Development of Prostate Bed Delineation Consensus Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Radiotherapy and Assessment of Its Effect on Interobserver Variability.

PURPOSE: The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiotherapy planning is becoming more widespread, particularly with the emergence of MRI-guided radiotherapy systems. Existing guidelines for defining the prostate bed clinical target volume (CTV) show considerable heterogeneity. This study aimed to establish baseline interobserver variability (IOV) for prostate bed CTV contouring on MRI, develop international consensus guidelines, and evaluate its effect on IOV. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Participants delineated the CTV on 3 MRI scans, obtained from the Elekta Unity MR-Linac, as per their normal practice. Radiation oncologist contours were visually examined for discrepancies, and interobserver comparisons were evaluated against simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) contours using overlap metrics (Dice similarity coefficient and Cohen's kappa), distance metrics (mean distance to agreement and Hausdorff distance), and volume measurements. A literature review of postradical prostatectomy local recurrence patterns was performed and presented alongside IOV results to the participants. Consensus guidelines were collectively constructed, and IOV assessment was repeated using these guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen radiation oncologists' contours were included in the final analysis. Visual evaluation demonstrated significant differences in the superior, inferior, and anterior borders. Baseline IOV assessment indicated moderate agreement for the overlap metrics while volume and distance metrics demonstrated greater variability. Consensus for optimal prostate bed CTV boundaries was established during a virtual meeting. After guideline development, a decrease in IOV was observed. The maximum volume ratio decreased from 4.7 to 3.1 and volume coefficient of variation reduced from 40% to 34%. The mean Dice similarity coefficient rose from 0.72 to 0.75 and the mean distance to agreement decreased from 3.63 to 2.95 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variability in prostate bed contouring exists among international genitourinary experts, although this is lower than previously reported. Consensus guidelines for MRI-based prostate bed contouring have been developed, and this has resulted in an improvement in contouring concordance. However, IOV persists and strategies such as an education program, development of a contouring atlas, and further refinement of the guidelines may lead to additional improvements.

Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively. CONCLUSION: BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events.

Atezolizumab With or Without Radiotherapy for Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Penis (The PERICLES Study): A Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma have a poor prognosis (21% 2-year overall survival [OS] from diagnosis). We assessed the activity of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) in patients with advanced penile cancer, with or without radiotherapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A single-center, nonrandomized phase II study with two treatment arms was conducted in 32 patients with histologically confirmed advanced penile cancer. All patients received atezolizumab (1,200 mg) once every 3 weeks. Twenty patients, who were expected to benefit from RT for locoregional disease control, received additional irradiation. The primary end point was 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) for the complete cohort and was reached if the actual 1-year PFS was at least 35%. Secondary end points included OS, objective response rate (ORR), and tolerability. Exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted in pretreatment specimens. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 29.1 months (IQR, 18.1-33.5). Grade 3-4 adverse events related to atezolizumab or RT were observed in 3/32 (9.4%) and 13/20 (65%) patients, respectively. One-year PFS was 12.5% (95% CI, 5.0 to 31.3), which did not meet the study's primary end point. Median OS was 11.3 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 18.7). In the objective response-evaluable population (n = 30; 93.8%), the ORR was 16.7% (95% CI, 6 to 35), including 2 (6.7%) complete responders and 3 (10%) partial responders. Improved PFS was observed in patients with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-positive tumors (P = .003) and those with high infiltration of intratumoral CD3+CD8+ T cells (P = .037). CONCLUSION: Although the primary end point of 1-year PFS was not met, durable antitumor activity to atezolizumab was observed in a subset of patients. Biomarkers, such as hrHPV and intratumoral CD3+CD8+ T-cell infiltration, may help to better select responders.

Treating Primary Node-Positive Prostate Cancer: A Scoping Review of Available Treatment Options.

There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment for patients with a primary diagnosis of clinically and pathologically node-positive (cN1M0 and pN1M0) hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa). The treatment paradigm has shifted as research has shown that these patients could benefit from intensified treatment and are potentially curable. This scoping review provides an overview of available treatments for men with primary-diagnosed cN1M0 and pN1M0 PCa. A search was conducted on Medline for studies published between 2002 and 2022 that reported on treatment and outcomes among patients with cN1M0 and pN1M0 PCa. In total, twenty-seven eligible articles were included in this analysis: six randomised controlled trials, one systematic review, and twenty retrospective/observational studies. For cN1M0 PCa patients, the best-established treatment option is a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) applied to both the prostate and lymph nodes. Based on most recent studies, treatment intensification can be beneficial, but more randomised studies are needed. For pN1M0 PCa patients, adjuvant or early salvage treatments based on risk stratification determined by factors such as Gleason score, tumour stage, number of positive lymph nodes, and surgical margins appear to be the best-established treatment options. These treatments include close monitoring and adjuvant treatment with ADT and/or EBRT.

From once-weekly to semi-weekly whole prostate gland stereotactic radiotherapy with focal boosting: Primary endpoint analysis of the multicenter phase II hypo-FLAME 2.0 trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The hypo-FLAME trial showed that once-weekly (QW) focal boosted prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is associated with acceptable acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Currently, we investigated the safety of reducing the overall treatment time (OTT) of focal boosted prostate SBRT from 29 to 15 days. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were treated with SBRT delivering 35 Gy in 5 fractions to the whole prostate gland with an iso-toxic boost up to 50 Gy to the intraprostatic lesion(s) in a semi-weekly (BIW) schedule. The primary endpoint was radiation-induced acute toxicity (CTCAE v5.0). Changes in quality of life (QoL) were examined in terms of proportions achieving a minimal clinically important change (MCIC). Finally, acute toxicity and QoL scores of the BIW schedule were compared with the results of the prior QW hypo-FLAME schedule (n = 100). RESULTS: Between August 2020 and February 2022, 124 patients were enrolled and treated BIW. No grade ≥3 GU or GI toxicity was observed. The 90-days cumulative incidence of grade 2 GU and GI toxicity rates were 47.5% and 7.4%, respectively. Patients treated QW scored significant less grade 2 GU toxicity (34.0%, p = 0.01). No significant differences in acute GI toxicity were observed. Furthermore, patients treated QW had a superior acute bowel and urinary QoL. CONCLUSION: Semi-weekly prostate SBRT with iso-toxic focal boosting is associated with acceptable acute GU and GI toxicity. Based on the comparison between the QW and BIW schedule, patients should be counselled regarding the short-term advantages of a more protracted schedule. Registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04045717.

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry on 29 march 2021. Comparative studies, published since 2016, that reported on treatment with RP versus dose-escalated EBRT and ADT for high-risk non-metastatic PCa were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise quality and risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Nineteen studies, all non-randomized, met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment indicated low (n = 14) to moderate/high (n = 5) risk of bias. Only three studies reported functional outcomes and/or HRQoL using different measurement instruments and methods. A clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL was not observed. All studies reported oncological outcomes and survival was generally good (5-year survival rates > 90%). In the majority of studies, a statistically significant difference between both treatment groups was not observed, or only differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence clearly demonstrating superiority in terms of oncological outcomes of either RP or EBRT combined with ADT is lacking. Studies reporting functional outcomes and HRQoL are very scarce and the magnitude of the effect of RP versus dose-escalated EBRT with ADT on HRQoL and functional outcomes remains largely unknown.

Advances in radiotherapy and its impact on second primary cancer risk: A multi-center cohort study in prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Modelling studies suggest that advanced intensity-modulated radiotherapy may increase second primary cancer (SPC) risks, due to increased radiation exposure of tissues located outside the treatment fields. In the current study we investigated the association between SPC risks and characteristics of applied external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) protocols for localized prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: We collected EBRT protocol characteristics (2000-2016) from five Dutch RT institutes for the 3D-CRT and advanced EBRT era (N = 7908). From the Netherlands Cancer Registry we obtained patient/tumour characteristics, SPC data, and survival information. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) were calculated for pelvis and non-pelvis SPC. Nationwide SIRs were calculated as a reference, using calendar period as a proxy to label 3D-CRT/advanced EBRT. RESULTS: From 2000-2006, 3D-CRT with 68-78 Gy in 2 Gy fractions, delivered with 10-23 MV and weekly portal imaging was the most dominant protocol. By the year 2010 all institutes routinely used advanced EBRT (IMRT, VMAT, tomotherapy), mainly delivering 78 Gy in 2 Gy fractions, using various kV/MV imaging protocols. Sixteen percent (N = 1268) developed ≥ 1 SPC. SIRs for pelvis and non-pelvis SPC (all institutes, advanced EBRT vs 3D-CRT) were 1.17 (1.00-1.36) vs 1.39 (1.21-1.59), and 1.01 (0.89-1.07) vs 1.03 (0.94-1.13), respectively. Nationwide non-pelvis SIR was 1.07 (1.01-1.13) vs 1.02 (0.98-1.07). Other RT protocol characteristics did not correlate with SPC endpoints. CONCLUSION: None of the studied RT characteristics of advanced EBRT was associated with increased out-of-field SPC risks. With constantly evolving EBRT protocols, evaluation of associated SPC risks remains important.

Sentinel Node Procedure to Select Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Patients with Occult Nodal Metastases for Whole Pelvis Radiotherapy.

Background: Accurate identification of men who harbor nodal metastases is necessary to select patients who most likely benefit from whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT). Limited sensitivity of diagnostic imaging approaches for the detection of nodal micrometastases has led to the exploration of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Objective: To evaluate whether SLNB can be used as a tool to select pathologically node-positive patients who likely benefit from WPRT. Design setting and participants: We included 528 clinically node-negative primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients with an estimated nodal risk of >5% treated between 2007 and 2018. Intervention: A total of 267 patients were directly treated with prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT; non-SLNB group), while 261 patients underwent SLNB to remove lymph nodes directly draining from the primary tumor prior to radiotherapy (SLNB group); pN0 patients were treated with PORT, while pN1 patients were offered WPRT. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) and radiological recurrence-free survival (RRFS) were compared using propensity score weighted (PSW) Cox proportional hazard models. Results and limitations: The median follow-up was 71 mo. Occult nodal metastases were found in 97 (37%) SLNB patients (median metastasis size: 2 mm). Adjusted 7-yr BCRFS rates were 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77-86%) in the SLNB group and 49% (95% CI 43-56%) in the non-SLNB group. The corresponding adjusted 7-yr RRFS rates were 83% (95% CI 78-87%) and 52% (95% CI 46-59%), respectively. In the PSW multivariable Cox regression analysis, SLNB was associated with improved BCRFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.59, p < 0.001) and RRFS (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.69, p < 0.001). Limitations include the bias inherent to the study's retrospective nature. Conclusions: SLNB-based selection of pN1 PCa patients for WPRT was associated with significantly improved BCRFS and RRFS compared with (conventional) imaging-based PORT. Patient summary: Sentinel node biopsy can be used to select patients who will benefit from the addition of pelvis radiotherapy. This strategy results in a longer duration of prostate-specific antigen control and a lower risk of radiological recurrence.

Patterns of Recurrence and Survival After Pelvic Treatment for Locally Advanced Penile Cancer.

Background: Penile cancer (PeCa) is rare, and the survival of patients with advanced disease remains poor. A better understanding of where treatment fails could aid the development of new treatment strategies. Objective: To describe the disease course after pelvic lymph node (LN) treatment for PeCa. Design setting and participants: We retrospectively analysed 228 patients who underwent pelvic LN treatment with curative intent from 1969 to 2016. The main treatment modalities were neoadjuvant chemotherapy, chemoradiation, and pelvic LN dissection. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: In the case of multiple recurrence locations, the most distant location was taken and recorded as follows: local (penis), regional (inguinal and pelvic LN), and distant (any other location). A competing risk analysis was used to calculate the time to recurrence per location, and a Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for overall survival (OS). Results and limitations: The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 79 mo. The reason for pelvic treatment was pelvic involvement on imaging (29%), two or more tumour-positive inguinal LNs (61%), or inguinal extranodal extension (52%). More than half of the patients (61%) developed a recurrence. The median recurrence-free survival was 11 mo. The distribution was local in 9%, regional in 27%, and distant in 64% of patients. The infield control rate of nonsystemically treated patients was 61% (113/184). From the start of pelvic treatment, the median OS was 17 mo (95% confidence interval 12-22). After regional or distant recurrence, all but one patient died of PeCa with median OS after a recurrence of 4.4 (regional) and 3.1 (distant) mo. This study is limited by its retrospective nature. Conclusions: The prognosis of PeCa patients treated on their pelvis who recur despite locoregional treatment is poor. The tendency for systemic spread emphasises the need for more effective systemic treatment strategies. Patient summary: In this report, we looked at the outcomes of penile cancer patients in an expert centre undergoing various treatments on their pelvis. We found that survival is poor after recurrence despite locoregional treatment. Therefore, better systemic treatments are necessary.

Magnetic Resonance-Guided Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: The First Results from the MOMENTUM study-An International Registry for the Evidence-Based Introduction of Magnetic Resonance-Guided Adaptive Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) is a new technique for treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa). We report the 12-month outcomes for the first PCa patients treated within an international consortium (the MOMENTUM study) on a 1.5T MR-Linac system with ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated with 5 × 7.25 Gy were identified. Prostate specific antigen-level, physician-reported toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]), and patient-reported outcomes (Quality of Life Questionnaire PR25 and Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 questionnaires) were recorded at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up (FU). Pairwise comparative statistics were conducted to compare outcomes between baseline and FU. RESULTS: The study included 425 patients with localized PCa (11.4% low, 82.0% intermediate, and 6.6% high-risk), and 365, 313, and 186 patients reached 3-, 6-, and 12-months FU, respectively. Median prostate specific antigen level declined significantly to 1.2 ng/mL and 0.1 ng/mL at 12 months FU for the nonandrogen deprivation therapy (ADT) and ADT group, respectively. The peak of genitourinary and gastrointestinal CTCAE toxicity was reported at 3 months FU, with 18.7% and 1.7% grade ≥2, respectively. The QLQ-PR25 questionnaire outcomes showed significant deterioration in urinary domain score at all FU moments, from 8.3 (interquartile range [IQR], 4.1-16.6) at baseline to 12.4 (IQR, 8.3-24.8; P = .005) at 3 months, 12.4 (IQR, 8.3-20.8; P = .018;) at 6 months, and 12.4 (IQR, 8.3-20.8; P = .001) at 12 months. For the non-ADT group, physician- and patient-reported erectile function worsened significantly between baseline and 12 months FU. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrahypofractionated MR-guided radiation therapy for localized PCa using a 1.5T MR-Linac is effective and safe. The peak of CTCAE genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was reported at 3 months FU. Furthermore, for patients without ADT, a significant increase in CTCAE erectile dysfunction was reported at 12 months FU. These data are useful for educating patients on expected outcomes and informing study design of future comparative-effectiveness studies.

Quality of early prostate cancer follow-up care from the patients' perspective.

PURPOSE: To develop optimal cancer survivorship care programs, this study assessed the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care as experienced by patients shortly after completion of primary treatment. METHODS: We surveyed 402 patients with localized prostate cancer participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing specialist versus primary care-based follow-up. For the current study, we used patient-reported data at the time of the first follow-up visit at the hospital, prior to randomization. We assessed patients' ratings of the quality of follow-up care using the Assessment of Patient Experiences of Cancer Care survey. This survey includes 13 scales about different aspects of care and an overall rating of care. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with perceived follow-up quality. RESULTS: Patients reported positive experiences at first follow-up for 9 of 13 scales, with mean (M) scores ranging from 79 to 97 (on a 0-100 response scale). Patients reported most frequently (over 70%) suboptimal care regarding symptom management (84%; M = 44, SD = 37), health promotion (75%; M = 45, SD = 39), and physician's knowledge about patients' life (84%; M = 65, SD = 23). Overall, patients' lower quality of follow-up ratings were associated with younger age, higher education level, having more than one comorbid condition, having undergone primary surgery, and experiencing significant symptoms. CONCLUSION: Patients with prostate cancer are generally positive about their initial, hospital-based follow-up care. However, efforts should be made to improve symptom management, health promotion, and physician's knowledge about patients' life. These findings point to areas where prostate cancer follow-up care can be improved.

Local Failure Events in Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of 18 Randomized Trials from the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium (LEVIATHAN).

CONTEXT: The prognostic importance of local failure after definitive radiotherapy (RT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic impact of local failure and the kinetics of distant metastasis following RT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A pooled analysis was performed on individual patient data of 12 533 PCa (6288 high-risk and 6245 intermediate-risk) patients enrolled in 18 randomized trials (conducted between 1985 and 2015) within the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard (PH) models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and local failure as a time-dependent covariate. Markov PH models were developed to evaluate the impact of specific transition states. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The median follow-up was 11 yr. There were 795 (13%) local failure events and 1288 (21%) distant metastases for high-risk patients and 449 (7.2%) and 451 (7.2%) for intermediate-risk patients, respectively. For both groups, 81% of distant metastases developed from a clinically relapse-free state (cRF state). Local failure was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), PCSS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.75-2.33), and DMFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75-2.15, p < 0.01 for all) in high-risk patients. Local failure was also significantly associated with DMFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.81) but not with OS in intermediate-risk patients. Patients without local failure had a significantly lower HR of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who had local failure (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50, p < 0.001). At later time points, more distant metastases emerged after a local failure event for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Local failure is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS, and DMFS in high-risk and of DMFS in intermediate-risk PCa. Distant metastasis predominantly developed from the cRF state, underscoring the importance of addressing occult microscopic disease. However a "second wave" of distant metastases occurs subsequent to local failure events, and optimization of local control may reduce the risk of distant metastasis. PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men receiving definitive radiation therapy for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, about 10% experience local recurrence, and they are at significantly increased risks of further disease progression. About 80% of patients who develop distant metastasis do not have a detectable local recurrence preceding it.

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

High-dose Radiotherapy or Androgen Deprivation Therapy (HEAT) as Treatment Intensification for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient-data Network Meta-analysis from the MARCAP Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The relative benefits of radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation and the addition of short-term or long-term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT or LTADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of relevant randomized trials to compare the relative benefits of RT dose escalation ± STADT or LTADT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An NMA of individual patient data from 13 multicenter randomized trials was carried out for a total of 11862 patients. Patients received one of the six permutations of low-dose RT (64 to <74 Gy) ± STADT or LTADT, high-dose RT (≥74 Gy), or high-dose RT ± STADT or LTADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Metastasis-free survival (MFS) was the primary endpoint. Frequentist and Bayesian NMAs were performed to rank the various treatment strategies by MFS and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up was 8.8 yr (interquartile range 5.7-11.5). The greatest relative improvement in outcomes was seen for addition of LTADT, irrespective of RT dose, followed by addition of STADT, irrespective of RT dose. RT dose escalation did not improve MFS either in the absence of ADT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.18) or with STADT (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.8-1.23) or LTADT (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.37). According to P-score ranking and rankogram analysis, high-dose RT + LTADT was the optimal treatment strategy for both BCRFS and longer-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Conventionally escalated RT up to 79.2 Gy, alone or in the presence of ADT, does not improve MFS, while addition of STADT or LTADT to RT alone, regardless of RT dose, consistently improves MFS. RT dose escalation does provide a high probability of improving BCRFS and, provided it can be delivered without compromising quality of life, may represent the optimal treatment strategy when used in conjunction with ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: Using a higher radiotherapy dose when treating prostate cancer does not reduce the chance of developing metastases or death, but it does reduce the chance of having a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) signifying recurrence of cancer. Androgen deprivation therapy improves all outcomes. A safe increase in radiotherapy dose in conjunction with androgen deprivation therapy may be the optimal treatment.

Urethral and bladder dose-effect relations for late genitourinary toxicity following external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the FLAME trial.

PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVES: The FLAME trial (NCT01168479) showed that by adding a focal boost to conventional fractionated EBRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer, the five-year biochemical disease-free survival increased, without significantly increasing toxicity. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between radiation dose to the bladder and urethra and genitourinary (GU) toxicity grade ≥2 in the entire cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The dose-effect relations of the urethra and bladder dose, separately, and GU toxicity grade ≥2 (CTCAE 3.0) up to five years after treatment were assessed. A mixed model analysis for repeated measurements was used, adjusting for age, diabetes mellitus, T-stage, baseline GU toxicity grade ≥1 and institute. Additionally, the association between the dose and separate GU toxicity subdomains were investigated. RESULTS: Dose-effect relations were observed for the dose (Gy) to the bladder D2 cm3 and urethra D0.1 cm3, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.14 (95% CI 1.12-1.16, p < 0.0001) and 1.12 (95% CI 1.11-1.14, p < 0.0001), respectively. Additionally, associations between the dose to the urethra and bladder and the subdomains urinary frequency, urinary retention and urinary incontinence were observed. CONCLUSION: Further increasing the dose to the bladder and urethra will result in a significant increase in GU toxicity following EBRT. Focal boost treatment plans should incorporate a urethral dose-constraint. Further treatment optimization to increase the focal boost dose without increasing the dose to the urethra and other organs at risk should be a focus for future research, as we have shown that a focal boost is beneficial in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Acute Phase of the Randomized Hypofractionated Irradiation for Prostate Cancer (HYPRO) Trial.

PURPOSE: Many patients experience bowel and bladder toxicity during the acute phase of radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Recent literature indicates that hypofractionation (HF) might increase this acute response but little is known on patient-reported outcome during this phase with HF. We evaluated the course of patient-reported acute symptoms during HF versus standard fractionated (SF) radiation therapy within the hypofractionated irradiation for prostate cancer (HYPRO) trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the HYPRO trial patients were treated with either 64.4 Gy (HF) in 19 fractions (3 times per week) or 78 Gy (SF) in 39 fractions (5 times per week). Normalized total dose for 2 Gy/fractions (NTD2Gy)for acute toxicity (α/ß ratio of 10) for HF was 72.1 Gy with a similar dose rate of 10.2 Gy per week. Among the 794 patients who were previously eligible for acute grade ≥2 toxicity assessment, 717 had filled out ≥1 symptom questionnaires. For each maximum symptom, we scored "any complaint" and "moderate-severe complaint." Differences were tested by χ2 test, and associations with clinical factors were tested using logistic regression. Significance was set at P ≤ .008 to adjust for multiple testing. RESULTS: We observed significantly higher rates of moderate-severe painful defecation (HF 10.8%, SF 5.3%), any mucus discharge (HF 47.1%, SF 37.4%), any rectal blood loss (HF 16.1%, SF 9.3%), increased daily stool frequency ≥4 and ≥6 (HF 34.6%/13.8%, SF 25.6%/7.0%), and any urinary straining (HF 69.9%, SF 58.0%). At 3 months postradiation therapy, rates dropped considerably with similar levels for HF and SF. Hormonal treatment was associated with less acute gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSION: The increased patient-reported acute rectal symptoms with HF confirmed the previously reported results on acute grade ≥2 rectal toxicity. The increase in bladder symptoms with HF was not identified previously. These observations contradict the NTD2Gy calculations. We observed no patterns of persisting complaints with HF after the acute period; therefore, HF is well tolerated and only associated with a temporary increase of symptoms.

Unexpected toxicity of CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib and radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors have recently been approved for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in association with endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women. Data on the interaction of CDK4/6 inhibition and radiotherapy are scarce, but some studies show unexpected toxicity. CASES: We report three cases of unexpected severe or prolonged soft tissue, skin, and gastrointestinal toxicity in patients treated with a combination of radiotherapy and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib. CONCLUSION: These cases indicate a possible interaction between radiotherapy and palbociclib. Therefore, we recommend using radiotherapy cautiously when combined with CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Patterns of Failure Following External Beam Radiotherapy With or Without an Additional Focal Boost in the Randomized Controlled FLAME Trial for Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Focal dose escalation in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) showed an increase in 5-yr biochemical disease-free survival in the Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer (FLAME) trial. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effect of a focal boost to intraprostatic lesions on local failure-free survival (LFS) and regional + distant metastasis-free survival (rdMFS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer were included in FLAME, a phase 3, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. INTERVENTION: Standard treatment of 77 Gy to the entire prostate in 35 fractions was compared to an additional boost to the macroscopic tumor of up to 95 Gy during EBRT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: LFS and rdMFS, measured via any type of imaging, were compared between the treatment arms using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Dose-response curves were created for local failure (LF) and regional + distant metastatic failure (rdMF) using logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 571 patients were included in the FLAME trial. Over median follow-up of 72 mo (interquartile range 58-86), focal boosting decreased LF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.78) and rdMF (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.93). Dose-response curves showed that a greater dose to the tumor resulted in lower LF and rdMF rates. CONCLUSIONS: A clear dose-response relation for LF and rdMF was observed, suggesting that adequate focal dose escalation to intraprostatic lesions prevents undertreatment of the primary tumor, resulting in an improvement rdMF. PATIENT SUMMARY: Radiotherapy is a treatment option for high-risk prostate cancer. The FLAME trial has shown that a high dose specifically targeted at the tumor within the prostate will result in better disease outcome, with less likelihood of regional and distant disease spread. The FLAME trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01168479.

Impact of Advanced Radiotherapy on Second Primary Cancer Risk in Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) techniques dramatically changed over the years. This may have affected the risk of radiation-induced second primary cancers (SPC), due to increased irradiated low dose volumes and scatter radiation. We investigated whether patterns of SPC after EBRT have changed over the years in prostate cancer (PCa) survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PCa survivors diagnosed between 1990-2014 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients treated with EBRT were divided in three time periods, representing 2-dimensional Radiotherapy (RT), 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), and the advanced RT (AdvRT) era. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and absolute excess risks (AER) were calculated to estimate relative and excess absolute SPC risks. Sub-hazard ratios (sHRs) were calculated to compare SPC rates between the EBRT and prostatectomy cohort. SPCs were categorized by subsite and anatomic region. RESULTS: PCa survivors who received EBRT had an increased risk of developing a solid SPC (SIR=1.08; 1.05-1.11), especially in patients aged <70 years (SIR=1.13; 1.09-1.16). Pelvic SPC risks were increased (SIR=1.28; 1.23-1.34), with no obvious differences between the three EBRT eras. Non-pelvic SPC were only significantly increased in the AdvRT era (SIR=1.08; 1.02-1.14), in particular for the 1-5 year follow-up period. Comparing the EBRT cohort to the prostatectomy cohort, again an increased pelvic SPC risk was found for all EBRT periods (sHRs= 1.61, 1.47-1.76). Increased non-pelvic SPC risks were present for all RT eras and highest for the AdvRT period (sHRs=1.17, 1.06-1.29). CONCLUSION: SPC risk in patients with EBRT is increased and remained throughout the different EBRT eras. The risk of developing a SPC outside the pelvic area changed unfavorably in the AdvRT era. Prolonged follow-up is needed to confirm this observation. Whether this is associated with increased irradiated low-dose volumes and scatter, or other changes in clinical EBRT practice, is the subject of further research.