Real-world uptake, safety profile and outcomes of docetaxel in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the uptake, safety and efficacy of docetaxel chemotherapy in hormone-naïve metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) in the first year of use outside of a clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in the West of Scotland Cancer Network with newly diagnosed mPC were identified from the regional multidisciplinary team meetings and their treatment details were collected from electronic patient records. The rate of febrile neutropenia, hospitalisations, time to progression, and overall survival were compared between those patients who received docetaxel and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), or ADT alone using survival analysis. RESULTS: Of the 270 eligible patients, 103 received docetaxel (38.1%). 35 patients (34%) were hospitalised and there were 17 episodes of febrile neutropenia (16.5%). Two patients (1.9%) died within 30 days of chemotherapy. Patients who received ADT alone had an increased risk of progression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-3.25; log-rank test, P = 0.002) and had an increased risk of death (HR 5.88, 95% CI: 2.52-13.72; log-rank test, P = 0.001) compared to the docetaxel group. The risk of febrile neutropenia was nine-times greater if chemotherapy was started within 3 weeks of ADT initiation (95% CI: 1.22-77.72; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Docetaxel chemotherapy in hormone-naïve mPC has significant toxicities, but has a similar effect on time to progression and overall survival as seen in randomised trials. Chemotherapy should be started at ≥3 weeks after ADT.

Consensus Guidelines and Contouring Atlas for Pelvic Node Delineation in Prostate and Pelvic Node Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish reproducible guidelines for delineating the clinical target volume (CTV) of the pelvic lymph nodes (LN) by combining the freehand Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) vascular expansion techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seven patients with prostate cancer underwent standard planning computed tomography scanning. Four different CTVs (RMH, RTOG, modified RTOG, and Prostate and pelvIs Versus prOsTate Alone treatment for Locally advanced prostate cancer [PIVOTAL] trial) were created for each patient, and 6 different bowel expansion margins (BEM) were created to assess bowel avoidance by the CTV. The resulting CTVs were compared visually and by using Jaccard conformity indices. The volume of overlap between bowel and planning target volume (PTV) was measured to aid selection of an appropriate BEM to enable maximal LN yet minimal normal tissue coverage. RESULTS: In total, 84 nodal contours were evaluated. LN coverage was similar in all groups, with all of the vascular-expansion techniques (RTOG, modified RTOG, and PIVOTAL), resulting in larger CTVs than that of the RMH technique (mean volumes: 287.3 cm(3), 326.7 cm(3), 310.3 cm(3), and 256.7 cm(3), respectively). Mean volumes of bowel within the modified RTOG PTV were 19.5 cm(3) (with 0 mm BEM), 17.4 cm(3) (1-mm BEM), 10.8 cm(3) (2-mm BEM), 6.9 cm(3) (3-mm BEM), 5.0 cm(3) (4-mm BEM), and 1.4 cm(3) (5-mm BEM) in comparison with an overlap of 9.2 cm(3) seen using the RMH technique. Evaluation of conformity between LN-CTVs from each technique revealed similar volumes and coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular expansion techniques result in larger LN-CTVs than the freehand RMH technique. Because the RMH technique is supported by phase 1 and 2 trial safety data, we proposed modifications to the RTOG technique, including the addition of a 3-mm BEM, which resulted in LN-CTV coverage similar to that of the RMH technique, with reduction in bowel and planning target volume overlap. On the basis of these findings, recommended guidelines including a detailed pelvic LN contouring atlas have been produced and implemented in the PIVOTAL trial.

Patterns of care for radiotherapy in vulvar cancer: a Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe radiotherapeutic practice in the treatment of vulvar cancer in member study groups of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG). METHODS: A survey was developed and distributed to representatives of the member study groups of the GCIG, targeting the use of radiotherapy (RT) in vulvar cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-two surveys were returned from 12 different cooperative groups. The most common indications for neoadjuvant RT include unresectable disease or International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage >/=III. For the neoadjuvant treatment of vulvar cancer, pelvic doses were 48.2 +/- 5.0 Gy (mean +/- SD). The upper border of the pelvic field was L4/5 in 4, L5/S1 in 12, and not specified in 4. Of 21 groups that perform neoadjuvant RT, 17 use concomitant chemotherapy and 4 individualize treatment. Weekly cisplatin was the most commonly used chemotherapy. For the neoadjuvant RT treatment of the inguinal region, doses were 49.9 +/- 5.5 Gy (mean +/- SD). Sixteen of 18 groups used computed tomographic simulation for planning. After initial surgery, the most common indications for RT included positive lymph nodes or positive margins. Chemotherapy was not routinely used after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Doses of RT among GCIG members are similar; however, the indications for treatment, treatment fields, and use of chemotherapy differ somewhat between groups. This is likely due to the rarity of the disease. The lack of randomized trials may contribute to the absence of a broadly accepted standard. This underscores the importance of international cooperation as in GCIG to gather more reliable data for uncommon tumors in gynecologic oncology.

Practice patterns of radiotherapy in cervical cancer among member groups of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG).

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe radiotherapeutic practice of the treatment of cervical cancer in member groups of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A survey was developed and distributed to the members of the GCIG focusing on details of radiotherapy practice. Different scenarios were queried including advanced cervical cancer, postoperative patients, and para-aortic-positive lymph node cases. Items focused on indications for radiation therapy, radiation fields, dose, use of chemotherapy, brachytherapy and others. The cooperative groups from North America were compared with the other groups to evaluate potential differences in radiotherapy doses. RESULTS: A total of 39 surveys were returned from 13 different cooperative groups. For the treatment of advanced cervical cancer, external beam pelvic doses and total doses to point A were 47 + 3.5 Gy (mean + SD) and 79.1 + 7.9 Gy, respectively. Point A doses were not different between the North American cooperative groups compared with the others (p = 0.103). All groups used concomitant chemotherapy, with 30 of 36 respondents using weekly cisplatin. Of 33 respondents, 31 intervened for a low hemoglobin level. For a para-aortic field, the upper border was most commonly (15 of 24) at the T12-L1 interspace. Maintenance chemotherapy (after radiotherapy) was not performed by 68% of respondents. For vaginal brachytherapy after hysterectomy, 23 groups performed HDR brachytherapy and four groups used LDR brachytherapy. In the use of brachytherapy, there was no uniformity in dose prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy practices among member groups of the GCIG are similar in terms of both doses and use of chemotherapy.