Practical Implications of the American Society for Radiation Oncology Radiation Oncology Case Rate Program Proposal for Radiation Oncologists.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology has proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate Program (ROCR) to advocate for fair reimbursement for radiation oncologists. ROCR would replace Medicare fee-for-service with a case rate payment for each of the 15 most common cancer types treated with external beam or stereotactic radiation therapy. This topic discussion attempts to provide a concise overview of the practical implications for radiation oncologists should the ROCR payment program be legislated by Congress and subsequently implemented by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This topic discussion covers the practical changes to billing and reimbursement, the Health Equity Achievement in Radiation Therapy payment, the Quality of Care requirement, and the available tool to calculate the effect of the ROCR based on an individual practice's case mix.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Gynecologic Malignancies: A Case-Based Radiosurgery Society Practice Review.

PURPOSE: The use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for gynecologic malignancies is controversial. We discuss certain circumstances when highly precise SBRT may be a useful tool to consider in the management of selected patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Case selection included the following scenarios, the first 2 with palliative intent, para-aortic nodal oligorecurrence of ovarian cancer, pelvic sidewall oligorecurrence of cervical cancer, and inoperable endometrial cancer boost after intensity modulated radiation to the pelvis treated with curative intent. Patient characteristics, fractionation, prescription dose, treatment technique, and dose constraints were discussed. Relevant literature to these cases was summarized to provide a framework for treatment of similar patients. RESULTS: Treatment of gynecologic malignancies with SBRT requires many considerations, including treatment intent, optimal patient selection, fractionation selection, tumor localization, and plan optimization. Although other treatment paradigms including conventionally fractionated radiation therapy and brachytherapy remain the standard-of-care for definitive treatment of gynecologic malignancies, SBRT may have a role in palliative cases or those where high doses are not required due to the unacceptable toxicity that may occur with SBRT. CONCLUSIONS: A case-based practice review was developed by the Radiosurgery Society to provide a practical guide to the common scenarios noted above affecting patients with gynecologic malignancies.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology Workforce Taskforce Review of the United States Radiation Oncology Workforce Analysis.

Over the past decade, concerns have arisen in radiation oncology regarding potential workforce supply and demand imbalance. The American Society for Radiation Oncology commissioned an independent analysis in 2022, looking at supply and demand in the United States radiation oncology workforce and projecting future trends for 2025 and 2030. The final report, titled Projected Supply and Demand for Radiation Oncologists in the U.S. in 2025 and 2030, is now available. The analysis included evaluating radiation oncologist (RO) supply (new graduates, exits from the specialty), potential changes in demand (growth of Medicare beneficiaries, hypofractionation, loss of indications, new indications) as well as RO productivity (growth of work relative value units [wRVUs] produced), and demand per beneficiary. The results demonstrated a relative balance between radiation oncology supply and demand for radiation services; the growth in ROs was balanced by the rapid growth of Medicare beneficiaries over the same period. The primary factors driving the model were found to be growth of Medicare beneficiaries and change in wRVU productivity, with hypofractionation and loss of indication having only a moderate effect; although the most likely scenario was a balance of workforce supply and demand, scenarios did demonstrate the possibility of over- and undersupply. Oversupply may become a concern if RO wRVU productivity reaches the highest region; beyond 2030, this is also possible if growth in RO supply does not parallel Medicare beneficiary growth, which is projected to decline and will require corresponding supply adjustment. Limitations of the analysis included uncertainty regarding the true number of ROs, the lack of inclusion of most technical reimbursement and its effect as well as failing to account for stereotactic body radiation therapy. A modeling tool is available to allow individuals to evaluate different scenarios. Moving forward, continued study will be needed to evaluate trends (particularly wRVU productivity and Medicare beneficiary growth) to allow for continued assessment of workforce supply and demand in radiation oncology.

Recent Trends in Medicare Payments for Outpatient Cancer Care at the End of Life.

PURPOSE: Outpatient care for patients with cancer compromises 60% to 70% of health care costs during the last 6 months of life. Recent approvals for expensive biologics and growing support for lower-cost hypofractionated radiation therapy in the palliative management of advanced cancer have introduced offsetting spending effects on end-of-life care that may shift overall expenditures for this patient cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this descriptive retrospective cohort study, end-of-life care is defined as the aggregate of medical services and supplies, including drugs, furnished to patients with cancer in the outpatient setting during the last 6 months of life. A total of 84,744 Medicare beneficiaries with a cancer diagnosis were identified as having died between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Beneficiaries with Medicare Advantage were not included in this study. Medicare Standard Analytical Files were abstracted for all paid claims for these beneficiaries during the last 6 months of life, and provider payments were summed according to service or supply category and year of death. Comparisons of service and supply utilization and costs between patient groups were performed using the Pearson χ2 test. RESULTS: The average total Medicare Part B payments per treated beneficiary during the last 6 month of life increased by 12.0% between 2016 and 2019 (from $14,487 to $16,227), with the greatest absolute cost increase observed for the medical oncology category (from $7030 to $9436 [+34.2%]). Within the medical oncology category, drug utilization shifted away from less costly chemotherapy and hormone therapy agents and toward more expensive immunotherapy agents. The increase in immunotherapy utilization and drug costs alone accounted for 84% of the increase in total Part B payments for all categories during the period. CONCLUSIONS: Although costs related to end-of-life care for nearly all cost categories have remained relatively stable, oncology drug costs overall and immunotherapy costs specifically have accelerated and account almost entirely for the observed overall increase in outpatient cost burden for Medicare.

A Medicare Claims Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Access to Radiation Therapy Services.

PURPOSE: Reduced access and utilization of radiation therapy (RT) is a well-documented healthcare disparity observed among racial and ethnic minority groups in the USA and a contributor to the inferior health outcomes observed among Black, Hispanic, and Native American patient groups. What is less understood are the points during the process of care following RT consultation at which patients either fail to complete their prescribed treatment or encounter delays. Identification of those points where significant differences exist among different patient groups may help identify opportunities to close gaps in the access of clinically indicated RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This analysis examines 261,559 RT episodes abstracted from Medicare claims and beneficiary data between 2016 and 2018 to determine rates of treatment initiation following planning and timeliness of treatment completion for different racial groups. RESULTS: Failure to initiate treatment was observed to be 29.3% relatively greater for Black, Hispanic, and Native American patients than for White and Asian patients. Among episodes for which treatment was initiated, Black and Hispanic patients were observed to require a significantly greater number of calendar days (when adjusted for fraction number) for completion than for White, Asian, and Native American patients. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a patient cohort for which RT disparities may be more marginal in their effects-allowing for access to consultation and treatment prescription but not for treatment initiation or timely completion of treatment-and may therefore permit effective solutions to help address current differences in cancer outcomes.

The Clinical Cell-Cycle Risk (CCR) Score Is Associated With Metastasis After Radiation Therapy and Provides Guidance on When to Forgo Combined Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Dose-Escalated Radiation.

PURPOSE: The clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which combines the University of California, San Francisco's Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) and the cell cycle progression (CCP) molecular score, has been validated to be prognostic of disease progression for men with prostate cancer. This study evaluated the ability of the CCR score to prognosticate the risk of metastasis in men receiving dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study included men with localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk prostate cancer (N = 741). Patients were treated with dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. The primary outcome was time to metastasis. RESULTS: The CCR score prognosticated metastasis with a hazard ratio (HR) per unit score of 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.89; P < .001). The CCR score better prognosticated metastasis than NCCN risk group (CCR, P < .001; NCCN, P = .46), CAPRA score (CCR, P = .002; CAPRA, P = .59), or CCP score (CCR, P < .001; CCP, P = .59) alone. In bivariable analyses, CCR score remained highly prognostic when accounting for ADT versus no ADT (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.61-2.96; P < .001), ADT duration as a continuous variable (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.79; P < .001), or ADT given at or below the recommended duration for each NCCN risk group (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.69-2.86; P < .001). Men with CCR scores below or above the multimodality threshold (CCR score, 2.112) had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7% and 21.24%, respectively. Men with below-threshold scores receiving RT alone had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7%, and for men receiving RT plus ADT, the 10-year risk of metastasis was also 3.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The CCR score accurately and precisely prognosticates metastasis and adds clinically actionable information relative to guideline-recommended therapies based on NCCN risk in men undergoing dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. For men with scores below the multimodality threshold, adding ADT may not significantly reduce their 10-year risk of metastasis.

Refining the definition of biochemical failure in the era of stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: The Phoenix definition and beyond.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Phoenix definition for biochemical failure (BCF) after radiotherapy uses nadir PSA (nPSA) + 2 ng/mL to classify a BCF and was derived from conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, which produces significantly higher nPSAs than stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). We investigated whether an alternative nPSA-based threshold could be used to define post-SBRT BCFs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PSA kinetics data on 2038 patients from 9 institutions were retrospectively analyzed for low- and intermediate-risk PCa patients treated with SBRT without ADT. We evaluated the performance of various nPSA-based definitions. We also investigated the relationship of relative PSA decline (rPSA, PSA18month/PSA6month) and timing of reaching nPSA + 2 with BCF. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 71.9 months. BCF occurred in 6.9% of patients. Median nPSA was 0.16 ng/mL. False positivity of nPSA + 2 was 30.2%, compared to 40.9%, 57.8%, and 71.0% for nPSA + 1.5, nPSA + 1.0, and nPSA + 0.5, respectively. Among patients with BCF, the median lead time gained from an earlier nPSA + threshold definition over the Phoenix definition was minimal. Patients with BCF had significantly lower rates of early PSA decline (mean rPSA 1.19 vs. 0.39, p < 0.0001) and were significantly more likely to reach nPSA + 2 ≥ 18 months (83.3% vs. 21.1%, p < 0.0001). The proposed criterion (rPSA ≥ 2.6 or nPSA + 2 ≥ 18 months) had a sensitivity and specificity of 92.4% and 81.5%, respectively, for predicting BCF in patients meeting the Phoenix definition and decreased its false positivity to 6.4%. CONCLUSION: The Phoenix definition remains an excellent definition for BCF post-SBRT. Its high false positivity can be mitigated by applying additional criteria (rPSA ≥ 2.6 or time to nPSA + 2 ≥ 18 months).

Disproportionate Negative Impact of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on Rural Providers: A Cost Identification Analysis of Medicare Claims.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (APM) is a Medicare demonstration project that will test whether prospective bundled payments to a randomly selected group of physician practices, hospital outpatient departments, and freestanding radiation therapy centers reduce overall expenditures while preserving or enhancing the quality of care for beneficiaries. The Model follows a complicated pricing methodology that blends historical reimbursements for a defined set of services made to professional and technical providers to create a weighted payment average for each of 16 cancer types. These averages are then adjusted by various factors to determine APM payments specific to each participating provider. METHODS: This impact study segregates APM participants into rural and urban groups and analyzes the effect of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on their fee-for-service reimbursements. RESULTS: The main findings of this study are (1) the greater net-negative revenue impact on rural facilities versus urban facilities that would have participated in the Model this year and (2) the relative lack of high-value treatment services (ie, stereotactic radiotherapy and brachytherapy) delivered by rural facilities that exacerbates their negative impact. CONCLUSION: As such, rural providers participating in the Model in its current form may face greater risk to their economic viability and greater difficulty in funding technology improvements necessary for the achievement of high-quality care compared with their urban counterparts.

Radiation Oncology's Place in Payment Reform: ASTRO Advocates for a Place at the Table.

In its current form, the Radiation Oncology Model (RO Model) prioritizes payment cuts over true value-based payment transformation. With significant modifications to the payment methodology, the reporting requirements, and recognition of the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged populations, the RO Model can protect patient access to care, preserve the physician-patient decision-making process, and ensure the delivery of high-quality, efficient radiation therapy treatment. The American Society for Radiation Oncology has spent several years advocating for a meaningful alternative payment model for radiation oncology and continues to push The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation for changes to the RO Model that will recognize these key outcomes.

Toxicity After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Multi-institutional Matched Case-Control Series.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer in men with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We queried a consortium database for patients with IBD receiving SBRT for prostate cancer between 2006 and 2012. Identified patients were matched with patients without a history of IBD in a 3:1 fashion based on dose, fractionation, use of androgen deprivation therapy, and age distribution. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between having IBD and experiencing acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities as scored on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scale. Time to late toxicity was evaluated using proportional hazard Cox models. Our study was limited by absence of data on prostate size, baseline International Prostate Symptom Score, and rectal dose-volume histogram parameters. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with flare-free IBD at time of treatment (median follow-up 83.9 months) and 117 matched controls (median follow-up 88.7 months) were identified. A diagnosis of IBD was associated with increased odds of developing any late grade GI toxicity (odds ratio [OR] 6.11, P <.001) and GU toxicity (odds ratio 6.14, P < .001), but not odds of developing late grade ≥2 GI (P = .08) or GU toxicity (P = .069). Acute GI and GU toxicity, both overall and for grade ≥2 toxicities, were more frequent in men with IBD (P < .05). Time to late GI and GU toxicity of any grade was significantly shorter in patients with IBD (P < .001). Time to late grade ≥2 GU, but not grade ≥2 GI toxicity, was also shorter in patients with IBD (P = .044 for GU and P = .144 for GI). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD who received SBRT for PCa had a higher likelihood of developing acute GI and GU toxicity, in addition to experiencing lower grade late toxicities that occurred earlier. However, patients with IBD did not have a higher likelihood for late grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity after SBRT compared with the control cohort. Interpretation of this data are limited by the small sample size. Thus, men with IBD in remission should be properly counseled about these risks when considering SBRT.

Drivers of Medicare Spending: A 15-Year Review of Radiation Oncology Charges Allowed by the Medicare Physician/Supplier Fee-for-Service Program Compared With Other Specialties.

PURPOSE: In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed a new radiation oncology alternative payment model aimed at reducing expenditures. We examined changes in aggregate physician Medicare charges allowed per specialty to provide contemporary context to proposed changes and hypothesize that radiation oncology charges remained stable through 2017. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medicare physician/supplier utilization, program payments, and balance billing for original Medicare beneficiaries, by physician specialty, were analyzed from 2002 to 2017. Total allowed charges under the physician/supplier fee-for-service program, inflation-adjusted charges, and percent of total charges billed per specialty were examined. We adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index for medical care from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. RESULTS: Total allowed charges increased from $83 billion in 2002 to $138 billion in 2017. The specialties accounting for the most charges billed to Medicare were internal medicine and ophthalmology. Radiation oncology charges accounted for 1.2%, 1.6%, and 1.4% of total charges allowed by Medicare in 2002, 2012, and 2017, respectively. Radiation oncology charges allowed increased 44% from 2002 to 2012 ($987.6 million to $1.42 billion) but decreased by 19% from 2012 to 2017 ($1.15 billion), adjusted for inflation. Total charges allowed by internal medicine decreased 2% from 2002 to 2012 ($8.53 to $8.36 billion), adjusted for inflation, and decreased 16% from 2012 to 2017 ($7.05 billion). When adjusting for inflation, ophthalmology charges increased 18% from 2002 to 2012 ($4.53 to $5.36 billion) and increased 3% from 2012 to 2017 ($5.5 billion). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncology physician charges represent a small fraction of total Medicare expenses and are not a driver for Medicare spending. Aggregate inflation-adjusted charges by radiation oncology have dramatically declined in the past 5 years and represent a stable fraction of total Medicare charges. The need to target radiation oncology with cost-cutting measures may be overstated.

Dose-response with stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A multi-institutional analysis of prostate-specific antigen kinetics and biochemical control.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The optimal dose for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is still unknown. This study evaluated the dose-response relationships for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decay and biochemical recurrence (BCR) among 4 SBRT dose regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 1908 men with low-risk (50.0%), favorable intermediate-risk (30.9%), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (19.1%) prostate cancer treated with prostate SBRT across 8 institutions from 2003 to 2018, we examined 4 regimens (35 Gy/5 fractions [35/5, n = 265, 13.4%], 36.25 Gy/5 fractions [36.25/5, n = 711, 37.3%], 40 Gy/5 fractions [40/5, n = 684, 35.8%], and 38 Gy/4 fractions [38/4, n = 257, 13.5%]). Between dose groups, we compared PSA decay slope, nadir PSA (nPSA), achievement of nPSA ≤0.2 and ≤0.5 ng/mL, and BCR-free survival (BCRFS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 72.3 months. Median nPSA was 0.01 ng/mL for 38/4, and 0.17-0.20 ng/mL for 5-fraction regimens (p < 0.0001). The 38/4 cohort demonstrated the steepest PSA decay slope and greater odds of nPSA ≤0.2 ng/mL (both p < 0.0001 vs. all other regimens). BCR occurred in 6.25%, 6.75%, 3.95%, and 8.95% of men treated with 35/5, 36.25/5, 40/5, and 38/4, respectively (p = 0.12), with the highest BCRFS after 40/5 (vs. 35/5 hazard ratio [HR] 0.49, p = 0.026; vs. 36.25/5 HR 0.42, p = 0.0005; vs. 38/4 HR 0.55, p = 0.037) including the entirety of follow-up, but not for 5-year BCRFS (≥93% for all regimens, p ≥ 0.21). CONCLUSION: Dose-escalation was associated with greater prostate ablation and PSA decay. Dose-escalation to 40/5, but not beyond, was associated with improved BCRFS. Biochemical control remains excellent, and prospective studies will provide clarity on the benefit of dose-escalation.

Prostate-specific antigen kinetics and biochemical control following stereotactic body radiation therapy, high dose rate brachytherapy, and low dose rate brachytherapy: A multi-institutional analysis of 3502 patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) are ablative-intent radiotherapy options for prostate cancer (PCa). These vary considerably in dose delivery, which may impact post-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) patterns and biochemical control. We compared PSA kinetics between SBRT, HDR-BT, and LDR-BT, and assessed their relationships to biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Retrospective PSA data were analyzed for 3502 men with low-risk (n = 2223; 63.5%), favorable intermediate-risk (n = 869; 24.8%), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (n = 410; 11.7%) PCa treated with SBRT (n = 1716; 49.0%), HDR-BT (n = 512; 14.6%), or LDR-BT (n = 1274; 36.4%) without upfront androgen deprivation therapy at 10 institutions from 1990 to 2017. We compared nadir PSA (nPSA), time to nPSA, achievement of nPSA <0.2 ng/mL and <0.5 ng/mL, rates of nPSA <0.4 ng/mL at 4 years, and BCRFS. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 72 months. Median nPSA and nPSA <0.2 ng/mL were stratified by risk group (interaction p ≤ 0.001). Median nPSA and time to nPSA were 0.2 ng/mL at 44 months after SBRT, 0.1-0.2 ng/mL at 37 months after HDR-BT, and 0.01-0.2 ng/mL at 51 months after LDR-BT (mean log nPSA p ≤ 0.009 for LDR-BT vs. SBRT or HDR-BT for low/favorable intermediate-risk). There were no differences in nPSA <0.4 ng/mL at 4 years (p ≥ 0.51). BCRFS was similar for all three modalities (p ≥ 0.27). Continued PSA decay beyond 4 years was predictive of durable biochemical control. CONCLUSION: LDR-BT led to lower nPSAs with longer continued decay compared to SBRT and HDR-BT, but no differences in BCRFS.

Gantry-Mounted Linear Accelerator-Based Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To establish the safety and efficacy of gantry-mounted linear accelerator-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We pooled 921 patients enrolled on 7 single-institution prospective phase II trials of gantry-based SBRT from 2006 to 2017. The cumulative incidences of biochemical recurrence (defined by the Phoenix definition) and physician-scored genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities (defined per the original trials using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) were estimated using a competing risk framework. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between late toxicity and prespecified covariates: biologically effective dose, every other day versus weekly fractionation, intrafractional motion monitoring, and acute toxicity. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 3.1 years (range, 0.5-10.8 years). In addition, 505 (54.8%) patients had low-risk disease, 236 (25.6%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 180 (19.5%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Intrafractional motion monitoring was performed in 78.0% of patients. The 3-year cumulative incidence of biochemical recurrence was 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-1.7%), 2.2% (95% CI, 0-4.3%), and 5.1% (95% CI, 1.0-9.2%) for low-, favorable intermediate-, and unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Acute grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicity occurred in 14.5% and 4.6% of patients, respectively. Three-year cumulative incidence estimates of late grade 2 GU and GI toxicity were 4.1% (95% CI, 2.6-5.5%) and 1.3% (95% CI, 0.5-2.1%), respectively, with late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity estimates of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.1-1.3%) and 0.4% (95% CI, 0-0.8%), respectively. The only identified significant predictors of late grade ≥2 toxicity were acute grade ≥2 toxicity (P < .001) and weekly fractionation (P < .01), although only 12.4% of patients were treated weekly. CONCLUSIONS: Gantry-based SBRT for prostate cancer is associated with a favorable safety and efficacy profile, despite variable intrafractional motion management techniques. These findings suggest that multiple treatment platforms can be used to safely deliver prostate SBRT.

Who Benefits From a Prostate Rectal Spacer? Secondary Analysis of a Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Previously a phase III trial of a hydrogel rectal spacer during prostate radiation therapy found decreased toxicity and a clinically significant improvement in bowel quality of life (QOL) at 3 years by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index. We performed a secondary analysis to identify men less likely to benefit. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinical and dosimetric data for the 222 patients enrolled on the SpaceOAR phase III trial were analyzed. The volume of rectum treated to 70 Gy (V70) and the quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) rectal dose goals were used as surrogates for clinical benefit and plan quality. Mean bowel QOL was assessed at 15 and 36 months posttreatment and the likelihood of 1× (5 points) or 2× (10 points) minimally important difference changes were assessed. RESULTS: Rectal V70 was correlated with physician scored toxicity (P = .033) and was used as a surrogate for plan quality. There was no correlation between prostate volume and rectal V70 (r = 0.077). Rectal V70 pre- and post-hydrogel was 13% and 3% for the smallest prostates (<40 mL) and 12% and 2% for the largest (>80 mL). The relative reduction in rectal V70 of 78% did not vary by prespacer V70, but the absolute reduction was greater for a higher V70. All spacer plans met the 5 QUANTEC rectal dose constraints, although 92% of control plans met all constraints. At 3 years, those not meeting all QUANTEC goals had a 15.0-point (standard deviation 15.1) decline, control patients meeting QUANTEC goals had a 4.0-point (9.5) decline, and spacer had >0.5 (7.6; P < .01). Previous surgery was not correlated with QOL (P = .8). Across prognostic groups, including age, body mass index, previous surgery, target volume, or quality of radiation plans, there was no statistically significant heterogeneity in the relative benefit of spacer in decreasing the risk of 1× or 2× the minimally important difference declines. CONCLUSIONS: There was little heterogeneity in the likelihood of spacer reducing the risk of declines in bowel QOL across clinical and dosimetric variables. Even for the >95% of plans meeting QUANTEC rectal criteria, hydrogel spacer provided potentially meaningful benefits.

Multi-Institutional Analysis of Prostate-Specific Antigen Kinetics After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Understanding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics after radiation therapy plays a large role in the management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). This is particularly true in establishing expectations regarding PSA nadir (nPSA) and PSA bounces, which can be disconcerting. As increasingly more patients are being treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for low- and intermediate-risk PCa, it is imperative to understand the PSA response to SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: PSA data from 5 institutions were retrospectively analyzed for patients with localized PCa treated definitively with SBRT alone from 2004 to 2016. Patients received 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions, per institutional standards. Patients who had less than 12 months of PSA data or received androgen deprivation therapy were excluded from this study. Linear and logistic multivariable analysis were performed to identify predictors of nPSA, bounce, and biochemical recurrence, and joint latent class models were developed to identify significant predictors of time to biochemical failure. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients were included in this study. Median follow-up was 66 months (interquartile range [IQR], 36.4-89.9 months). Biochemical failure per the Phoenix criteria occurred in 4% of patients. Median nPSA was 0.2 ng/mL, median time to nPSA was 40 months, 84% of patients had an nPSA ≤0.5 ng/mL, and 54% of patients had an nPSA ≤0.2 ng/mL. On multivariable analysis, nPSA was a significant predictor of biochemical failure. Benign PSA bounce was noted in 26% of patients. The median magnitude of PSA bounce was 0.52 ng/mL (IQR, 0.3-1.0 ng/mL). Median time to PSA bounce was 18.1 months (IQR, 12.0-31.1 months). On multivariable analysis, age and radiation dose were significantly associated with a lower incidence of bounce. Joint latent class models modeling found that nPSA and radiation dose were significantly associated with longer time to biochemical failure. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional cohort of patients with long-term follow-up, we found that SBRT led to low nPSAs. In turn, lower nPSAs are associated with reduced incidence of, and longer time to, biochemical failure. Benign PSA bounces occurred in a quarter of patients, as late as several years after treatment. Further studies are needed to directly compare the PSA response of patients who receive SBRT versus other treatment modalities.

Long-term Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Low-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Stereotactic body radiotherapy harnesses improvements in technology to allow the completion of a course of external beam radiotherapy treatment for prostate cancer in the span of 4 to 5 treatment sessions. Although mounting short-term data support this approach, long-term outcomes have been sparsely reported. Objective: To assess long-term outcomes after stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed individual patient data from 2142 men enrolled in 10 single-institution phase 2 trials and 2 multi-institutional phase 2 trials of stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012. Statistical analysis was performed based on follow-up from January 1, 2013, to May 1, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The cumulative incidence of biochemical recurrence was estimated using a competing risk framework. Physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic event outcomes were defined per each individual study, generally by Radiation Therapy Oncology Group or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scoring systems. After central review, cumulative incidences of late grade 3 or higher toxic events were estimated using a Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 2142 men (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.5] years) were eligible for analysis, of whom 1185 (55.3%) had low-risk disease, 692 (32.3%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 265 (12.4%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. The median follow-up period was 6.9 years (interquartile range, 4.9-8.1 years). Seven-year cumulative rates of biochemical recurrence were 4.5% (95% CI, 3.2%-5.8%) for low-risk disease, 8.6% (95% CI, 6.2%-11.0%) for favorable intermediate-risk disease, 14.9% (95% CI, 9.5%-20.2%) for unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, and 10.2% (95% CI, 8.0%-12.5%) for all intermediate-risk disease. The crude incidence of acute grade 3 or higher genitourinary toxic events was 0.60% (n = 13) and of gastrointestinal toxic events was 0.09% (n = 2), and the 7-year cumulative incidence of late grade 3 or higher genitourinary toxic events was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.8%-3.2%) and of late grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal toxic events was 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk disease was associated with low rates of severe toxic events and high rates of biochemical control. These data suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy is an appropriate definitive treatment modality for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.