A phase 1/2 study of disulfiram and copper with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: This phase 1/2 study evaluates the safety and preliminary efficacy of combining disulfiram and copper (DSF/Cu) with radiation therapy (RT) and temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: Patients received standard RT and TMZ with DSF (250-375 mg daily) and Cu, followed by adjuvant TMZ plus DSF (500 mg/day) and Cu. Pharmacokinetic analyses determined drug concentrations in plasma and tumors using high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients, with a median follow-up of 26.0 months, were treated, including 12 IDH-mutant, 9 NF1-mutant, 3 BRAF-mutant, and 9 other IDH-wildtype cases. In the phase-1 arm, 18 patients were treated; dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) probabilities were 10% (95% CI: 3-29%) at 250 mg/day and 21% (95% CI: 7-42%) at 375 mg/day. The phase 2 arm treated 15 additional patients at 250 mg/day. No significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival were noted between IDH-mutant and NF1-mutant cohorts compared to institutionally counterparts treated without DSF/Cu. However, extended remission occurred in three BRAF-mutant patients. Diethyl-dithiocarbamate-copper, the proposed active metabolite of DSF/Cu, was detected in plasma but not in tumors. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum tolerated dose of DSF with RT and TMZ is 375 mg/day. DSF/Cu showed limited clinical efficacy for most patients. However, promising efficacy was observed in BRAF-mutant GBM, warranting further investigation.

Physician- and Patient-Reported Outcomes of the MC1635 Phase 3 Trial of Ultrahypofractionated Versus Moderately Hypofractionated Adjuvant Radiation Therapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to report physician- and patient-reported outcomes of patients with localized breast cancer treated with moderate versus ultrahypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between February 2018 and February 2020, patients with localized breast cancer (pT0-3 pN0-1 M0) were offered participation in a phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing adjuvant moderate hypofractionation (MHF) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions versus ultrahypofractionation (UHF) to 25 Gy in 5 fractions after BCS, with an optional simultaneously integrated boost. Toxicities, cosmesis, and quality of life were assessed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years from irradiation using validated metric tools. RESULTS: One hundred seven patients were randomized to MHF (n = 54) or UHF (n = 53) adjuvant WBI. The median follow-up was 42.8 months. Grade 2 radiation dermatitis was experienced by 4 patients (7.4%) in the MHF arm and 2 patients (3.7%) in the UHF arm at EOT (P = .726). No grade 3 or higher toxicities were observed. Deterioration of cosmesis by physician assessment was observed in 2 (6.7%) patients treated in the UHF arm and 1 (1.9%) patient treated in the MHF arm at EOT (P = .534), whereas at 3 months, only 1 (1.8%) patient treated in the MHF arm demonstrated deterioration of cosmesis (P = .315). At EOT, 91% and 94% of patients reported excellent/good cosmesis among those treated with MHF and UHF regimens, respectively (P = .550). At 3 months, more patients within the MHF arm reported excellent/good cosmesis compared with those in the UHF arm (100% vs 91%; P = .030). However, the difference in patient-reported cosmesis disappeared at the 1-, 2-, and 3-year time points. CONCLUSIONS: UHF WBI showed similar treatment-related late toxicities and similar provider-scored cosmesis compared with MHF radiation in patients treated adjuvantly after BCS.

Multicenter Multivendor Evaluation of Dose Volume Histogram Creation Consistencies for 8 Commercial Radiation Therapy Dosimetric Systems.

PURPOSE: To evaluate dose volume histogram (DVH) construction differences across 8 major commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) and dose reporting systems for clinically treated plans of various anatomic sites and target sizes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Dose files from 10 selected clinically treated plans with a hypofractionation, stereotactic radiation therapy prescription or sharp dose gradients such as head and neck plans ranging from prescription doses of 18 Gy in 1 fraction to 70 Gy in 35 fractions, each calculated at 0.25 and 0.125 cm grid size, were created and anonymized in Eclipse TPS, and exported to 7 other major TPS (Pinnacle, RayStation, and Elements) and dose reporting systems (MIM, Mobius, ProKnow, and Velocity) systems for comparison. Dose-volume constraint points of clinical importance for each plan were collected from each evaluated system (D0.03 cc [Gy], volume, and the mean dose were used for structures without specified constraints). Each reported constraint type and structure volume was normalized to the value from Eclipse for a pairwise comparison. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical significance and a multivariable regression model was evaluated adjusting for plan, grid size, and distance to target center. RESULTS: For all DVH points relative to Eclipse, all systems reported median values within 1.0% difference of each other; however, they were all different from Eclipse. Considering mean values, Pinnacle, RayStation, and Elements averaged at 1.038, 1.046, and 1.024, respectively, while MIM, Mobius, ProKnow, and Velocity reported 1.026, 1.050, 1.033, and 1.022, respectively relative to Eclipse. Smaller dose grid size improved agreement between the systems marginally without statistical significance. For structure volumes relative to Eclipse, larger differences are seen across all systems with a range in median values up to 3.0% difference and mean up to 10.1% difference. CONCLUSIONS: Large variations were observed between all systems. Eclipse generally reported, at statistically significant levels, lower values than all other evaluated systems. The nonsignificant change resulting from lowering the dose grid resolution indicates that this resolution may be less important than other aspects of calculating DVH curves, such as the 3-dimensional modeling of the structure.

Clinicopathologic Factors and Their Association with Outcomes of Salivary Duct Carcinoma: A Multicenter Experience.

Purpose: This series reports long-term clinical outcomes of patients with salivary duct carcinoma (SDC), which is associated with a poor prognosis. Methods and Materials: Eighty-nine patients with SDC were treated with curative intent from February 5, 1971, through September 15, 2018. Kaplan-Meier and competing risk analyses were used to estimate locoregional control, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). Cox regression analyses of disease and treatment characteristics were performed to discover predictors of locoregional control, DMFS, and OS. Results: Median follow-up was 44.1 months (range, 0.23-356.67). The median age at diagnosis was 66 years (interquartile range, 57-75). Curative surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy was performed in 73 patients (82%). Chemotherapy was delivered in 26 patients (29.2%). The 5-year local recurrence and distant metastasis rates were 27% and 44%, respectively, with death as a competing risk. Distant metastasis was associated with lymph node-positive disease (hazard ratio [HR], 3.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-7.23; P = .006), stage IV disease (HR, 4.78; 95% CI, 1.14-20.11; P = .033), perineural invasion (HR, 4.56; 95% CI, 1.74-11.97; P = .002), and positive margins (HR, 9.06; 95% CI, 3.88-21.14; P < .001). Median OS was 4.84 years (95% CI, 3.54-7.02). The 5-year OS was 42%. Reduced OS was associated with lymphovascular space invasion (HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.2-10.1; P = .022), perineural invasion (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.06-3.97; P = .033), positive margins (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-5.6; P = .011), N2 disease (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.03-3.43; P = .04), and N3 disease (HR, 11.76; 95% CI, 3.19-43.3; P < .001). Conclusions: In this single-institution, multicenter retrospective study, the 5-year survival was 42% in patients with SDC. Lymphovascular space invasion, lymph node involvement, and higher staging at diagnosis were associated with lower DMFS and OS.

Dosimetric comparison between proton beam therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, and 3D conformal therapy for soft tissue extremity sarcoma.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Proton beam therapy (PBT) may provide a dosimetric advantage in sparing soft tissue and bone for selected patients with extremity soft sarcoma (eSTS). We compared PBT with photons plans generated using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). MATERIALS/METHODS: Seventeen patients previously treated with pencil beam scanning PBT were included in this study. Of these patients, 14 treated with pre-operative 50 Gy in 25 fractions were analyzed. IMRT and 3D-CRT plans were created to compare against the original PBT plans. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) indices were evaluated amongst PBT, IMRT, and 3D plans. Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests were used to get the statistical significance. A p value smaller than .05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: For the clinical target volume (CTV), D2%, D95%, D98%, Dmin, Dmax, and V50Gy, were assessed. Dmin, D1%, Dmax, Dmean, V1Gy, V5Gy, and V50Gy were evaluated for the adjacent soft tissue. D1%, Dmax, Dmean, and V35-50% were evaluated for bone. All plans met CTV target coverage. The PBT plans delivered less dose to soft tissue and bone. The mean dose to the soft tissue was 2 Gy, 11 Gy, and 13 Gy for PBT, IMRT, and 3D, respectively (p < .001). The mean dose to adjacent bone was 15 Gy, 26 Gy, and 28 Gy for PBT, IMRT, and 3D, respectively (p = .022). CONCLUSION: PBT plans for selected patients with eSTS demonstrated improved sparing of circumferential soft tissue and adjacent bone compared to IMRT and 3D-CRT. Further evaluation will determine if this improved dosimetry correlates with reduced toxicity and improved quality of life.

Validation of clinical acceptability of deep-learning-based automated segmentation of organs-at-risk for head-and-neck radiotherapy treatment planning.

Introduction: Organ-at-risk segmentation for head and neck cancer radiation therapy is a complex and time-consuming process (requiring up to 42 individual structure, and may delay start of treatment or even limit access to function-preserving care. Feasibility of using a deep learning (DL) based autosegmentation model to reduce contouring time without compromising contour accuracy is assessed through a blinded randomized trial of radiation oncologists (ROs) using retrospective, de-identified patient data. Methods: Two head and neck expert ROs used dedicated time to create gold standard (GS) contours on computed tomography (CT) images. 445 CTs were used to train a custom 3D U-Net DL model covering 42 organs-at-risk, with an additional 20 CTs were held out for the randomized trial. For each held-out patient dataset, one of the eight participant ROs was randomly allocated to review and revise the contours produced by the DL model, while another reviewed contours produced by a medical dosimetry assistant (MDA), both blinded to their origin. Time required for MDAs and ROs to contour was recorded, and the unrevised DL contours, as well as the RO-revised contours by the MDAs and DL model were compared to the GS for that patient. Results: Mean time for initial MDA contouring was 2.3 hours (range 1.6-3.8 hours) and RO-revision took 1.1 hours (range, 0.4-4.4 hours), compared to 0.7 hours (range 0.1-2.0 hours) for the RO-revisions to DL contours. Total time reduced by 76% (95%-Confidence Interval: 65%-88%) and RO-revision time reduced by 35% (95%-CI,-39%-91%). All geometric and dosimetric metrics computed, agreement with GS was equivalent or significantly greater (p<0.05) for RO-revised DL contours compared to the RO-revised MDA contours, including volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (VDSC), surface DSC, added path length, and the 95%-Hausdorff distance. 32 OARs (76%) had mean VDSC greater than 0.8 for the RO-revised DL contours, compared to 20 (48%) for RO-revised MDA contours, and 34 (81%) for the unrevised DL OARs. Conclusion: DL autosegmentation demonstrated significant time-savings for organ-at-risk contouring while improving agreement with the institutional GS, indicating comparable accuracy of DL model. Integration into the clinical practice with a prospective evaluation is currently underway.

Initial Quality of Life and Toxicity Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Study of Moderately Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy With or Without Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: PCG GU003.

Purpose: Our objective was to report the quality of life (QoL) analysis and toxicity in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) GU003. Methods and Materials: Between 2012 and 2019, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT) to 70 Gy relative biologic effectiveness in 28 fractions to the prostate with or without 6 months of ADT. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, Short-Form 12, and the American Urological Association Symptom Index instruments were given at baseline and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after PBT. Toxicities were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4). Results: One hundred ten patients were randomized to PBT either with 6 months of ADT (n = 55) or without ADT (n = 55). The median follow-up was 32.4 months (range, 5.5-84.6). On average, 101 out of 110 (92%) patients filled out baseline QoL and patient-reported outcome surveys. The compliance was 84%, 82%, 64%, and 42% at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Baseline median American Urological Association Symptom Index was comparable between arms (6 [11%] ADT vs 5 [9%] no ADT, P = .359). Acute and late grade 2+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were similar between arms. The ADT arm experienced a QoL decline of mean scores in the sexual (-16.1, P < .001) and hormonal (-6.3, P < .001) domains, with the largest time-specific hormonal differences at 3 (-13.8, P < .001) and 6 (-11.2, P < .001) months. The hormonal QoL domain returned to baseline 6 months after therapy. There was a trend to baseline in sexual function 6 months after completion of ADT. Conclusions: After 6 months of ADT, sexual and hormonal domains returned to baseline 6 months after completion of treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Pragmatic, Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Carbon Ion Therapy, Surgery, and Proton Therapy for the Management of Pelvic Sarcomas (Soft Tissue/Bone) Involving the Bone: The PROSPER Study Rationale and Design.

Surgical treatment of pelvic sarcoma involving the bone is the standard of care but is associated with several sequelae and reduced functional quality of life (QOL). Treatment with photon and proton radiotherapy is associated with relapse. Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) may reduce both relapse rates and treatment sequelae. The PROSPER study is a tricontinental, nonrandomized, prospective, three-arm, pragmatic trial evaluating treatments of pelvic sarcoma involving the bone. Patients aged at least 15 years are eligible for inclusion. Participants must have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status score of two or less, newly diagnosed disease, and histopathologic confirmation of pelvic chordoma, chondrosarcoma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma with bone involvement, rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) with bone involvement, or non-RMS soft tissue sarcoma with bone involvement. Treatment arms include (1) CIRT (n = 30) delivered in Europe and Asia, (2) surgical treatment with or without adjuvant radiotherapy (n = 30), and (3) proton therapy (n = 30). Arms two and three will be conducted at Mayo Clinic campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. The primary end point is to compare the 1-year change in functional QOL between CIRT and surgical treatment. Additional comparisons among the three arms will be made between treatment sequelae, local control, and other QOL measures.

Preliminary Analysis of a Phase II Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer With High-Risk Features After Radical Prostatectomy.

Purpose: There are limited data regarding using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the postprostatectomy setting. Here, we present a preliminary analysis of a prospective phase II trial that aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of postprostatectomy SBRT for adjuvant or early salvage therapy. Materials and Methods: Between May 2018 and May 2020, 41 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria and were stratified into 3 groups: group I (adjuvant), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 0.2 ng/mL with high-risk features including positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, or extracapsular extension; group II (salvage), with PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL but < 2 ng/mL; or group III (oligometastatic), with PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL but < 2 ng/mL and up to 3 sites of nodal or bone metastases. Androgen deprivation therapy was not offered to group I. Androgen deprivation therapy was offered for 6 months for group II and 18 months for group III patients. SBRT dose to the prostate bed was 30 to 32 Gy in 5 fractions. Baseline-adjusted physician reported toxicities (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), patient reported quality-of-life (Expanded Prostate Index Composite, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System), and American Urologic Association scores were evaluated for all patients. Results: The median follow-up was 23 months (range, 10-37). SBRT was adjuvant in 8 (20%) patients, salvage in 28 (68%), and salvage with the presence of oligometastases in 5 (12%) patients. Urinary, bowel, and sexual quality of life domains remained high after SBRT. Patients tolerated SBRT with no grade 3 or higher (3+) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities. The baseline adjusted acute and late toxicity grade 2 genitourinary (urinary incontinence) rate was 2.4% (1/41) and 12.2% (5/41). At 2 years, clinical disease control was 95%, and biochemical control was 73%. Among the 2 clinical failures, 1 was a regional node and the other a bone metastasis. Oligometastatic sites were salvaged successfully with SBRT. There were no in-target failures. Conclusions: Postprostatectomy SBRT was very well tolerated in this prospective cohort, with no significant effect on quality of life metrics postirradiation, while providing excellent clinical disease control.

Outcomes of Proton Beam Therapy Compared With Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Uterine Cancer.

Purpose: To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in patients with endometrial cancer receiving adjuvant pelvic radiation therapy with proton beam therapy (PT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Materials and Methods: Patients with uterine cancer treated with curative intent who received either adjuvant PT or IMRT between 2014 and 2020 were identified. Patients were enrolled into a prospective registry using a gynecologic-specific subset of PRO-CTCAE designed to assess symptom impact on daily living. Questions included gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms of diarrhea, flatulence, bowel incontinence, and constipation in addition to other pertinent gynecologic, urinary, and other general symptoms. Symptom-based questions were on a 0- to 4-point scale, with grade 3+ symptoms occurring frequently or almost always. Patient-reported toxicity was analyzed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment. Unequal variance t tests were used to determine if treatment type was a significant factor in baseline-adjusted PRO-CTCAE. Results: Sixty-seven patients met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two received PT and 45 patients received IMRT. Brachytherapy boost was delivered in 73% of patients. Median external beam dose was 45 Gy for both PT and IMRT (range, 45-58.8 Gy). When comparing PRO-CTCAE, PT was associated with less diarrhea at EOT (P = .01) and at 12 months (P = .24) than IMRT. Loss of bowel control at 12 months was more common in patients receiving IMRT (P = .15). Any patient reporting grade 3+ GI toxicity was noted more frequently with IMRT (31% versus 9%, P = .09). Discussion: Adjuvant PT is a promising treatment for patients with uterine cancer and may reduce patient-reported GI toxicity as compared with IMRT.

A Prospective Study of Mucosal Sparing Radiation Therapy in Resected Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to report the prospective results of mucosal sparing radiation therapy in human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From March 2016 through May 2019, patients were enrolled in this institutional review board-approved prospective cohort study at a multisite institution. Inclusion criteria included p16+ American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition pathologic T1 or T2, N1 to N3, and M0 oropharyngeal cancers. Proton therapy (PT) was delivered to at-risk nodal regions, excluding the primary mucosal site. Secondary to insurance denial for PT, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was allowed. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Head and Neck Module and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System surveys (quality of life [QOL]) and modified barium swallowing impairment profiles (MBSImP) were obtained at baseline before radiation therapy, then 3 and 12 months after radiation therapy. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for time-to-event clinical outcomes, and repeated measures mixed models were used to explore changes in QOL over time. A comparison of QOL and swallowing outcomes with standard-of-care treatment was analyzed. RESULTS: There were 61 evaluable patients with a median follow-up of 38 months (range, 10-64); 44 (72%) were treated with PT and 17 (28%) were treated with IMRT. The 2-year local control, locoregional control, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were 98%, 97%, 98%, and 100%, respectively. There were 6 grade ≥3 events related to treatment. Two IMRT patients required percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement during treatment secondary to significant nausea due to dysgeusia. Patients noted significant QOL improvement over time in the pain, swallowing, speech, social eating, social contact, mouth opening, and use of pain medication domains (all P < .02). The MBSImP overall severity score as well as oral and pharyngeal impairment scores showed stability with no significant change over time. For the 44 patients treated with PT, the mean D95 to the primary target was 10.7 Gy (standard deviation = 12.5 Gy). CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal sparing radiation is well tolerated in select resected human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with a low risk of recurrence at the mucosal primary site, a low rate of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement, and few radiation-related grade ≥3 adverse events.

Pilot/Phase II Trial of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy to the Whole Breast Alone Before Breast Conserving Surgery.

Purpose: Our purpose was to report the results of a phase II trial of patients with breast cancer treated with hypofractionated whole breast radiation therapy (RT) before breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Methods and materials: Between 2019 and 2020, patients with cT0-T2, N0, M0 breast cancer were enrolled. Patients were treated with hypofractionated whole breast RT, 25 Gy in 5 fractions, 4 to 8 weeks before BCS. Pathologic assessment was performed using the residual cancer burden (RCB). Toxicities were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4). Quality of life was assessed with Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, The Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale, Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. Results: Twenty-two patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 7.6 months (range, 0.2-16.8). Seven (32%) and 2 (9%) patients experienced grade 2+ or 3 toxicities, respectively. Overall quality of life Linear Analogue Self-Assessment and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System did not change significantly from baseline (P = .21 and P = .72, respectively). There was no clinically significant change (≥1 point) in any of The Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale domains. Only 1 (5%) patient experienced a clinical deterioration that corresponded to a "fair" outcome on the Harvard Cosmesis Scale. At pathologic evaluation, 14 (64%) patients had RCB-0 or RCB-I, including 3 (14%) patients with a pathologic complete response (RCB-0). Eight patients (36%) had RCB-II. No local or distant recurrences have been observed. Conclusions: Extremely hypofractionated whole breast RT before BCS is a feasible approach. There were low rates of toxicities and good cosmesis. Further investigation into this approach with RT before BCS is warranted.

MR-Guided Radiation Therapy With Concurrent Gemcitabine/Nab-Paclitaxel Chemotherapy in Inoperable Pancreatic Cancer: A TITE-CRM Phase I Trial.

PURPOSE: Ablative radiation therapy for borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA-PDAC) may limit concurrent chemotherapy dosing and usually is only safely deliverable to tumors distant from gastrointestinal organs. Magnetic resonance guided radiation therapy may safely permit radiation and chemotherapy dose escalation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a single-arm phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose of ablative hypofractionated radiation with full-dose gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with BR/LA-PDAC. Patients were treated with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (1000/125 mg/m2) x 1c then concurrent gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel and radiation. Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel and radiation doses were escalated per time-to-event continual reassessment method from 40 to 45 Gy 25 fxs with chemotherapy (600-800/75 mg/m2) to 60 to 67.5 Gy/15 fractions and concurrent gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (1000/100 mg/m2). The primary endpoint was maximum tolerated dose of radiation as defined by 60-day dose limiting toxicity (DLT). DLT was treatment-related G5, G4 hematologic, or G3 gastrointestinal requiring hospitalization >3 days. Secondary endpoints included resection rates, local progression free survival (LPFS), distant metastasis free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirty patients enrolled (March 2015-February 2019), with 26 evaluable patients (2 progressed before radiation, 1 was determined ineligible for radiation during planning, 1 withdrew consent). One DLT was observed. The DLT rate was 14.1% (3.3%-24.9%) with a maximum tolerated dose of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (1000/100 mg/m2) and 67.5 Gy/15 fractions. At a median follow-up of 40.6 months for living patients the median OS was 14.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.9-28.2 months). The median OS for patients with Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group 0 and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 <90 were 34.1 (95% CI, 13.6-54.1) and 43.0 (95% CI, 8.0-not reached) months, respectively. Two-year LPFS and DMFS were 85% (95% CI, 63%-94%) and 57% (95% CI, 34%-73%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Full-dose gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel with ablative magnetic resonance guided radiation therapy dosing is safe in patients with BR/LA-PDAC, with promising LPFS and DMFS.

Cardiopulmonary Toxicity Following Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) for Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) has the potential to reduce radiation dose to normal organs when compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We hypothesized that IMPT is associated with a reduced rate of cardiopulmonary toxicities in patients with Stage III NSCLC when compared with IMRT. METHODS: We analyzed 163 consecutively treated patients with biopsy-proven, stage III NSCLC who received IMPT (n = 35, 21%) or IMRT (n = 128, 79%). Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were analyzed. Overall survival (OS), freedom-from distant metastasis (FFDM), freedom-from locoregional relapse (FFLR), and cardiopulmonary toxicities (CTCAE v5.0) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimate. Univariate cox regressions were conducted for the final model. RESULTS: Median follow-up of surviving patients was 25.5 (range, 4.6-58.1) months. Median RT dose was 60 (range, 45-72) Gy [RBE]. OS, FFDM, and FFLR were not different based on RT modality. IMPT provided significant dosimetric pulmonary and cardiac sparing when compared to IMRT. IMPT was associated with a reduced rate of grade more than or equal to 3 pneumonitis (HR 0.25, P = .04) and grade more than or equal to 3 cardiac events (HR 0.33, P = .08). Pre-treatment predicted diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide less than equal to 57% (HR 2.8, P = .04) and forced expiratory volume in the first second less than equal to 61% (HR 3.1, P = .03) were associated with an increased rate of grade more than or equal to 3 pneumonitis. CONCLUSIONS: IMPT is associated with a reduced risk of clinically significant pneumonitis and cardiac events when compared with IMRT without compromising tumor control in stage III NSCLC. IMPT may provide a safer treatment option, particularly for high-risk patients with poor pretreatment pulmonary function.

Patient-reported outcomes for patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy: A single-center registry experience.

Background: We present Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) for patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer with curative intent. We describe the frequency and severity of PRO-CTCAE and analyze them with respect to dose fractionation. Methods: Patients were included in this study if they were treated with curative intent for breast cancer and enrolled on a prospective registry. Patients must have completed at least one baseline and one post-radiation survey that addressed PRO-CTCAE. For univariate and multivariate analysis, categorical variables were analyzed by Fisher's exact test and continuous variables by Wilcoxon rank sum test. PRO-CTCAE items graded ≥2 and ≥3 were analyzed between patients who received hypofractionation (HF) versus standard conventional fractionation (CF) therapy by the Chi-square test. Results: Three hundred thirty-one patients met inclusion criteria. Pathologic tumor stage was T1-T2 in 309 (94%) patients. Eighty-seven (29%) patients were node positive. Two hundred forty-seven patients (75%) experienced any PRO-CTCAE grade ≥2, and 92 (28%) patients experienced any PRO-CTCAE grade ≥3. CF was found to be associated with an increased risk of grade ≥3 skin toxicity, swallowing, and nausea (all p < 0.01). HF (OR 0.48, p < 0.01) was significant in the multivariate model for decreased risk of any occurrence of PRO-CTCAE ≥3. Conclusions: Our study reports one of the first clinical experiences utilizing multiple PRO-CTCAE items for patients with breast cancer undergoing radiation therapy with curative intent. Compared with CF, HF was associated with a significant decrease in any PRO-CTCAE ≥3 after multivariate analysis.

Patient Versus Caregiver: Correlation and Differences in Pediatric Quality of Life Using a Prospective Registry in a Large-Volume, Multisite Practice.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes provide quality of life (QOL) data during and after radiation. When pediatric patients are unable to complete patient-reported outcomes, it is unknown whether caregiver responses are an accurate surrogate. We assessed whether caregiver scores for the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) Core and Brain Tumor Module questionnaires can substitute for missing child scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2016 to 2018, pediatric patients treated with radiation were followed in a prospective, institutional registry. Child and caregiver Core and Tumor PedsQL surveys were obtained at pretreatment, end of treatment, and in regular follow-up. The differences between the 2 scores at each time point were quantified using a linear mixed-model and the level of agreement was estimated with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). An ICC 95% confidence interval (CI) lower limit exceeding 0.75 was considered an acceptable threshold for using caregiver scores as imputed values for missing child scores. RESULTS: Ninety-one children completed 403 surveys. Caregivers underestimated QOL scores at baseline, but not at end of treatment or any follow-up time. The PedsQL Core total score had an ICC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.92), and the emotional, physical, school, and social function subdomain scores were 0.81 (0.72-0.88), 0.72 (0.58-0.82), 0.79 (0.68-0.86), and 0.75 (0.62-0.83), respectively. The tumor total score ICC was 0.91 (0.85, 0.94), and each of the subdomains (cognitive problems, communication, movement and balance, nausea, pain and hurt, perceived physical appearance, procedural anxiety, treatment anxiety, and worry) had ICC lower bound 95% CI ≥0.75 except for communication (0.83, 0.74-0.89). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated no visual change in discrepancy between child and caregiver estimates as overall QOL improved. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between child- and caregiver-reported QOL was generally strong in the acute period after radiation, implying that caregiver scores may be imputed for child scores in future protocols and analyses of pediatric QOL.

Biologically Effective Dose and Rectal Bleeding in Definitive Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Purpose and Objectives: With increasing use of hypofractionation and extreme hypofractionation for prostate cancer, rectal dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters that apply across dose fractionations may be helpful for treatment planning in clinical practice. We present an exploratory analysis of biologically effective rectal dose (BED) and equivalent rectal dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) for rectal bleeding in patients treated with proton therapy across dose fractionations. Materials and Methods: From 2016 to 2018, 243 patients with prostate cancer were treated with definitive proton therapy. Rectal DVH parameters were obtained from treatment plans, and rectal bleeding events were recorded. The BED and EQD2 transformations were applied to each rectal DVH parameter. Univariate analysis using logistic regression was used to determine DVH parameters that were significant predictors of grade ≥ 2 rectal bleeding. Youden index was used to determine optimum cutoffs for clinically meaningful DVH constraints. Stepwise model-selection criteria were then applied to fit a "best" multivariate logistic model for predicting Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥ 2 rectal bleeding. Results: Conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, and extreme hypofractionation were prescribed to 117 (48%), 84 (34%), and 42 (17.3%) patients, respectively. With a median follow-up of 20 (2.5-40) months, 10 (4.1%) patients experienced rectal bleeding. On univariate analysis, multiple rectal DVH parameters were significantly associated with rectal bleeding across BED, EQD2, and nominal doses. The BED volume receiving 55 Gy > 13.91% was found to be statistically and clinically significant. The BED volume receiving 55 Gy remained statistically significant for an association with rectal bleeding in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 9.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-40.5; P = .002). Conclusion: In patients undergoing definitive proton therapy for prostate cancer, dose to the rectum and volume of the rectum receiving the dose were significantly associated with rectal bleeding across conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, and extreme hypofractionation when using BED and EQD2 transformations.

Clinical outcomes for hilar and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with adjuvant, definitive, or liver transplant-based neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy strategies: a single-center experience.

Background: We report our experience with 3 strategies for treating hilar and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) including chemoradiotherapy: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and orthotopic liver transplant, surgical resection and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (aCRT), and definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT). Methods: We included patients treated from 1998 through 2019. Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank testing, and univariate/multivariate Cox models were used to assess outcomes (local progression-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival). Results: Sixty-five patients (nCRT, n=20; aCRT, n=16; dCRT, n=29) met inclusion criteria [median (range) age 65 years (27-84 years)]. Median posttreatment follow-up was 19.1 months (0.8-164.8 months) for all patients and 38.6, 24.3, and 9.0 months for the nCRT, aCRT, and dCRT groups, respectively. At 3 and 5 years, overall survival was 78% and 59% for the nCRT group; 47% and 35%, aCRT group; and 11% and 0%, dCRT group. Compared with the dCRT group, the nCRT group (hazard ratio =0.13, 95% CI: 0.05-0.33) and the aCRT group (hazard ratio =0.29, 95% CI: 0.14-0.64) had significantly improved overall survival (P<0.001). The 5-year local progression-free survival (50% nCRT vs. 30% aCRT vs. 0% dCRT, P<0.001) and 5-year disease-free survival (61% nCRT vs. 30% aCRT vs. 0% dCRT, P=0.01) were significantly better for strategies combined with surgery. Conclusions: Outcomes for patients with extrahepatic CCA were superior for those who underwent nCRT/orthotopic liver transplant or postsurgical aCRT than for patients treated with dCRT. The excellent outcomes after nCRT/orthotopic liver transplant provide additional independent data supporting the validity of this strategy. The poor survival of patients treated with dCRT highlights a need for better therapies when surgery is not possible.