutamide group. There was a significant difference in treatment effect from apalutamide on OS (P = .03 for interaction) among 6-month PSA responders (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.44-1.00) vs nonresponders (HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.89-1.46). This difference in treatment effect was not statistically significant at 3 months (P = .17 for interaction). Among 6-month PSA responders, 3-year confounder-adjusted OS was 84% (80%-88%) for the apalutamide group and 74% (66%-82%) for the ADT alone group. Among nonresponders, 3-year adjusted OS for the 2 treatment arms were 58% (52%-65%) and 56% (51%-60%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Early PSA response by 6 months was a predictor of treatment efficacy from ADT plus apalutamide on OS. Longer time to early PSA response was associated with superior OS in the apalutamide arm.

The Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Radiation Therapy Treatment Simulation and Planning.

Ever since its introduction as a diagnostic imaging tool the potential of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiation therapy (RT) treatment simulation and planning has been recognized. Recent technical advances have addressed many of the impediments to use of this technology and as a result have resulted in rapid and growing adoption of MRI in RT. The purpose of this article is to provide a broad review of the multiple uses of MR in the RT treatment simulation and planning process, identify several of the most used clinical scenarios in which MR is integral to the simulation and planning process, highlight existing limitations and provide multiple unmet needs thereby highlighting opportunities for the diagnostic MR imaging community to contribute and collaborate with our oncology colleagues. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2024.

Bladder cancer, the sixth most common cancer in the United States, is most commonly of the urothelial carcinoma histologic subtype. The clinical spectrum of bladder cancer is divided into 3 categories that differ in prognosis, management, and therapeutic aims: (1) non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); (2) muscle invasive, nonmetastatic disease; and (3) metastatic bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, including changes in the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours: Urinary and Male Genital Tumours and how the NCCN Guidelines aligned with these updates; new and emerging treatment options for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive NMIBC; and updates to systemic therapy recommendations for advanced or metastatic disease.

Systematic review and recommendations for re-irradiation for intraprostatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Intraprostatic recurrence (IRR) of prostate cancer after radiation therapy is increasingly identified. Our objective was to review the literature to determine the optimal workup for identifying IRR, the management options, and practical considerations for the delivery of re-irradiation as salvage local therapy. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of available publications and ongoing studies on the topics of IRR, with a focus on salvage re-irradiation. RESULTS: Work up of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer includes PSMA PET/CT and multiparametric MRI, followed by biopsy to confirm IRR. Management options include continued surveillance, palliative hormonal therapy, and salvage local therapy. Salvage local therapy can be delivered using re-irradiation with low dose rate brachytherapy, high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy, and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), as well as non-radiation modalities, such as cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound, irreversible electroporation and radical prostatectomy. Data demonstrate that HDR brachytherapy and SBRT have similar efficacy compared to the other salvage local therapy modalities, while having more favorable side effect profiles. Recommendations for radiation therapy planning and delivery using HDR and SBRT based on the available literature are discussed. CONCLUSION: Salvage re-irradiation is safe and effective and should be considered in patients with IRR.

Impact of PSMA PET on Prostate Cancer Management.

OPINION STATEMENT: PSMA-PET has been a practice-changing imaging biomarker for the management of men with PCa. Research suggests improved accuracy over conventional imaging and other PET radiotracers in many contexts. With multiple approved PSMA-targeting radiotracers, PSMA PET will become even more available in clinical practice. Its increased use requires an understanding of the prospective data available and caution when extrapolating from prior trial data that utilized other imaging modalities. Future trials leveraging PSMA PET for treatment optimization and management decision-making will ultimately drive its clinical utility.

Implications of metastatic stage at presentation in docetaxel naïve metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We performed a secondary analysis of ACIS study to determine if synchronous versus metachronous metastatic presentation has any association with survival and treatment response to dual androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy (ARAT) in docetaxel naïve metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODOLOGY: In this phase III randomized controlled trial, docetaxel naïve mCRPC patients were randomized to either apalutamide or placebo combined with abiraterone and prednisone. Multivariable Cox regression models were applied to determine the adjusted association of M-stage with radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS). To determine the heterogeneity of treatment effect based on metastatic stage (M-stage) at presentation, Cox regression was applied with interaction terms between M-stage and treatment. RESULTS: Among 972 patients, 432 had M0, 334 had M1, while M-stage at presentation was unknown in 206. There was no association of M-stage at presentation with rPFS in patients with prior local therapy (LT) (hazard ratio for M1-stage: 1.22 [95% confidence interval: 0.82-1.82]; unknown: 1.03 [0.77-1.38]) or without prior LT (M1-stage: 0.87 [0.64-1.19]; unknown: 1.15 [0.77-1.72]) with no significant heterogeneity. Similarly, there was no association of M-stage with OS in patients with prior LT (M1-stage: 1.04 [0.81-1.33]; unknown: 0.98 [0.79-1.21]) or without prior LT (M1-stage: 0.95 [0.70-1.29]; unknown: 1.17 [0.80-1.71]) with no significant heterogeneity. Based on M-stage at presentation, we did not find any significant heterogeneity in treatment effect on rPFS (interaction p = 0.13), and OS (interaction p = 0.87). CONCLUSION: M-stage at presentation had no association with survival in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. We did not find any statistically significant heterogeneity in efficacy of dual ARAT based on synchronous versus metachronous presentation.

A novel prostate cancer subtyping classifier based on luminal and basal phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is a clinically heterogeneous disease. The creation of an expression-based subtyping model based on prostate-specific biological processes was sought. METHODS: Unsupervised machine learning of gene expression profiles from prospectively collected primary prostate tumors (training, n = 32,000; evaluation, n = 68,547) was used to create a prostate subtyping classifier (PSC) based on basal versus luminal cell expression patterns and other gene signatures relevant to PCa biology. Subtype molecular pathways and clinical characteristics were explored in five other clinical cohorts. RESULTS: Clustering derived four subtypes: luminal differentiated (LD), luminal proliferating (LP), basal immune (BI), and basal neuroendocrine (BN). LP and LD tumors both had higher androgen receptor activity. LP tumors also had a higher expression of cell proliferation genes, MYC activity, and characteristics of homologous recombination deficiency. BI tumors possessed significant interferon γactivity and immune infiltration on immunohistochemistry. BN tumors were characterized by lower androgen receptor activity expression, lower immune infiltration, and enrichment with neuroendocrine expression patterns. Patients with LD tumors had less aggressive tumor characteristics and the longest time to metastasis after surgery. Only patients with BI tumors derived benefit from radiotherapy after surgery in terms of time to metastasis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.71; n = 855). In a phase 3 trial that randomized patients with metastatic PCa to androgen deprivation with or without docetaxel (n = 108), only patients with LP tumors derived survival benefit from docetaxel (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51). CONCLUSIONS: With the use of expression profiles from over 100,000 tumors, a PSC was developed that identified four subtypes with distinct biological and clinical features. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Prostate cancer can behave in an indolent or aggressive manner and vary in how it responds to certain treatments. To differentiate prostate cancer on the basis of biological features, we developed a novel RNA signature by using data from over 100,000 prostate tumors-the largest data set of its kind. This signature can inform patients and physicians on tumor aggressiveness and susceptibilities to treatments to help personalize cancer management.

LUNAR: a randomized Phase 2 study of 177 Lutetium-PSMA Neoadjuvant to Ablative Radiotherapy for Oligorecurrent Prostate Cancer (clinical trial protocol).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of 177 Lu-PNT2002, a novel radiolabelled small molecule that binds with high affinity to prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to all sites of metastasis, vs SBRT alone, in men with oligorecurrent metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 177 Lutetium-PSMA Neoadjuvant to Ablative Radiotherapy for Oligorecurrent Prostate Cancer (LUNAR) trial is an open-label, randomized, stratified, two-arm, single-centre, Phase 2 trial to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant 177 Lu-PNT2002 plus SBRT vs SBRT alone in men with oligorecurrent mHSPC. Key eligibility criteria include one to five lesions identified on a PSMA positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan centrally reviewed by a board-certified nuclear medicine physician. Key exclusion criteria include castrate-resistant disease, de novo oligometastatic disease and receipt of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) within 6 months of trial enrolment. The trial aims to enrol 100 patients who will be centrally randomized to one of the two treatment arms, in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the control arm receive SBRT to all sites of disease. Patients in the experimental arm receive two cycles of neoadjuvant 177 Lu-PNT2002 (6.8 GBq) 6-8 weeks apart, followed by an interval PSMA PET/CT in 4-6 weeks and dose-adapted SBRT to all sites of disease 1-2 weeks later. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints are radiographic and prostate-specific antigen-based progression, acute and late physician-scored toxicity, patient-reported quality of life, ADT-free survival, time to progression, overall survival, locoregional control, and duration of response. Enrolment in the study commenced in September 2022. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 177 Lu-PNT2002 to metastasis-directed therapy alone may potentially further forestall disease progression. The results of this Phase 2 trial will determine, for the first time in a randomized fashion, the added benefit of 177 Lu-PNT2002 to SBRT in patients with oligorecurrent mHSPC.

Association of PSA kinetics after testosterone recovery with subsequent recurrence: secondary analysis of a phase III randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: After cessation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), testosterone gradually recovers to supracastrate levels (> 50 ng/dL). After this, rises in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are often seen. However, it remains unknown whether early PSA kinetics after testosterone recovery are associated with subsequent biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a phase III randomized controlled trial in which newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer patients were randomly allocated to ADT for 6 months starting 4 months prior to or simultaneously with prostate RT. We calculated the PSA doubling time (PSADT) based on PSA values up to 18 months after supracastrate testosterone recovery. Competing risk regression was used to evaluate the association of PSADT with relative incidence of BCR, considering deaths as competing events. RESULTS: Overall, 313 patients were eligible. Median PSADT was 8 months. Cumulative incidence of BCR at 10 years from supracastrate testosterone recovery was 19% and 11% in patients with PSADT < 8 months and ≥ 8 months (p = 0.03). Compared to patients with PSADT of < 4 months, patients with higher PSADT (sHR for PSADT 4 to < 8 months: 0.36 [95% CI 0.16-0.82]; 8 to < 12 months: 0.26 [0.08-0.91]; ≥ 12 months: 0.20 [0.07-0.56]) had lower risk of relative incidence of BCR. CONCLUSIONS: Early PSA kinetics, within 18 months of recovery of testosterone to a supracastrate level, can predict for subsequent BCR. Taking account of early changes in PSA after testosterone recovery may allow for recognition of potential failures earlier in the disease course and thereby permit superior personalization of treatment.

Multimodality Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multimodality therapy including radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and hormone therapy are frequently deployed in the management of localized prostate cancer. We sought to perform a critical appraisal of the most contemporary literature focusing on the multimodality management of localized prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Men who are ideal candidates for multimodality therapy include those with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, high-risk disease, and very high-risk disease. Enhancements in both systemic agents (including second-generation antiandrogens) as well as localized therapies (such as stereotactic body radiotherapy and brachytherapy) are refining the optimal balance between the use of systemic and local therapies for localized prostate cancer. Genomic predictors are emerging as critical tools for more precisely allocating treatment intensification with multimodality therapies as well as treatment de-intensification. Close collaboration among medical oncologists, surgeons, and radiation oncologists will be critical for coordinating evidence-based multimodality therapies when clearly indicated and for supporting shared decision-making in areas where the evidence is mixed.

Selecting the optimal radiation modality in prostate cancer.

There are numerous radiation modalities for the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer. Classic clinical trials have established the basic tenets of treatment approaches, and emerging data have generated new potential avenues of treatment that optimize the therapeutic ratio by increasing prostate cancer tumor control while minimizing treatment-related toxicity. In the definitive setting, the selection of the optimal radiation therapy approach depends largely on the appropriate up-front risk stratification of men with prostate cancer, with greater intensification of treatment and greater integration of multimodality therapies for men with higher-risk disease. Hormonal therapy should be selectively deployed based on prognostic information derived from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group and biologic tumor aggressiveness informed by genomic classifiers. Moreover, treatment intensification and target volume delineation are increasingly informed by molecular imaging and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Herein, we perform a critical appraisal of the literature focusing on the optimal selection of radiation therapy modality for localized prostate cancer. Collaboration among medical oncologists, surgeons, and radiation oncologists will be critical for coordinating evidence-based radiation therapies when clearly indicated and for supporting shared decision-making when the evidence is incomplete.

Androgen deprivation therapy use and duration with definitive radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials have investigated various androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification strategies in men receiving radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. This individual patient data meta-analysis of relevant randomised trials aimed to quantify the benefit of these interventions in aggregate and in clinically relevant subgroups. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries, the Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings to identify trials with results published in English between Jan 1, 1962, and Dec 30, 2020. Multicentre randomised trials were eligible if they evaluated the use or prolongation of ADT (or both) in men with localised prostate cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy, reported or collected distant metastasis and survival data, and used ADT for a protocol-defined finite duration. The Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium was accessed to obtain individual patient data from randomised trials. The primary outcome was metastasis-free survival. Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained through stratified Cox models for ADT use (radiotherapy alone vs radiotherapy plus ADT), neoadjuvant ADT extension (ie, extension of total ADT duration in the neoadjuvant setting from 3-4 months to 6-9 months), and adjuvant ADT prolongation (ie, prolongation of total ADT duration in the adjuvant setting from 4-6 months to 18-36 months). Formal interaction tests between interventions and metastasis-free survival were done for prespecified subgroups defined by age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, and radiotherapy dose. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021236855. FINDINGS: Our search returned 12 eligible trials that provided individual patient data (10 853 patients) with a median follow-up of 11·4 years (IQR 9·0-15·0). The addition of ADT to radiotherapy significantly improved metastasis-free survival (HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·77-0·89], p<0·0001), as did adjuvant ADT prolongation (0·84 [0·78-0·91], p<0·0001), but neoadjuvant ADT extension did not (0·95 [0·83-1·09], p=0·50). Treatment effects were similar irrespective of radiotherapy dose, patient age, or NCCN risk group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings provide the strongest level of evidence so far to the magnitude of the benefit of ADT treatment intensification with radiotherapy for men with localised prostate cancer. Adding ADT and prolonging the portion of ADT that follows radiotherapy is associated with improved metastasis-free survival in men, regardless of risk group, age, and radiotherapy dose delivered; however, the magnitude of the benefit could vary and shared decision making with patients is recommended. FUNDING: University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Pan-cancer analysis of prognostic metastatic phenotypes.

Although cancer is highly heterogeneous, all metastatic cancer is considered American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Stage IV disease. The purpose of this project was to redefine staging of metastatic cancer. Internal validation of nationally representative patient data from the National Cancer Database (n = 461 357; 2010-2013), and external validation using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (n = 106 595; 2014-2015) were assessed using the concordance index for evaluation of survival prediction. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for overall survival by considering identified phenotypes (latent classes) and other confounding variables. Latent class analysis was performed for phenotype identification, where Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and sample-size-adjusted BIC were used to select the optimal number of distinct clusters. Kappa coefficients assessed external cluster validation. Latent class analysis identified five metastatic phenotypes with differences in overall survival (P < .0001): (Stage IVA) nearly exclusive bone-only metastases (n = 59 049, 12.8%; median survival 12.7 months; common in lung, breast and prostate cancers); (IVB) predominant lung metastases (n = 62 491, 13.5%; 11.4 months; common in breast, stomach, kidney, ovary, uterus, thyroid, cervix and soft tissue cancers); (IVC) predominant liver/lung metastases (n = 130 014, 28.2%; 7.0 months; common in colorectum, pancreatic, lung, esophagus and stomach cancers); (IVD) bone/liver/lung metastases predominant over brain (n = 61 004, 13.2%; 5.9 months; common in lung and breast cancers); and (IVE) brain/lung metastases predominant over bone/liver (n = 148 799, 32.3%; 5.7 months; lung cancer and melanoma). Long-term survivors were identified, particularly in Stages IVA-B. A pan-cancer nomogram model to predict survival (STARS: site, tumor, age, race, sex) was created, validated and provides 13% better prognostication than AJCC: 1-month concordance index of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.67) vs 0.61 (95% CI: 0.60-0.61). STARS is simple, uses easily accessible variables, better prognosticates survival outcomes and provides a platform to develop novel metastasis-directed clinical trials.

Genomic biomarkers to guide precision radiotherapy in prostate cancer.

Our ability to prognosticate the clinical course of patients with cancer has historically been limited to clinical, histopathological, and radiographic features. It has long been clear however, that these data alone do not adequately capture the heterogeneity and breadth of disease trajectories experienced by patients. The advent of efficient genomic sequencing has led to a revolution in cancer care as we try to understand and personalize treatment specific to patient clinico-genomic phenotypes. Within prostate cancer, emerging evidence suggests that tumor genomics (e.g., DNA, RNA, and epigenetics) can be utilized to inform clinical decision making. In addition to providing discriminatory information about prognosis, it is likely tumor genomics also hold a key in predicting response to oncologic therapies which could be used to further tailor treatment recommendations. Herein we review select literature surrounding the use of tumor genomics within the management of prostate cancer, specifically leaning toward analytically validated and clinically tested genomic biomarkers utilized in radiotherapy and/or adjunctive therapies given with radiotherapy.

Intermediate clinical endpoints for surrogacy in localised prostate cancer: an aggregate meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The international Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate working group has established metastasis-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in localised prostate cancer based on the findings of 19 predominantly radiotherapy-based trials. We sought to comprehensively assess aggregate trial-level performance of commonly reported intermediate clinical endpoints across all randomised trials in localised prostate cancer. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we searched PubMed for all trials in localised or biochemically recurrent prostate cancer published between Jan 1, 1970, and Jan 15, 2020. Eligible trials had to be randomised, therapeutic, reporting overall survival and at least one intermediate clinical endpoint, and with a sample size of at least 70 participants. Trials of metastatic disease were excluded. Intermediate clinical endpoints included biochemical failure, local failure, distant metastases, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and metastasis-free survival. Candidacy for surrogacy was assessed using the second condition of the meta-analytical approach (ie, correlation of the treatment effect of the intermediate clinical endpoint and overall survival), using R2 weighted by the inverse variance of the log intermediate clinical endpoint hazard ratio. The intermediate clinical endpoint was deemed to be a surrogate for overall survival if R2 was 0·7 or greater. FINDINGS: 75 trials (53 631 patients) were included in our analysis. Median follow-up was 9·1 years (IQR 5·7-10·6). Biochemical failure (R2 0·38 [95% CI 0·11-0·64]), biochemical failure-free survival (R2 0·12 [0·0030-0·33]), biochemical failure and clinical failure (R2 0·28 [0·0045-0·65]), and local failure (R2 0·085 [0·00-0·37]) correlated poorly with overall survival. Progression-free survival (R2 0·46 [95% CI 0·22-0·67]) showed moderate correlation with overall survival, and metastasis-free survival (R2 0·78 [0·59-0·89]) correlated strongly. INTERPRETATION: Intermediate clinical endpoints based on biochemical and local failure did not meet the second condition of the meta-analytical approach and are not surrogate endpoints for overall survival in localised prostate cancer. Our findings validate metastasis-free survival as the only identified surrogate endpoint for overall survival to date. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Foundation and National Institutes of Health.

False positive PSMA PET for tumor remnants in the irradiated prostate and other interpretation pitfalls in a prospective multi-center trial.

PURPOSE: Readers need to be informed about potential pitfalls of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET interpretation. METHODS: Here we report [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET findings discordant with the histopathology/composite reference standard in a recently published prospective trial on 635 patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. RESULTS: Consensus reads were false positive in 20 regions of 17/217 (8%) patients with lesion validation. Majority of the false positive interpretations (13 of 20, 65%) occurred in the context of suspected prostate (bed) relapse (T) after radiotherapy (n = 11); other false positive findings were noted for prostate bed post prostatectomy (T, n = 2), pelvic nodes (N, n = 2), or extra pelvic lesions (M, n = 5). Major sources of false positive findings were PSMA-expressing residual adenocarcinoma with marked post-radiotherapy treatment effect. False negative interpretation occurred in 8 regions of 6/79 (8%) patients with histopathology validation, including prostate (bed) (n = 5), pelvic nodes (n = 1), and extra pelvic lesions (n = 2). Lesions were missed mostly due to small metastases or adjacent bladder/urine uptake. CONCLUSION: [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET at biochemical recurrence resulted in less than 10% false positive interpretations. Post-radiotherapy prostate uptake was a major source of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET false positivity. In few cases, PET correctly detects residual PSMA expression post-radiotherapy, originating however from treated, benign tissue or potentially indolent tumor remnants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02940262 and NCT03353740.

Magnetic resonance imaging-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (mirage): a phase iii randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is becoming increasingly used in treating localized prostate cancer (PCa), with evidence showing similar toxicity and efficacy profiles when compared with longer courses of definitive radiation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiotherapy has multiple potential advantages over standard computed tomography (CT)-guided radiotherapy, including enhanced prostate visualization (abrogating the need for fiducials and MRI fusion), enhanced identification of the urethra, the ability to track the prostate in real-time, and the capacity to perform online adaptive planning. However, it is unknown whether these potential advantages translate into improved outcomes. This phase III randomized superiority trial is designed to prospectively evaluate whether toxicity is lower after MRI-guided versus CT-guided SBRT. METHODS: Three hundred men with localized PCa will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to SBRT using CT or MRI guidance. Randomization will be stratified by baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (≤15 or > 15) and prostate gland volume (≤50 cc or > 50 cc). Five fractions of 8 Gy will be delivered to the prostate over the course of fourteen days, with or without hormonal therapy and elective nodal radiotherapy (to a dose of 5 Gy per fraction) as per the investigator's discretion. The primary endpoint is the incidence of physician-reported acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity (during the first 90 days after SBRT), as assessed by the CTCAE version 4.03 scale. Secondary clinical endpoints include incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, 5-year cumulative incidences of physician-reported late grade ≥ 2 GU and GI toxicity, temporal changes in patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes, 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival and the proportion of fractions of MRI-guided SBRT in which online adaptive radiotherapy is used. DISCUSSION: The MIRAGE trial is the first randomized trial comparing MRI-guided with standard CT-guided SBRT for localized PCa. The primary hypothesis is that MRI-guided SBRT will lead to an improvement in the cumulative incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity when compared to CT-guided SBRT. The pragmatic superiority design focused on an acute toxicity endpoint will allow an early comparison of the two technologies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04384770. Date of registration: May 12, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04384770 PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 2.1, Aug 28, 2020.

Phase 3 multicenter randomized trial of PSMA PET/CT prior to definitive radiation therapy for unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer [PSMA dRT]: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Definitive radiation therapy (dRT) is an effective initial treatment of intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa). PSMA PET/CT is superior to standard of care imaging (CT, MRI, bone scan) for detecting regional and distant metastatic PCa. PSMA PET/CT thus has the potential to guide patient selection and the planning for dRT and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: This is a multicenter randomized phase 3 trial (NCT04457245). We will randomize 312 patients to proceed with standard dRT (control Arm, n = 150), or undergo a PSMA PET/CT scan at the study site (both 18F-DCFPyL and 68Ga-PSMA-11 can be used) prior to dRT planning (intervention arm, n = 162). dRT will be performed at the treating radiation oncologist facility. In the control arm, dRT will be performed as routinely planned. In the intervention arm, the treating radiation oncologist can incorporate PSMA PET/CT findings into the RT planning. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is administered per discretion of the treating radiation oncologist and may be modified as a result of the PSMA PET/CT results. We assume that approximately 8% of subjects randomized to the PSMA PET arm will be found to have M1 disease and thus will be more appropriate candidates for long-term systemic or multimodal therapy, rather than curative intent dRT. PET M1 patients will thus not be included in the primary endpoint analysis. The primary endpoint is the success rate of patients with unfavorable IR and HR PCa after standard dRT versus PSMA PET-based dRT. Secondary Endpoints (whole cohort) include progression free survival (PFS), metastasis-free survival after initiation of RT, overall survival (OS), % of change in initial treatment intent and Safety. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized phase 3 prospective trial designed to determine whether PSMA PET/CT molecular imaging can improve outcomes in patients with PCa who receive dRT. In this trial the incorporation of PSMA PET/CT may improve the success rate of curative intent radiotherapy in two ways: to optimize patient selection as a biomarker and to personalizes the radiotherapy plan. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UCLA IND#147591 ○ Submission: 02.27.2020 ○ Safe-to-proceed letter issued by FDA: 04.01.2020 UCLA IRB #20-000378 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04457245 . Date of Registry: 07.07.2020. Essen EudraCT 2020-003526-23.

A personalized decision aid for prostate cancer shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: A shared decision-making model is preferred for engaging prostate cancer patients in treatment decisions. However, the process of assessing an individual's preferences and values is challenging and not formalized. The purpose of this study is to develop an automated decision aid for patient-centric treatment decision-making using decision analysis, preference thresholds and value elicitations to maximize the compatibility between a patient's treatment expectations and outcome. METHODS: A template for patient-centric medical decision-making was constructed. The inputs included prostate cancer risk group, pre-treatment health state, treatment alternatives (primarily focused on radiation in this model), side effects (erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, nocturia and bowel incontinence), and treatment success (5-year freedom from biochemical failure). A linear additive value function was used to combine the values for each attribute (side effects, success and the alternatives) into a value for all prospects. The patient-reported toxicity probabilities were derived from phase II and III trials. The probabilities are conditioned on the starting state for each of the side effects. Toxicity matrices for erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, nocturia and bowel incontinence were created for the treatment alternatives. Toxicity probability thresholds were obtained by identifying the patient's maximum acceptable threshold for each of the side effects. Results are represented as a visual. R and Rstudio were used to perform analyses, and R Shiny for application creation. RESULTS: We developed a web-based decision aid. Based on preliminary use of the application, every treatment alternative could be the best choice for a decision maker with a particular set of preferences. This result implies that no treatment has determinist dominance over the remaining treatments and that a preference-based approach can help patients through their decision-making process, potentially affecting compliance with treatment, tolerance of side effects and satisfaction with the decision. CONCLUSIONS: We present a unique patient-centric prostate cancer treatment decision aid that systematically assesses and incorporates a patient's preferences and values to rank treatment options by likelihood of achieving the preferred outcome. This application enables the practice and study of personalized medicine. This model can be expanded to include additional inputs, such as genomics, as well as competing, concurrent or sequential therapies.