Agent orange exposure and prostate cancer risk in the million veteran program.

BACKGROUND: The US government considers veterans to have been exposed to Agent Orange if they served in Vietnam while the carcinogen was in use, and these veterans are often deemed at high risk of prostate cancer (PCa). Here, we assess whether presumed Agent Orange exposure is independently associated with increased risk of any metastatic or fatal PCa in a diverse Veteran cohort still alive in the modern era (at least 2011), when accounting for race/ethnicity, family history, and genetic risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants in the Million Veteran Program (MVP; enrollment began in 2011) who were on active duty during the Vietnam War era (August 1964-April 1975) were included (n = 301,470). Agent Orange exposure was determined using the US government definition. Genetic risk was assessed via a validated polygenic hazard score. Associations with age at diagnosis of any PCa, metastatic PCa, and death from PCa were assessed via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: On univariable analysis, exposure to Agent Orange was not associated with increased PCa (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00-1.04, p = 0.06), metastatic PCa (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.05, p = 0.55), or fatal PCa (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.79-1.09, p = 0.41). When accounting for race/ethnicity and family history, Agent Orange exposure was independently associated with slightly increased risk of PCa (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04-1.09, <10-6) but not with metastatic PCa (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.98-1.15, p = 0.10) or PCa death (HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.83-1.23, p = 0.09). Similar results were found when accounting for genetic risk. Agent Orange exposure history may not improve modern PCa risk stratification.

Prostate MRI Was Negative-What's Next?

The primary benefit of prostate MRI in the modern diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer is that many men with elevated serum PSA can safely avoid an immediate biopsy if the MRI is nonsuspicious. It is less clear, though, how these patients should be followed thereafter. Are they to be followed the same as the general population, or do they warrant more attention because of the risk of a cancer missed on MRI? In this issue, Pylväläinen and colleagues report on incidence of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and clinically insignificant PCa (ciPCa) among patients who were referred for prostate MRI for clinical suspicion of csPCa in Helsinki but had a nonsuspicious MRI (nMRI). Compared with the general population in Finland, patients who had nMRI were approximately 3.4 times more likely to be diagnosed with csPCa and 8.2 times more likely to be diagnosed with ciPCa. Balancing the competing risks of a missed csPCa versus overdiagnosis in patients after nMRI requires integration of MRI and other risk factors, especially age and PSA density. This integration may be facilitated by multivariable models and quantitative pathology and imaging. See related article by Pylväläinen et al., p. 749.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and 15-Year Prostate Cancer Mortality: A Secondary Analysis of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the CAP randomized clinical trial included men aged 50 to 69 years identified at 573 primary care practices in England and Wales. Primary care practices were randomized between September 25, 2001, and August 24, 2007, and men were enrolled between January 8, 2002, and January 20, 2009. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. Intervention: Men received a single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if the PSA level was 3.0 ng/mL or higher. The control group received standard practice (no invitation). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was reported previously. Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, results of 4 were reported previously. The 4 remaining prespecified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis. Results: Of 415 357 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were included in these analyses. Overall, 12 013 and 12 958 men with a prostate cancer diagnosis were in the intervention and control groups, respectively (15-year cumulative risk, 7.08% [95% CI, 6.95%-7.21%] and 6.94% [95% CI, 6.82%-7.06%], respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1199 men in the intervention group (0.69% [95% CI, 0.65%-0.73%]) and 1451 men in the control group (0.78% [95% CI, 0.73%-0.82%]) died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]; P = .03). Compared with the control, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS] ≤6: 2.2% vs 1.6%; P < .001) and localized (T1/T2: 3.6% vs 3.1%; P < .001) disease but not intermediate (GS of 7), high-grade (GS ≥8), locally advanced (T3), or distally advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45 084 all-cause deaths in the intervention group (23.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-23.4%]) and 50 336 deaths in the control group (23.3% [95% CI, 23.1%-23.5%]) (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-1.01]; P = .11). Eight of the prostate cancer deaths in the intervention group (0.7%) and 7 deaths in the control group (0.5%) were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a single invitation for PSA screening compared with standard practice without routine screening reduced prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15 years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.

An accessible deep learning tool for voxel-wise classification of brain malignancies from perfusion MRI.

Noninvasive differential diagnosis of brain tumors is currently based on the assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coupled with dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC). However, a definitive diagnosis often requires neurosurgical interventions that compromise patients' quality of life. We apply deep learning on DSC images from histology-confirmed patients with glioblastoma, metastasis, or lymphoma. The convolutional neural network trained on ∼50,000 voxels from 40 patients provides intratumor probability maps that yield clinical-grade diagnosis. Performance is tested in 400 additional cases and an external validation cohort of 128 patients. The tool reaches a three-way accuracy of 0.78, superior to the conventional MRI metrics cerebral blood volume (0.55) and percentage of signal recovery (0.59), showing high value as a support diagnostic tool. Our open-access software, Diagnosis In Susceptibility Contrast Enhancing Regions for Neuro-oncology (DISCERN), demonstrates its potential in aiding medical decisions for brain tumor diagnosis using standard-of-care MRI.

Adrenal-Permissive Germline HSD3B1 Allele and Prostate Cancer Outcomes.

Importance: The adrenal androgen-metabolizing 3ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1 enzyme, encoded by the HSD3B1 gene, catalyzes the rate-limiting step necessary for synthesizing nontesticular testosterone and dihydrotestosterone production. The common adrenal-permissive HSD3B1(1245C) allele is responsible for encoding the 3ß-HSD1 protein with decreased susceptibility to degradation resulting in higher extragonadal androgen synthesis. Retrospective studies have suggested an association of the HSD3B1 adrenal-permissive homozygous genotype with androgen deprivation therapy resistance in prostate cancer. Objective: To evaluate differences in mortality outcomes by HSD3B1 genetic status among men with prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of patients with prostate cancer who were enrolled in the Million Veteran Program within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system between 2011 and 2023 collected genotyping and phenotyping information. Exposure: HSD3B1 genotype status was categorized as AA (homozygous adrenal-restrictive), AC (heterozygous adrenal-restrictive), or CC (homozygous adrenal-permissive). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this study was prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), defined as the time from diagnosis to death from prostate cancer, censored at the date of last VHA follow-up. Secondary outcomes included incidence of metastases and PCSM in predefined subgroups. Results: Of the 5287 participants (median [IQR] age, 69 [64-74] years), 402 (7.6%) had the CC genotype, 1970 (37.3%) had the AC genotype, and 2915 (55.1%) had the AA genotype. Overall, the primary cause of death for 91 patients (1.7%) was prostate cancer. Cumulative incidence of PCSM at 5 years after prostate cancer diagnosis was higher among men with the CC genotype (4.0%; 95% CI, 1.7%-6.2%) compared with the AC genotype (2.1%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.8%) and AA genotype (1.9%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.4%) (P = .02). In the 619 patients who developed metastatic disease at any time, the cumulative incidence of PCSM at 5 years was higher among patients with the CC genotype (36.0%; 95% CI, 16.7%-50.8%) compared with the AC genotype (17.9%; 95% CI, 10.5%-24.7%) and AA genotype (18.5%; 95% CI, 12.0%-24.6%) (P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of US veterans undergoing treatment for prostate cancer at the VHA, the HSD3B1 CC genotype was associated with inferior outcomes. The HSD3B1 biomarker may help identify patients who may benefit from therapeutic targeting of 3ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1 and the androgen-signaling axis.

Quantitative MRI biomarker for classification of clinically significant prostate cancer: calibration for reproducibility across echo times.

Background: Restriction Spectrum Imaging restriction score (RSIrs) is a quantitative biomarker for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, the quantitative value of the RSIrs is affected by imaging parameters such as echo time (TE). Purpose: The purpose of the present study is to develop a calibration method to account for differences in echo times and facilitate use of RSIrs as a quantitative biomarker for the detection of csPCa. Methods: This study included 197 consecutive patients who underwent MRI and biopsy examination; 97 were diagnosed with csPCa (grade group ≥ 2). RSI data were acquired three times during the same session: twice at minimum TE∼75ms and once at TE=90ms (TEmin 1 , TEmin 2 , and TE90, respectively). A proposed calibration method, trained on patients without csPCa, estimated a linear scaling factor (f) for each of the four diffusion compartments (C) of the RSI signal model. A linear regression model was determined to match C-maps of TE90 to the reference C-maps of TEmin 1 within the interval ranging from 95 th to 99 th percentile of signal intensity within the prostate. RSIrs comparisons were made at 98 th percentile within each patient's prostate. We compared RSIrs from calibrated TE90 (RSIrs TE90corr ) and uncorrected TE90 (RSIrs TE90 ) to RSIrs from reference TEmin 1 (RSIrs TEmin1 ) and repeated TEmin 2 (RSIrs TEmin2 ). Calibration performance was evaluated with sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve, positive predicted value, negative predicted value, and F1-score. Results: Scaling factors for C 1 , C 2 , C 3 , and C 4 were estimated as 1.70, 1.38, 1.03, and 1.19, respectively. In non-csPCa cases, the 98 th percentile of RSIrs TEmin2 and RSIrs TEmin1 differed by 0.27±0.86SI (mean±standard deviation), whereas RSIrs TE90 differed from RSIrs TEmin1 by 1.81±1.20SI. After calibration, this bias was reduced to -0.41±1.20SI, representing a 78% reduction in absolute error. For patients with csPCa, the difference was 0.54±1.98SI between RSIrs TEmin2 and RSIrs TEmin1 and 2.28±2.06SI between RSIrs TE90 and RSIrs TEmin1 . After calibration, the mean difference decreased to -0.86SI, a 38% reduction in absolute error. At the Youden index for patient-level classification of csPCa (8.94SI), RSIrs TEmin1 has a sensitivity of 66% and a specificity of 72%. Prior to calibration, RSIrs TE90 at the same threshold tended to over-diagnose benign cases (sensitivity 44%, specificity 88%). Post-calibration, RSIrs TE90corr performs more similarly to the reference (sensitivity 71%, specificity 62%). Conclusion: The proposed linear calibration method produces similar quantitative biomarker values for acquisitions with different TE, reducing TE-induced error by 78% and 38% for non-csPCa and csPCa, respectively.

Focal radiotherapy boost to MR-visible tumor for prostate cancer: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The FLAME trial provides strong evidence that MR-guided external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) focal boost for localized prostate cancer increases biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) without increasing toxicity. Yet, there are many barriers to implementation of focal boost. Our objectives are to systemically review clinical outcomes for MR-guided EBRT focal boost and to consider approaches to increase implementation of this technique. METHODS: We conducted literature searches in four databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guideline. We included prospective phase II/III trials of patients with localized prostate cancer underdoing definitive EBRT with MR-guided focal boost. The outcomes of interest were bDFS and acute/late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. RESULTS: Seven studies were included. All studies had a median follow-up of greater than 4 years. There were heterogeneities in fractionation, treatment planning, and delivery. Studies demonstrated effectiveness, feasibility, and tolerability of focal boost. Based on the Phoenix criteria for biochemical recurrence, the reported 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates ranged 69.7-100% across included studies. All studies reported good safety profiles. The reported ranges of acute/late grade 3 + gastrointestinal toxicities were 0%/1-10%. The reported ranges of acute/late grade 3 + genitourinary toxicities were 0-13%/0-5.6%. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that it is possible to improve oncologic outcomes without substantially increasing toxicity through MR-guided focal boost, at least in the setting of a 35-fraction radiotherapy regimen. Barriers to clinical practice implementation are addressable through additional investigation and new technologies.

Patient experiences with tissue-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Background: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Participants' (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. Conclusion: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Genetic risk and likelihood of prostate cancer detection on first biopsy by ancestry.

Despite differences in prostate cancer risk across ancestry groups, relative performance of prostate cancer genetic risks scores (GRS) for positive biopsy prediction in different ancestry groups is unknown. This cross-sectional retrospective analysis examines the association between a polygenic hazard score (PHS290) and risk of prostate cancer diagnosis upon first biopsy in male veterans using 2-sided tests. Our analysis included 36 717 veterans (10 297 of African ancestry). Unadjusted rates of positive first prostate biopsy increased with higher genetic risk (low risk: 34%, high risk: 58%; P < .001). Among men of African ancestry, higher genetic risk was associated with increased prostate cancer detection on first biopsy (odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval = 1.93 to 2.47), but the effect was stronger among men of European descent (odds ratio = 3.89, 95% confidence interval = 3.62 to 4.18). These findings suggest that incorporating genetic risk into prediction models could better personalize biopsy decisions, although further study is needed to achieve equitable genetic risk stratification among ancestry groups.

Use of focal radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer: radiation oncologists' perspectives and perceived barriers to implementation.

BACKGROUND: In a recent phase III randomized control trial, delivering a focal radiotherapy (RT) boost to tumors visible on MRI was shown to improve disease-free survival and regional/distant metastasis-free survival for patients with prostate cancer-without increasing toxicity. The aim of this study was to assess how widely this technique is being applied in current practice, as well as physicians' perceived barriers toward its implementation. METHODS: We invited radiation oncologists to complete an online questionnaire assessing their use of intraprostatic focal boost in December 2022 and February 2023. To include perspectives from a broad range of practice settings, the invitation was distributed to radiation oncologists worldwide via email list, group text platform, and social media. RESULTS: 263 radiation oncologist participants responded. The highest-represented countries were the United States (42%), Mexico (13%), and the United Kingdom (8%). The majority of participants worked at an academic medical center (52%) and considered their practice to be at least partially genitourinary (GU)-subspecialized (74%). Overall, 43% of participants reported routinely using intraprostatic focal boost. Complete GU-subspecialists were more likely to implement focal boost, with 61% reporting routine use. In both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries, less than half of participants routinely use focal boost. The most cited barriers were concerns about registration accuracy between MRI and CT (37%), concerns about risk of additional toxicity (35%), and challenges to accessing high-quality MRI (29%). CONCLUSIONS: Two years following publication of a randomized trial of patient benefit without increased toxicity, almost half of the radiation oncologists surveyed are now routinely offering focal RT boost. Further adoption of this technique might be aided by increased access to high-quality MRI, better registration algorithms of MRI to CT simulation images, physician education on benefit-to-harm ratio, and training on contouring prostate lesions on MRI.

Restriction spectrum imaging with elastic image registration for automated evaluation of response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer.

Purpose: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) are currently used to evaluate treatment response of breast cancer. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the three-component Restriction Spectrum Imaging model (RSI3C), a recent diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI)-based tumor classification method, combined with elastic image registration, to automatically monitor breast tumor size throughout neoadjuvant therapy. Experimental design: Breast cancer patients (n=27) underwent multi-parametric 3T MRI at four time points during treatment. Elastically-registered DWI images were used to generate an automatic RSI3C response classifier, assessed against manual DCE tumor size measurements and mean ADC values. Predictions of therapy response during treatment and residual tumor post-treatment were assessed using non-pathological complete response (non-pCR) as an endpoint. Results: Ten patients experienced pCR. Prediction of non-pCR using ROC AUC (95% CI) for change in measured tumor size from pre-treatment time point to early-treatment time point was 0.65 (0.38-0.92) for the RSI3C classifier, 0.64 (0.36-0.91) for DCE, and 0.45 (0.16-0.75) for change in mean ADC. Sensitivity for detection of residual disease post-treatment was 0.71 (0.44-0.90) for the RSI3C classifier, compared to 0.88 (0.64-0.99) for DCE and 0.76 (0.50-0.93) for ADC. Specificity was 0.90 (0.56-1.00) for the RSI3C classifier, 0.70 (0.35-0.93) for DCE, and 0.50 (0.19-0.81) for ADC. Conclusion: The automatic RSI3C classifier with elastic image registration suggested prediction of response to treatment after only three weeks, and showed performance comparable to DCE for assessment of residual tumor post-therapy. RSI3C may guide clinical decision-making and enable tailored treatment regimens and cost-efficient evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy of breast cancer.

Agent Orange exposure and prostate cancer risk in the Million Veteran Program.

Purpose: Exposure to Agent Orange, a known carcinogen, might increase risk of prostate cancer (PCa). We sought to investigate the association of Agent Orange exposure and PCa risk when accounting for race/ethnicity, family history, and genetic risk in a diverse population of US Vietnam War veterans. Methods & Materials: This study utilized the Million Veteran Program (MVP), a national, population-based cohort study of United States military veterans conducted 2011-2021 with 590,750 male participants available for analysis. Agent Orange exposure was obtained using records from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) using the US government definition of Agent Orange exposure: active service in Vietnam while Agent Orange was in use. Only veterans who were on active duty (anywhere in the world) during the Vietnam War were included in this analysis (211,180 participants). Genetic risk was assessed via a previously validated polygenic hazard score calculated from genotype data. Age at diagnosis of any PCa, diagnosis of metastatic PCa, and death from PCa were assessed via Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Exposure to Agent Orange was associated with increased PCa diagnosis (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, p=0.003), primarily among Non-Hispanic White men (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06- 1.12, p<0.001). When accounting for race/ethnicity and family history, Agent Orange exposure remained an independent risk factor for PCa diagnosis (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.09, p<0.05). Univariable associations of Agent Orange exposure with PCa metastasis (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99-1.17) and PCa death (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84-1.22) did not reach significance on multivariable analysis. Similar results were found when accounting for polygenic hazard score. Conclusions: Among US Vietnam War veterans, Agent Orange exposure is an independent risk factor for PCa diagnosis, though associations with PCa metastasis or death are unclear when accounting for race/ethnicity, family history, and/or polygenic risk.

ReIGNITE Radiation Therapy Boost: A Prospective, International Study of Radiation Oncologists' Accuracy in Contouring Prostate Tumors for Focal Radiation Therapy Boost on Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Alone or With Assistance of Restriction Spectrum Imaging.

PURPOSE: In a phase III randomized trial, adding a radiation boost to tumor(s) visible on MRI improved prostate cancer (PCa) disease-free and metastasis-free survival without additional toxicity. Radiation oncologists' ability to identify prostate tumors is critical to widely adopting intraprostatic tumor radiotherapy boost for patients. A diffusion MRI biomarker, called the Restriction Spectrum Imaging restriction score (RSIrs), has been shown to improve radiologists' identification of clinically significant PCa. We hypothesized that (1) radiation oncologists would find accurately delineating PCa tumors on conventional MRI challenging and (2) using RSIrs maps would improve radiation oncologists' accuracy for PCa tumor delineation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this multi-institutional, international, prospective study, 44 radiation oncologists (participants) and 2 expert radiologists (experts) contoured prostate tumors on 39 total patient cases using conventional MRI with or without RSIrs maps. Participant volumes were compared to the consensus expert volumes. Contouring accuracy metrics included percent overlap with expert volume, Dice coefficient, conformal number, and maximum distance beyond expert volume. RESULTS: 1604 participant volumes were produced. 40 of 44 participants (91%) completely missed ≥1 expert-defined target lesion without RSIrs, compared to 13 of 44 (30%) with RSIrs maps. On conventional MRI alone, 134 of 762 contour attempts (18%) completely missed the target, compared to 18 of 842 (2%) with RSIrs maps. Use of RSIrs maps improved all contour accuracy metrics by approximately 50% or more. Mixed effects modeling confirmed that RSIrs maps were the main variable driving improvement in all metrics. System Usability Scores indicated RSIrs maps significantly improved the contouring experience (72 vs. 58, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncologists struggle with accurately delineating visible PCa tumors on conventional MRI. RSIrs maps improve radiation oncologists' ability to target MRI-visible tumors for prostate tumor boost.

Use of focal radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer and perceived barriers toward its implementation: a survey.

Background: In a recent phase III randomized control trial (FLAME), delivering a focal radiotherapy (RT) boost to tumors visible on MRI was shown to improve outcomes for prostate cancer patients without increasing toxicity. The aim of this study was to assess how widely this technique is being applied in current practice as well as physicians' perceived barriers toward its implementation. Methods: An online survey assessing the use of intraprostatic focal boost was conducted in December 2022 and February 2023. The survey link was distributed to radiation oncologists worldwide via email list, group text platform, and social media. Results: The survey initially collected 205 responses from various countries over a two-week period in December 2022. The survey was then reopened for one week in February 2023 to allow for more participation, leading to a total of 263 responses. The highest-represented countries were the United States (42%), Mexico (13%), and the United Kingdom (8%). The majority of participants worked at an academic medical center (52%) and considered their practice to be at least partially genitourinary (GU)-subspecialized (74%). 57% of participants reported not routinely using intraprostatic focal boost. Even among complete subspecialists, a substantial proportion (39%) do not routinely use focal boost. Less than half of participants in both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries were shown to routinely use focal boost. The most commonly cited barriers were concerns about registration accuracy between MRI and CT (37%), concerns about risk of additional toxicity (35%), and challenges to accessing high-quality MRI (29%). Conclusion: Despite level 1 evidence from the FLAME trial, most radiation oncologists surveyed are not routinely offering focal RT boost. Adoption of this technique might be accelerated by increased access to high-quality MRI, better registration algorithms of MRI to CT simulation images, physician education on benefit-to-harm ratio, and training on contouring prostate lesions on MRI.

Dose-Dependent Atrophy in Bilateral Amygdalae and Nuclei After Brain Radiation Therapy and Its Association With Mood and Memory Outcomes on a Longitudinal Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Amygdalae are bilateral, almond-shaped structures located anterior to the hippocampi, critical to limbic system functions of emotional processing and memory consolidation. The amygdalae are heterogeneous, composed of multiple nuclei with distinct structural and functional properties. We prospectively assessed associations between longitudinal changes in amygdala morphometry, including component nuclei, and functional outcomes in patients with primary brain tumors receiving radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: On a prospective longitudinal trial, 63 patients underwent high-resolution volumetric brain magnetic resonance imaging and testing for mood (Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory), memory (Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised [BVMT] Total Recall and Delayed Recall; Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised [HVLT] Total Recall and Delayed Recall), and health-related quality-of-life outcomes (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain Social/Family Well-Being and Emotional Well-Being) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after RT. Amygdalae, including 8 nuclei, were autosegmented bilaterally using validated techniques. Linear mixed-effects models assessed longitudinal change in amygdalae and nuclei volumes and associations with dose and outcomes. Wilcoxon rank sum tests compared amygdala volume change between patient groups with worse and more stable outcomes at each time point. RESULTS: Atrophy was found in the right amygdala at 6 months (P = .001) and the left amygdala at 12 months (P = .046). A higher dose was associated with atrophy of the left amygdala (P = .013) at 12 months. The right amygdala showed dose-dependent atrophy at 6 months (P = .016) and 12 months (P = .001). Worse BVMT-Total, HVLT-Total, and HVLT-Delayed performance was associated with smaller left lateral (P = .014, P = .004, and P = .007, respectively) and left basal (P = .034, P = .016, and P = .026, respectively) nuclei volumes. Increased anxiety at 6 months was associated with greater combined (P = .031) and right (P = .007) amygdala atrophy. Greater left amygdala atrophy (P = .038) was noted in patients with decreased emotional well-being at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral amygdalae and nuclei undergo time- and dose-dependent atrophy after brain RT. Atrophy in amygdalae and specific nuclei was associated with poorer memory, mood, and emotional well-being. Amygdalae-sparing treatment planning may preserve neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric outcomes in this population.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for individuals with a prostate who opt to participate in an early detection program after receiving the appropriate counseling on the pros and cons. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines with regard to the testing protocol, use of multiparametric MRI, and management of negative biopsy results to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and minimize the detection of indolent disease.

Use of Monitoring Tests Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Managed With Observation.

PURPOSE: It is unknown whether compliance with recommended monitoring tests during observation of localized prostate cancer has changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer in 2004-2016 who were initially managed with observation for a minimum of 12 months. The primary objective was to examine rates of PSA testing, prostate biopsy, and prostate MRI. We used multivariable mixed effects Poisson regression to determine whether rates of PSA testing and prostate biopsy increased over time. In addition, we identified clinical, sociodemographic, and provider factors associated with the frequency of monitoring tests during observation. RESULTS: We identified 10,639 patients diagnosed at a median age of 73 (IQR 69-77) years. The median follow-up time was 4.3 (IQR 2.7-6.6) years after diagnosis. Among patients managed without treatment for 5 years, 98% received at ≥1 PSA test, 48.0% ≥1 additional prostate biopsy, and 31.0% ≥1 prostate MRI. Among patients managed with observation for ≥12 months, mixed effects Poisson regression revealed that rates of PSA testing and biopsy increased over time (per calendar year: RR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03 and RR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.11, respectively). Clinical and sociodemographic factors including age, clinical risk, race/ethnicity, census tract poverty, and region were associated with rates of biopsy and PSA testing. CONCLUSIONS: Use of recommended monitoring tests including repeat prostate biopsy remains low among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing observation for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

The relationship between radiation dose and bevacizumab-related imaging abnormality in patients with brain tumors: A voxel-wise normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab-related imaging abnormality (BRIA), appearing as areas of restricted diffusion on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and representing atypical coagulative necrosis pathologically, has been observed in patients with brain tumors receiving radiotherapy and bevacizumab. We investigated the role of cumulative radiation dose in BRIA development in a voxel-wise analysis. METHODS: Patients (n = 18) with BRIA were identified. All had high-grade gliomas or brain metastases treated with radiotherapy and bevacizumab. Areas of BRIA were segmented semi-automatically on diffusion-weighted MRI with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) images. To avoid confounding by possible tumor, hypoperfusion was confirmed with perfusion imaging. ADC images and radiation dose maps were co-registered to a high-resolution T1-weighted MRI and registration accuracy was verified. Voxel-wise normal tissue complication probability analyses were performed using a logistic model analyzing the relationship between cumulative voxel equivalent total dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) and BRIA development at each voxel. Confidence intervals for regression model predictions were estimated with bootstrapping. RESULTS: Among 18 patients, 39 brain tumors were treated. Patients received a median of 4.5 cycles of bevacizumab and 1-4 radiation courses prior to BRIA appearance. Most (64%) treated tumors overlapped with areas of BRIA. The median proportion of each BRIA region of interest volume overlapping with tumor was 98%. We found a dose-dependent association between cumulative voxel EQD2 and the relative probability of BRIA (ß0 = -5.1, ß1 = 0.03 Gy-1, γ = 1.3). CONCLUSIONS: BRIA is likely a radiation dose-dependent phenomenon in patients with brain tumors receiving bevacizumab and radiotherapy. The combination of radiation effects and tumor microenvironmental factors in potentiating BRIA in this population should be further investigated.

Automated Patient-level Prostate Cancer Detection with Quantitative Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), but the subjective Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) system and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) are inconsistent. Restriction spectrum imaging (RSI) is an advanced diffusion-weighted MRI technique that yields a quantitative imaging biomarker for csPCa called the RSI restriction score (RSIrs). Objective: To evaluate RSIrs for automated patient-level detection of csPCa. Design setting and participants: We retrospectively studied all patients (n = 151) who underwent 3 T mpMRI and RSI (a 2-min sequence on a clinical scanner) for suspected prostate cancer at University of California San Diego during 2017-2019 and had prostate biopsy within 180 d of MRI. Intervention: We calculated the maximum RSIrs and minimum ADC within the prostate, and obtained PI-RADS v2.1 from medical records. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We compared the performance of RSIrs, ADC, and PI-RADS for the detection of csPCa (grade group ≥2) on the best available histopathology (biopsy or prostatectomy) using the area under the curve (AUC) with two-tailed α = 0.05. We also explored whether the combination of PI-RADS and RSIrs might be superior to PI-RADS alone and performed subset analyses within the peripheral and transition zones. Results and limitations: AUC values for ADC, RSIrs, and PI-RADS were 0.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.58), 0.78 (0.70, 0.85), and 0.77 (0.70, 0.84), respectively. RSIrs and PI-RADS were each superior to ADC for patient-level detection of csPCa (p < 0.0001). RSIrs alone was comparable with PI-RADS (p = 0.8). The combination of PI-RADS and RSIrs had an AUC of 0.85 (0.78, 0.91) and was superior to either PI-RADS or RSIrs alone (p < 0.05). Similar patterns were seen in the peripheral and transition zones. Conclusions: RSIrs is a promising quantitative marker for patient-level csPCa detection, warranting a prospective study. Patient summary: We evaluated a rapid, advanced prostate magnetic resonance imaging technique called restriction spectrum imaging to see whether it could give an automated score that predicted the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. The automated score worked about as well as expert radiologists' interpretation. The combination of the radiologists' scores and automated score might be better than either alone.