Clinical considerations for sexual and gender minorities with prostate cancer.

At every stage of the cancer continuum, the management of sexual and gender minorities with prostate cancer requires a thoughtful and multidisciplinary approach. For example, it is important to recognize that receptive anal intercourse, common among sexual minority men-i.e. gay and bisexual men-can potentially elevate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Additionally, it is important to understand that sexual minority men with prostate cancer might engage in insertive and/or receptive anal intercourse, as opposed to insertive vaginal intercourse, requiring a treatment conversation that expands beyond the usual discussion of sexual health in prostate cancer patients. For gender minorities-i.e. transgender women or trans feminine individuals (those recorded male at birth with feminine gender identities)-it is important to consider gender affirming hormones and pelvic surgeries as they can cause diagnostic and treatment challenges, including PSA suppression, more aggressive disease, and anatomical changes. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that gender minorities are a diverse cohort and may or may not be on gender affirming hormone therapy and may or may not have received or intend to receive pelvic affirming surgery. In this seminar article, we highlight considerations for personalized management of prostate cancer in sexual and gender minorities to improve care for this understudied cohort and enhance health equity.

Premastectomy Radiotherapy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Premastectomy radiotherapy (PreMRT) is a new treatment sequence to avoid the adverse effects of radiotherapy on the final breast reconstruction while achieving the benefits of immediate breast reconstruction (IMBR). Objective: To evaluate outcomes among patients who received PreMRT and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a phase 2 single-center randomized clinical trial conducted between August 3, 2018, and August 2, 2022, evaluating the feasibility and safety of PreMRT and RNI (including internal mammary lymph nodes). Patients with cT0-T3, N0-N3b breast cancer and a recommendation for radiotherapy were eligible. Intervention: This trial evaluated outcomes after PreMRT followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated (40.05 Gy/15 fractions) or conventionally fractionated (50 Gy/25 fractions) RNI. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as complete autologous flap loss. Demographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected, and associations between multiple variables and outcomes were evaluated. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Fifty patients were enrolled. Among 49 evaluable patients, the median age was 48 years (range, 31-72 years), and 46 patients (94%) received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Twenty-five patients received 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the breast and 45 Gy in 25 fractions to regional nodes, and 24 patients received 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions to the breast and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions to regional nodes, including internal mammary lymph nodes. Forty-eight patients underwent mastectomy with IMBR, at a median of 23 days (IQR, 20-28.5 days) after radiotherapy. Forty-one patients had microvascular autologous flap reconstruction, 5 underwent latissimus dorsi pedicled flap reconstruction, and 2 had tissue expander placement. There were no complete autologous flap losses, and 1 patient underwent tissue expander explantation. Eight of 48 patients (17%) had mastectomy skin flap necrosis of the treated breast, of whom 1 underwent reoperation. During follow-up (median, 29.7 months [range, 10.1-65.2 months]), there were no locoregional recurrences or distant metastasis. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found PreMRT and RNI followed by mastectomy and microvascular autologous flap IMBR to be feasible and safe. Based on these results, a larger randomized clinical trial of hypofractionated vs conventionally fractionated PreMRT has been started (NCT05774678). Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02912312.

Updated 5-year results for short course abiraterone acetate and LHRH agonist for unfavorable intermediate and favorable high-risk prostate cancer.

Combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) improves outcomes for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Treatment intensification with abiraterone acetate/prednisone (AAP) provides additional benefit for high-risk disease. We previously reported 3-year outcomes of a single-arm prospective multicenter trial (AbiRT trial) of 33 patients with unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) and favorable high risk (FHR) prostate cancer undergoing short course, combination therapy with ADT, AAP, and RT. Here we report the final analysis demonstrating a high rate of testosterone recovery (97%) and excellent biochemical progression-free survival (97%) at 5 years. These data support comparative prospective studies of shorter, more potent ADT courses in favorable high-risk prostate cancer.

Implementation and Efficacy of a Large-Scale Radiation Oncology Case-Based Peer-Review Quality Program across a Multinational Cancer Network.

PURPOSE: With expansion of academic cancer center networks across geographically-dispersed sites, ensuring high-quality delivery of care across all network affiliates is essential. We report on the characteristics and efficacy of a radiation oncology peer-review quality assurance (QA) system implemented across a large-scale multinational cancer network. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Since 2014, weekly case-based peer-review QA meetings have been standard for network radiation oncologists with radiation oncology faculty at a major academic center. This radiotherapy (RT) QA program involves pre-treatment peer-review of cases by disease site, with disease-site subspecialized main campus faculty members. This virtual QA platform involves direct review of the proposed RT plan as well as supporting data, including relevant pathology and imaging studies for each patient. Network RT plans were scored as being concordant or nonconcordant based on national guidelines, institutional recommendations, and/or expert judgment when considering individual patient-specific factors for a given case. Data from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2019, were aggregated for analysis. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2019, across 8 network centers, a total of 16,601 RT plans underwent peer-review. The network-based peer-review case volume increased over the study period, from 958 cases in 2014 to 4,487 in 2019. A combined global nonconcordance rate of 4.5% was noted, with the highest nonconcordance rates among head-and-neck cases (11.0%). For centers that joined the network during the study period, we observed a significant decrease in the nonconcordance rate over time (3.1% average annual decrease in nonconcordance, P = 0.01); among centers that joined the network prior to the study period, nonconcordance rates remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Through a standardized QA platform, network-based multinational peer-review of RT plans can be achieved. Improved concordance rates among newly added network affiliates over time are noted, suggesting a positive impact of network membership on the quality of delivered cancer care.

Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

Proton therapy for the management of localized prostate cancer: Long-term clinical outcomes at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Proton therapy (PT) has emerged as a standard-of-care treatment option for localized prostate cancer at our comprehensive cancer center. However, there are few large-scale analyses examining the long-term clinical outcomes. Therefore, this article aims to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and toxicity of PT in patients with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of 2772 patients treated from May 2006 through January 2020. Disease risk was stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as low [LR, n = 640]; favorable-intermediate [F-IR, n = 850]; unfavorable-intermediate [U-IR, n = 851]; high [HR, n = 315]; or very high [VHR, n = 116]. Biochemical failure and toxicity were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate models. RESULTS: The median patient age was 66 years; the median follow-up time was 7.0 years. Pelvic lymph node irradiation was prescribed to 28 patients (1%) (2 [0.2%] U-IR, 11 [3.5%] HR, and 15 [12.9%] VHR). The median dose was 78 Gy in 1.8-2.0 Gy(RBE) fractions. Freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBR) rates at 5 years and 10 years were 98.2% and 96.8% for the LR group; 98.3% and 93.6%, F-IR; 94.2% and 90.2%, U-IR; 94.3% and 85.2%, HR; and 86.1% and 68.5%, VHR. Two patients died of prostate cancer. Overall rates of late grade ≥ 3 GU and GI toxicity were 0.87% and 1.01%. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy for localized prostate cancer demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes in this large cohort, even among higher-risk groups with historically poor outcomes despite aggressive therapy.

Prospective, early longitudinal assessment of lymphedema-related quality of life among patients with locally advanced breast cancer: The foundation for building a patient-centered screening program.

BACKGROUND: We examined how breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) affects health-related quality of life (HRQOL), productivity, and compliance with therapeutic interventions to guide structuring BCRL screening programs. METHODS: We prospectively followed consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) with arm volume screening and measures assessing patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and perceptions of BCRL care. Comparisons by BCRL status were made with Mann-Whitney U, Chi-square, Fisher's exact, or t tests. Trends over time from ALND were assessed with linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 8 months in 247 patients, 46% self-reported ever having BCRL, a proportion that increased over time. About 73% reported fear of BCRL, which was stable over time. Further in time from ALND, patients were more likely to report that BCRL screening reduced fear. Patient-reported BCRL was associated with higher soft tissue sensation intensity, biobehavioral, and resource concerns, absenteeism, and work/activity impairment. Objectively measured BCRL had fewer associations with outcomes. Most patients reported performing prevention exercises, but compliance decreased over time; patient-reported BCRL was not associated with exercise frequency. Fear of BCRL was positively associated with performing prevention exercises and using compressive garments. CONCLUSIONS: Both incidence and fear of BCRL were high after ALND for breast cancer. Fear was associated with improved therapeutic compliance, but compliance decreased over time. Patient-reported BCRL was more strongly associated with worse HRQOL and productivity than was objective BCRL. Screening programs must support patients' psychological needs and aim to sustain long-term compliance with recommended interventions.

Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Prostate Cancer From the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: There are no agreed upon measures to comprehensively determine the quality of radiation oncology (RO) care delivered for prostate cancer. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the implementation of scientific advances and adherence to best practices in routine clinical practice. To address this need, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance (VA ROQS) Program to develop clinical quality measures to assess the quality of RO care delivered to Veterans with cancer. This article reports the prostate cancer consensus measures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The VA ROQS Program contracted with the American Society for Radiation Oncology to commission a Blue Ribbon Panel of prostate cancer experts to develop a set of evidence-based measures and performance expectations. From February to June 2021, the panel developed quality, aspirational, and surveillance measures for (1) initial consultation and workup, (2) simulation, treatment planning, and delivery, and (3) follow-up. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints to be used as quality measures for definitive and post-prostatectomy radiation therapy were selected. The panel also identified the optimal Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0 (CTCAE V5.0), toxicity terms to assess in follow-up. RESULTS: Eighteen prostate-specific measures were developed (13 quality, 2 aspirational, and 3 surveillance). DVH metrics tailored to conventional, moderately hypofractionated, and ultrahypofractionated regimens were identified. Decision trees to determine performance for each measure were developed. Eighteen CTCAE V5.0 terms were selected in the sexual, urinary, and gastrointestinal domains as highest priority for assessment during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This set of measures and DVH constraints serves as a tool for assessing the comprehensive quality of RO care for prostate cancer. These measures will be used for ongoing quality surveillance and improvement among veterans receiving care across VA and community sites. These measures can also be applied to clinical settings outside of those serving veterans.

Prostate volume, baseline urinary function, and their association with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function in men treated for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia, lower urinary tract symptoms, and prostate cancer often co-occur. Their effect on urinary function is an important consideration regarding prostate cancer treatment choices. While prostate volume (PV) and urinary symptoms are commonly used in treatment choice decision making, their association with post-treatment urinary function is unknown. We evaluated the associations between PV and baseline urinary function with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function among men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We identified 1647 patients from CEASAR, a multicenter population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer, for analysis. Primary outcomes were treatment choice and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years. Multivariable analysis was performed, controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS: Median baseline PV was 36 mL (IQR 27-48), and baseline urinary irritative/obstructive domain score was 87 (IQR 75-100). There was no observed clinically meaningful association between PV and treatment choice or post-treatment urinary function. Among patients with poor baseline urinary function, treatment with radiation or surgery was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement in urinary function at 6 months which was durable through 5 years (improvement from baseline at 5 years: radiation 20.4 points, surgery 24.5 points). CONCLUSIONS: PV was not found to be associated with treatment modality or post-treatment urinary irritative/obstructive function among men treated for localized prostate cancer. Men with poor baseline urinary irritative/obstructive function improve after treatment with surgery or radiation therapy.

Association between adherence to radiation therapy quality metrics and patient reported outcomes in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown significant variability in the quality of prostate cancer care in the US with questionable associations between quality measures and patient reported outcomes. We evaluated the impact of compliance with nationally recognized radiation therapy (RT) quality measures on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) cohort. METHODS: CEASAR is a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer from which we identified 649 who received primary RT and completed HRQOL surveys for inclusion. Eight quality measures were identified based on national guidelines. We analyzed the impact of compliance with these measures on HRQOL assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years after treatment. Multivariable analysis was performed controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS: Among eligible participants, 566 (87%) patients received external beam radiation therapy and 83 (13%) received brachytherapy. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range: 64-73), 33% had low-, 43% intermediate-, and 23% high-risk disease. 28% received care non-compliant with at least one measure. In multivariable analyses, while some statistically significant associations were identified, there were no clinically significant associations between compliance with evaluated RT quality measures and patient reported urinary irritative, urinary incontinence, bowel, sexual or hormonal function. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with RT quality measures was not meaningfully associated with patient-reported outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. Further work is needed to identify patient-centered quality measures of prostate cancer care.

Patients' Preferences for Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Background. For men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC), adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has shown efficacy, but men are often reluctant to accept it because of its impact on quality of life. Methods. We conducted time tradeoffs (score of 1 = perfect health and 0 = death) and probability tradeoffs with patients aged 51 to 78 y who had received EBRT for IRPC within the past 2 y. Of 40 patients, 20 had received 6 mo of ADT and 20 had declined. Utility assessments explored 4 ADT-related side effects: hot flashes, fatigue, loss of libido/erectile dysfunction, and weight gain. Results. The most commonly reported "worst" treatment-related complication of ADT was fatigue (50% in both cohorts) followed by reduced libido/erectile dysfunction (40% in both cohorts). The utilities for fatigue were mean = 0.71 and median = 0.92 and for reduced libido/erectile dysfunction were mean = 0.81 and median = 0.92. Utilities did not differ significantly between cohorts. Assuming a 6-mo course of ADT, men reported being willing to trade 3 mo of life expectancy to avoid fatigue due to ADT and 1.8 mo to avoid sexual side effects. Patients in the ADT cohort were willing to accept the side effects of ADT in exchange for a mean 8% absolute increase in survival, whereas patients in the no ADT cohort required a 16% increase (P < 0.001). Conclusions. When considering treatment with ADT, men with IRPC identified fatigue and sexual dysfunction as the most bothersome side effects. Patients who declined ADT expected a larger survival benefit than those who opted for treatment. Both groups expected a survival benefit exceeding that shown by recent trials, suggesting some men may be selecting treatments inconsistent with their preferences. Highlights: This study demonstrates that prostate cancer patients receiving radiation therapy are reluctant to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) most commonly due to anticipated fatigue and loss of libido/erectile dysfunction.Men who had received ADT reported they would require an average 8% absolute increase in survival to tolerate its side effects, whereas those who declined ADT would require an average 16% increase.Required thresholds are well above the estimated absolute survival benefit for ADT demonstrated in recent clinical trials, suggesting an unmet need for improved patient education regarding the risks and benefits of ADT.

The Association Between Financial Toxicity and Treatment Regret in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling. METHODS: Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations. RESULTS: Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from "finances in general" was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.

Patient-reported Outcomes After External Beam Radiotherapy With Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost vs Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Five-year Results From a Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Study.

PURPOSE: Data comparing radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost are lacking. To better guide shared decision making regarding treatment, we compared patient reported outcomes through 5 years following radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2011-2012, men aged <80 years with localized prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled and followed longitudinally. Patient reported outcomes included the Expanded Prostate Index Composite. Regression models adjusted for baseline scores and covariates were constructed. RESULTS: The study population included 112 men treated with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost and 1,553 treated with radical prostatectomy. Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive (adjusted mean score difference [95% confidence interval]: 5.0 [-8.7, -1.3]; P = .008 at 5 years) and better urinary incontinence function (13.3 [7.7, 18.9]; P < .001 at 5 years) through 5 years. Urinary function bother was similar between groups (P > .4 at all timepoints). Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with worse bowel function (-4.0 [-6.9, -1.1]; P = .006 at 5 years) through 5 years compared to radical prostatectomy. Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with better sexual function at 1 year (12.0 [6.5, 17.5]; P < .001 at 1 year) compared to radical prostatectomy, but there was insufficient evidence to reject the supposition that no difference was seen at 3 or 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive and bowel functions but better urinary incontinence function through 5 years after treatment. These patient-reported functional outcomes may clarify treatment expectations and help inform treatment choices for localized prostate cancer.

Prediction of breast cancer-related lymphedema by dermal backflow detected with near-infrared fluorescence lymphatic imaging.

PURPOSE: Mild breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is clinically diagnosed as a 5%-10% increase in arm volume, typically measured no earlier than 3-6 months after locoregional treatment. Early BCRL treatment is associated with better outcomes, yet amid increasing evidence that lymphedema exists in a latent form, treatment is typically delayed until arm swelling is obvious. In this study, we investigated whether near-infrared fluorescence lymphatic imaging (NIRF-LI) surveillance could characterize early onset of peripheral lymphatic dysfunction as a predictor of BCRL. METHODS: In a prospective, longitudinal cohort/observational study (NCT02949726), subjects with locally advanced breast cancer who received axillary lymph node dissection and regional nodal radiotherapy (RT) were followed serially, between 2016 and 2021, before surgery, 4-8 weeks after surgery, and 6, 12, and 18 months after RT. Arm volume was measured by perometry, and lymphatic (dys) function was assessed by NIRF-LI. RESULTS: By 18 months after RT, 30 of 42 study subjects (71%) developed mild-moderate BCRL (i.e., ≥ 5% arm swelling relative to baseline), all manifested by "dermal backflow" of lymph into lymphatic capillaries or interstitial spaces. Dermal backflow had an 83% positive predictive value and 86% negative predictive value for BCRL, with a sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 50%, accuracy of 83%, positive likelihood ratio of 1.93, negative likelihood ratio of 0.07, and odds ratio of 29.00. Dermal backflow appeared on average 8.3 months, but up to 23 months, before the onset of mild BCRL. CONCLUSION: BCRL can be predicted by dermal backflow, which often appears months before arm swelling, enabling early treatment before the onset of edema and irreversible tissue changes.

Adoption of Ultrahypofractionated Radiation Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer.

Introduction: The first high-quality clinical trial to support ultrahypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (ultra-HF-WBI) for invasive early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) was published in April 2020, coinciding with the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed adoption of ultra-HF-WBI for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ESBC at our institution after primary trial publication. Methods and Materials: We evaluated radiation fractionation prescriptions for all patients with DCIS or ESBC treated with WBI from March 2020 to May 2021 at our main campus and regional campuses. Demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from the electronic medical record. Treating physician characteristics were collected from licensure data. Hierarchical logistic regression models identified factors correlated with adoption of ultra-HF-WBI (26 Gy in 5 daily factions [UK-FAST-FORWARD] or 28.5 Gy in 5 weekly fractions [UK-FAST]). Results: Of 665 included patients, the median age was 61.5 years, and 478 patients (71.9%) had invasive, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. Twenty-one physicians treated the included patients. In total, 249 patients (37.4%) received ultra-HF-WBI, increasing from 4.3% (2 of 46) in March-April 2020 to a high of 45.5% (45 of 99) in July-August 2020 (P < .001). Patient factors associated with increased use of ultra-HF-WBI included older age (≥50 years old), low-grade WBI without inclusion of the low axilla, no radiation boost, and farther travel distance (P < .03). Physician variation accounted for 21.7% of variance in the outcome, with rate of use of ultra-HF-WBI by the treating physicians ranging from 0% to 75.6%. No measured physician characteristics were associated with use of ultra-HF-WBI. Conclusions: Adoption of ultra-HF-WBI at our institution increased substantially after the publication of randomized evidence supporting its use. Ultra-HF-WBI was preferentially used in patients with lower risk disease, suggesting careful selection for this new approach while long-term data are maturing. Substantial physician-level variation may reflect a lack of consensus on the evidentiary standards required to change practice.

Long-term Quality of Life in Patients With Breast Cancer After Breast Conservation vs Mastectomy and Reconstruction.

Importance: Treatment options for early breast cancer include breast-conserving surgery with radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy and breast reconstruction without RT. Despite marked differences in these treatment strategies, little is known with regard to their association with long-term quality of life (QOL). Objective: To evaluate the association of treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT vs mastectomy and reconstruction without RT with long-term QOL. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study used data from the Texas Cancer Registry for women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008. The study sample was mailed a survey between March 2017 and April 2018. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2018 to October 15, 2021. Exposures: Breast-conserving surgery with RT or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was satisfaction with breasts, measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included BREAST-Q physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being; health utility, measured using the EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level questionnaire; and local therapy decisional regret. Multivariable linear regression models with weights for treatment, age, and race and ethnicity tested associations of the exposure with outcomes. Results: Of 647 patients who responded to the survey (40.0%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery, and 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236). Among the 647 respondents, the median age was 53 years (range, 23-85 years) and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years (range, 8.4-12.5 years). Multivariable analysis showed no significant difference between breast-conserving surgery with RT (referent) and mastectomy and reconstruction without RT in satisfaction with breasts (effect size, 2.71; 95% CI, -2.45 to 7.88; P = .30) or physical well-being (effect size, -1.80; 95% CI, -5.65 to 2.05; P = .36). In contrast, psychosocial well-being (effect size, -8.61; 95% CI, -13.26 to -3.95; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, -10.68; 95% CI, -16.60 to -4.76; P < .001) were significantly worse with mastectomy and reconstruction without RT. Health utility (effect size, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03; P = .83) and decisional regret (effect size, 1.32; 95% CI, -3.77 to 6.40; P = .61) did not differ by treatment group. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings support equivalence of breast-conserving surgery with RT and mastectomy and reconstruction without RT with regard to breast satisfaction and physical well-being. However, breast-conserving surgery with RT was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in psychosocial and sexual well-being. These findings may help inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer.

Patient, physician, and policy factors underlying variation in use of telemedicine for radiation oncology cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Oncology telemedicine was implemented rapidly after COVID-19. We examined multilevel correlates and outcomes of telemedicine use for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS: Upon implementation of a telemedicine platform at a comprehensive cancer center, we analyzed 468 consecutive patient RT courses from March 16, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients were categorized as using telemedicine during ≥1 weekly oncologist visits versus in-person oncologist management only. Temporal trends were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage tests; chi-squared test and multilevel multivariable logistic models identified correlates of use and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% used telemedicine versus 67% in-person only oncologist management. Temporal trends (ptrend  < 0.001) correlated with policy changes: uptake was rapid after local social-distancing restrictions, reaching peak use (35% of visits) within 4 weeks of implementation. Use declined to 15% after national "Opening Up America Again" guidelines. In the multilevel model, patients more likely to use telemedicine were White non-Hispanic versus Black or Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.72; p = 0.04) or receiving ≥6 fractions of RT versus 1-5 fractions (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.29-8.80; p < 0.001). Model intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated 43% utilization variation was physician-level driven. Treatment toxicities and 30-day emergency visits or unplanned hospitalizations did not differ for patients using versus not using telemedicine (p > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Though toxicities were similar with telemedicine oncology management, there remained lower uptake among non-White patients. Continuing strategies for oncology telemedicine implementation should address multilevel patient, physician, and policy factors to optimize telemedicine's potential to surmount-and not exacerbate-barriers to quality cancer care.