A pooled patient-reported outcomes analysis of moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy and photon-based intensity modulated radiation therapy for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize and compare late patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This multi-institutional analysis included low- or intermediate-risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient-reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction. RESULTS: 287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional analysis of low- or intermediate-risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.

Local salvage of radiorecurrent prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Locally recurrent prostate cancer following primary external beam radiotherapy without distant metastasis is a challenging problem, with no current consensus on the optimal management of these patients. Traditional whole-gland salvage treatments offered up to a 50% 5-year disease-free survival rate but with troubling levels of risk for significant complications. Recent progress in advanced imaging techniques has allowed a more accurate selection of patients with local-only recurrence and a selection of patients that may be suitable for newer partial-gland salvage treatments that may reduce late complications. METHODS: This article reviews advances in patient selection and provides an overview of whole- and partial-gland salvage results from selected recent meta-analyses, multi-institutional series, and studies from centers of excellence for these treatment approaches. RESULTS: Salvage radical prostatectomy produces 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates in the 50%-60% range with severe gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in < 2% but severe genitourinary (GU) toxicity in 15%-23% of patients. The whole-gland options of high and low dose rate brachytherapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy appear to offer similar 5-year control rates, with low severe GU and GI toxicity rates of 4%-8% and <2%, respectively. Cryotherapy and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) offer similar 5-year RFS rates but carry significant risks for severe GU and GI toxicity in the range of 10%-27% and <2%, respectively. Early results of partial-gland salvage techniques in selected patients appear promising, with 3-year RFS rates of 48%-72% and rare grade 3 toxicity. CONCLUSION: It is important to understand the relative effectiveness and risks of the various treatment options to effectively counsel patients who face this distressing clinical situation. Whole-gland salvage options offer the possibility of long-term control but with significant risks of severe toxicity. Emerging data for the partial-gland salvage options in appropriately selected patients may offer hope of reasonable control rates with reduced severe toxicity.

Proton Therapy With Concurrent Chemotherapy for Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: Toxicity, Disease Control, and Survival Outcomes.

Purpose: When treating esophageal cancer with radiation therapy, it is critical to limit the dose to surrounding structures, such as the lung and/or heart, as much as possible. Proton radiation therapy allows a reduced radiation dose to both the heart and lungs, potentially reducing the risk of cardiopulmonary toxicity. Here, we report disease control, survival, and toxicity outcomes among patients with esophageal cancer treated with proton radiation therapy and concurrent chemotherapy (chemoradiation therapy; CRT) with or without surgery. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 17 patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma on a prospective registry between 2010 and 2021. Patients received proton therapy to a median dose of 50.4-GyRBE (range, 50.4-64.8) in 1.8-Gy fractions.Acute and late toxicities were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0 (US National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland). In addition, disease control, patterns of failure, and survival outcomes were collected. Results: Nine patients received preoperative CRT, and 8 received definitive CRT. Overall, 88% of patients had adenocarcinoma, and 12% had squamous cell carcinoma. With a median follow-up of 2.1 years (range, 0.5-9.4), the 3-year local progression-free, disease-free, and overall survival rates were 85%, 66%, and 55%, respectively. Two patients (1 with adenocarcinoma and 1 with squamous cell carcinoma) recurred at the primary site after refusing surgery after a complete clinical response to CRT. The most common acute nonhematologic and hematologic toxicities, respectively, were grades 1 to 3 esophagitis and grades 1 to 4 leukopenia, both affecting 82% of patients. No acute cardiopulmonary toxicities were observed in the absence of surgical resection. Reagarding surgical complications, 3 postoperative cardiopulmonary complications occurred as follows: 1 grade 1 pleural effusion, 1 grade 3 pleural effusion, and 1 grade 2 anastomotic leak. Two severe late CRT toxicities occurred: 1 grade 5 tracheoesophageal fistula and 1 grade 3 esophageal stenosis requiring a feeding tube. Conclusion: Proton radiation therapy is a safe, effective treatment for esophageal cancer with increasing evidence supporting its role in reducing cardiopulmonary toxicity.

Measuring Radiation Toxicity Using Circulating Cell-Free DNA in Prostate Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: After radiation therapy (RT), circulating plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) released in response to RT damage to tissue can be measured within hours. We examined for a correlation between cfDNA measured during the first week of therapy and early and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were eligible for enrollment if they planned to receive proton or photon RT for nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the setting of an intact prostate or after prostatectomy. Blood was collected before treatment and on sequential treatment days for the first full week of therapy. Toxicity assessments were performed at baseline, weekly during RT, and 6 months and 12 months after RT. Data were analyzed to examine correlations among patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were evaluable for this study. Four (7%) and 3 (6%) patients experienced acute and late grade 2 GI toxicity, respectively. Twenty-two (41%) and 18 (35%) patients experienced acute and late grade 2 GU toxicity, respectively. No patients developed grade 3 or higher toxicity. Grade 2 acute GI toxicity, but not grade 2 acute GU toxicity, was significantly correlated with pre-RT cfDNA levels and on all days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of RT (P < .005). Grade 2 late GI toxicity, but not GU toxicity, was significantly correlated with pre-RT cfDNA levels (P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this preliminary study, cfDNA levels can potentially predict the subset of patients destined to develop GI toxicity during prostate cancer treatment. Given that the toxicity profiles of the various fractionations and modalities are highly similar, the data support the expectation that cfDNA could provide a biological estimate to complement the dose-volume histogram. A test of this hypothesis is under evaluation in a National Cancer Institute-funded multi-institutional study.

Insurance Approval for Definitive Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that "covered" PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. "Not covered" means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018). RESULTS: On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; P < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; P < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (P = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (P = .44). CONCLUSION: Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.

Heterogeneity in Radiotherapeutic Parameter Assumptions in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Prostate Cancer: A Call for Uniformity.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may provide useful data to inform management decisions depending on the robustness of a model's input parameters. We sought to determine the level of heterogeneity in health state utility values, transition probabilities, and cost estimates across published CEAs assessing primarily radiotherapeutic management strategies in prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prostate cancer CEAs indexed in MEDLINE between 2000 and 2018 comparing accepted treatment modalities across all cancer stages. Search terms included "cost effectiveness prostate," "prostate cancer cost model," "cost utility prostate," and "Markov AND prostate AND (cancer OR adenocarcinoma)." Included studies were agreed upon. A Markov model was designed using the parameter estimates from the systematic review to evaluate the effect of estimate heterogeneity on strategy cost acceptability. RESULTS: Of 199 abstracts identified, 47 publications were reviewed and 37 were included; 508 model estimates were compared. Estimates varied widely across variables, including gastrointestinal toxicity risk (0%-49.5%), utility of metastatic disease (0.25-0.855), intensity-modulated radiotherapy cost ($21 193-$61 996), and recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy (1.5%-59%). Multiple studies assumed that different radiotherapy modalities delivering the same dose yielded varying cancer control rates. When using base estimates for similar parameters from included studies, the designed model resulted in 3 separate acceptability determinations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity exists across parameter estimates used to perform CEAs evaluating treatment for prostate cancer. Heterogeneity across model inputs yields variable conclusions with respect to the favorability and cost-effectiveness of treatment options. Decision makers are cautioned to review estimates in CEAs to ensure they are up to date and relevant to setting and population.

Five- and seven-year outcomes for image-guided moderately accelerated hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To report 5- and 7-year outcomes after image-guided moderately accelerated hypofractionated proton therapy (AHPT) for prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed the first 582 prostate cancer patients enrolled on prospective outcomes tracking trial and treated with double-scattered moderately AHPT between 2008 and 2015. 269 patients had low-risk (LR) and 313 had intermediate-risk (IR) disease, including 149 with favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) and 164 with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) disease. LR patients received a median 70.0GyRBE (2.5GyRBE/fraction) and IR patients received a median of 72.5 GyRBE. Seventeen patients (UIR, n = 12) received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a median of 6 months. Toxicities were graded per the CTCAE, v4.0, and patient-reported quality-of-life data were reviewed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 8.0 years (0.9-12.2). The 5- and 7-year rates of freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP) overall and in the LR and IR subsets, respectively, were 96.8/95.2%, 98.8/98.8%, and 95.0/91.9%. For the FIR and UIR subsets, they were 97.2/95.2% and 93.1/88.8%. Actuarial 5- and 7-year rates of late CTCAE, v4.0, grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI), grade 3 GI, and grade 3 genitourinary (GU) toxicities were 9.9%/11.2%, 1.4/1.4% and 1.3/2.1%, respectively. No grade ≥4 GI or GU toxicities occurred. The mean (standard deviation, SD) IPSS and EPIC Composite bowel function and bother scores were 7 (SD = 5), 97 (SD = 7), and 94 (SD = 6), respectively at baseline, 7 (SD = 5), 92 (SD = 13), and 92 (SD = 9) at the 5-year follow-up, and 7 (SD = 5), 93 (SD = 12), and 92 (SD = 10) at the 7-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Image-guided AHPT 5- and 7-year outcomes show high efficacy, minimal physician-assessed toxicity, and excellent patient-reported outcomes in this cohort.

Consensus Statement on Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Proton therapy is a promising but controversial treatment in the management of prostate cancer. Despite its dosimetric advantages when compared with photon radiation therapy, its increased cost to patients and insurers has raised questions regarding its value. Multiple prospective and retrospective studies have been published documenting the efficacy and safety of proton therapy for patients with localized prostate cancer and for patients requiring adjuvant or salvage pelvic radiation after surgery. The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Genitourinary Subcommittee intends to address current proton therapy indications, advantages, disadvantages, and cost effectiveness. We will also discuss the current landscape of clinical trials. This consensus report can be used to guide clinical practice and research directions.

Postoperative or Salvage Proton Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Postprostatectomy radiation improves disease control, but limited data exist regarding outcomes, toxicities, and patient-reported quality of life with proton therapy. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The first 102 patients who were enrolled on an outcome tracking protocol between 2006 and 2017 and treated with double-scattered proton therapy after prostatectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Eleven (11%) received adjuvant radiation, while 91 (89%) received salvage radiation. Seventy-four received double-scattered proton therapy to the prostate bed only. Twenty-eight received a double-scattered proton therapy prostate-bed boost after prostate-bed and pelvic-node treatment. Eleven adjuvant patients received a median dose of 66.6 GyRBE (range, 66.0-70.2). Ninety-one salvage patients received a median dose of 70.2 GyRBE (range, 66.0-78.0). Forty-five patients received androgen deprivation therapy for a median 9 months (range, 1-30). Toxicities were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 criteria, and patient-reported quality-of-life data were reviewed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 5.5 years (range, 0.8-11.4 years). Five-year biochemical relapse-free and distant metastases-free survival rates were 72% and 91% for adjuvant patients, 57% and 97% for salvage patients, and 57% and 97% overall. Acute and late grade 3 or higher genitourinary toxicity rates were 1% and 7%. No patients had grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity. Acute and late grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities were 5% and 2%. The mean values and SDs of the International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite bowel function and bother were 7.5 (SD = 5.9), 10.2 (SD = 8.3), 92.8 (SD = 11.1), and 91.2 (SD = 6.4), respectively, at baseline, and 12.1 (SD = 9.1), 10.1 (SD = 6.7), 87.3 (SD = 18), and 86.7 (SD = 13.8) at the 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: High-dose postprostatectomy proton therapy provides effective long-term biochemical control and freedom from metastasis, with low acute and long-term gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity.

A Pooled Toxicity Analysis of Moderately Hypofractionated Proton Beam Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Early-Stage Prostate Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Data comparing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are lacking. We aim to compare late toxicity profiles of patients with early-stage prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This multi-institutional analysis included patients with low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma from 7 tertiary referral centers treated from 1998 to 2018. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation, defined as 250 to 300 cGy per daily fraction given for 4 to 6 weeks, and stratified by use of IMRT or PBT. Primary outcomes were late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adjusted toxicity rates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting, accounting for race, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, age, pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (GU only), and anticoagulant use (GI only). RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were included: 1282 IMRT (median follow-up 80.0 months) and 568 PBT (median follow-up 43.9 months). Overall toxicity rates were low, with the majority of patients experiencing no late GU (56.6%, n = 1048) or late GI (74.4%, n = 1377) toxicity. No difference was seen in the rates of late toxicity between the groups, with late grade 3+ GU toxicity of 2.0% versus 3.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.28) and late grade 2+ GI toxicity of 14.6% versus 4.7% (OR 2.69; confidence interval 0.80-9.05) for the PBT and IMRT cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly predictive of GU toxicity, and only anticoagulant use was significantly predictive of GI toxicity (OR 1.90; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multi-institutional analysis of 1850 patients with early-stage prostate cancer, treatment with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and PBT resulted in low rates of toxicity. No difference was seen in late GI and GU toxicity between the modalities during long-term follow-up. Both treatments are safe and well tolerated.

Image-Guided Hypofractionated Proton Therapy in Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 2 Study.

PURPOSE: Due to the excellent outcomes with image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the low treatment-related toxicities using proton therapy (PT), we investigated treatment outcomes and toxicities when delivering hypofractionated PT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2018, 22 patients with T1 to T2 N0M0 NSCLC (45% T1, 55% T2) received image-guided hypofractionated PT. The median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 58-90). Patients underwent 4-dimensional computed tomography simulation following fiducial marker placement, and daily image guidance was performed. Nine patients (41%) were treated with 48 GyRBE in 4 fractions for peripheral lesions, and 13 patients (59%) were treated with 60 GyRBE in 10 fractions for central lesions. Patients were assessed for CTCAEv4 toxicities with computed tomography imaging for tumor assessment. The primary endpoint was grade 3 to 5 toxicity at 1 year. RESULTS: The median follow-up for all patients was 3.5 years (range, 0.2-8.8 years). The overall survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 81% and 49%, respectively. Cause-specific survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 100% and 75%, respectively. The 3-year local, regional, and distant control rates were 86%, 85%, and 95%, respectively. Four patients experienced in-field recurrences between 18 and 45 months after treatment. One patient (5%) developed a late grade 3 bronchial stricture requiring hospitalization and stent. CONCLUSION: Image-guided hypofractionated PT for early-stage NSCLC provides promising local control and long-term survival with a low likelihood of toxicity. Regional nodal and distant relapses remain a problem.

Image-guided hypofractionated double-scattering proton therapy in the management of centrally-located early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of centrally-located early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is challenging due to the proximity of critical normal structures to the tumor target. The purpose of this study was to report the results of our experience in treating centrally-located early-stage NSCLC with hypofractionated proton therapy (PT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2018, 23 patients with T1-T2N0M0 NSCLC (T1, 46%; T2, 54%) were treated with image-guided hypofractionated double-scattering PT. The median age at the time of treatment was 74 years (range, 58-88). Patients underwent 4-dimensional computed tomography (CT) simulation following fiducial marker placement, and daily image guidance was performed. All patients were treated with 60 GyRBE in 10 fractions. Patients were assessed for CTCAEv4 toxicities weekly during treatment, and at regular follow-up intervals with CT imaging for tumor assessment. Overall survival, cause-specific survival, local control, regional control, and metastases-free survival were evaluated using cumulative incidence with competing risks. RESULTS: Median follow-up for all patients was 3.2 years (range, 0.2-9.2 years). Overall survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 81% and 50% (95% CI, 27-79%), respectively. Cause-specific survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 81% and 71% (95% CI, 46-92%). The 3-year local, regional, and distant control rates were 90%, 81%, and 87%, respectively. Three patients (13%) experienced local recurrences as their first recurrence, at a median time of 28 months from completion of radiation (range, 18-61 months). Two patients (9%) experienced late grade 3 toxicities, including 1 patient who developed a bronchial stricture that required stent placement. CONCLUSION: Image-guided hypofractionated PT for centrally-located early-stage NSCLC provides excellent local control with low rates of grade ≥3 toxicities. For tumors in sensitive locations, PT may provide safer treatment than photon-based treatments due to its dosimetric advantages.

Patient-Reported Sexual Survivorship Following High-Dose Image-Guided Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To help guide individualized treatment, we sought to identify baseline predictive factors that impact long-term erectile function following high-dose image-guided radiotherapy (HD-IGRT). METHODS: Potent men with localized prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy alone were enrolled in an institutional review board-approved prospective cohort study. Men received HD-IGRT as primary treatment of prostate cancer. Patient-reported inventories were used to assess erectile function at baseline, 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years after treatment. Long-term potency rates were compared to validated models, and baseline factors were used to create a novel, internally validated nomogram for predicting long-term function. RESULTS: 1,159 men were treated with HD-IGRT. Among 676 men who were potent at baseline and did not receive hormone therapy, the potency rates at 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years were 81%, 68%, and 61%. Recursive partitioning categorized patients into 3 groups based on two factors: baseline response to EPIC Q57 (ability to have an erection) and pre-existing heart disease. At 5 years, the most favorable group reported "very good" on Q57 and had an 80% potency rate (n = 137; p = 0.83); the intermediate group reported "good" on Q57 and had no baseline cardiac disease with a 62% potency rate (n = 145; p = 0.86); and the remaining poor risk group had a 37% potency rate (n = 117; p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported pretreatment sexual function and comorbidities enables stratification and prediction of erectile function. EPIC subset questions with baseline comorbidities may potentially serve as a quick and practical clinical tool for predicting sexual survivorship.

Serum Testosterone 60 Months after Passive-Scatter Proton Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Studies demonstrate a decline of ∼10% in serum testosterone (ST) level after X-ray radiotherapy for prostate cancer. We evaluated changes in ST for patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer receiving 70-82Gy(RBE) using passive-scatter proton therapy (PT). ST was checked at baseline (n = 358) and at 60+ months after PT (n = 166). The median baseline ST was 363.3 ng/dl (range, 82.0-974.0). The median ST 5 years after PT was 391.5 ng/dl (range, 108.0-1061.0). The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.9341). Passive-scatter PT was not associated with testosterone suppression at 5 years, suggesting that protons may cause less out-of-field scatter radiation than X-rays.

Proton therapy for thymic malignancies: multi-institutional patterns-of-care and early clinical outcomes from the proton collaborative group and the university of Florida prospective registries.

Objective: Thymic malignancies (TM) are rare tumors with long-term survivorship, causing concerns for radiotherapy-related late side effects. Proton therapy (PT) reduces the radiation dose to organs at risk, potentially decreasing long-term toxicities while preserving disease control. We report patterns-of-care and early clinical outcomes after PT for thymoma and thymic carcinoma. Methods: Between January 2008 and March 2017, 30 patients with TMs enrolled on one of two IRB-approved prospective protocols and received postoperative or definitive PT. Clinical outcomes, pathology, treatment dose, toxicities, and follow-up information were analyzed. Results: Twenty-two thymoma patients with a median age of 52.1 years (range, 23-72) received a median RT dose of 54 Gy (RBE) (range, 45-70) either postoperatively (91%) or definitively (9%); 23% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among eight thymic carcinoma patients, the median age was 65.5 years (range, 38-88) and median RT dose was 60 Gy (RBE) (range, 42-70) delivered postoperatively (75%) or definitively (25%); 50% received chemotherapy. Median follow-up for all patients was 13 months (range, 2-59 months). Five patients relapsed, one locally (3%). Three patients died of disease progression, including two thymomas and one thymic carcinoma patient; a fourth died of intercurrent disease. One patient with thymic carcinoma and 1 with thymoma are alive with disease. No patients treated with PT for their initial disease (de novo) experienced grade ≥3 toxicities. The most common grade 2 toxicities were dermatitis (37%), cough (13%), and esophagitis (10%). Conclusion: Adjuvant and definitive PT are being used in the treatment of TMs. Early results of the largest such cohort reported to date demonstrates an acceptable rate of recurrence with a favorable toxicity profile. Longer follow-up and a larger patient cohort are needed to confirm these findings.

Impact of unfavorable factors on outcomes among inoperable stage II-IV Nonsmall cell lung cancer patients treated with proton therapy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of unfavorable risk factors among patients with locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) treated with proton therapy (PT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: From May 2008 through July 2015, 90 consecutive patients with unresectable stage II-IV (oligometastatic) NSCLC were treated with PT. Unfavorable factors including age ≥80 years, stage IV, weight loss >10% in 3 months, performance status (PS) ≥2, FEV1 < 1.0 or O2 dependency, prior lung cancer, prior lung surgery, prior 2nd cancer in the past 3 years, and prior chest irradiation were evaluated. All patients received standard fractionation of 1.8-2 Gy(RBE) (median dose, 70 Gy[RBE]). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. The impact of unfavorable factors was analyzed in Cox regression models. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent were favorable-risk, while 42%, 22%, and 10% had 1-, 2-, or ≥3 unfavorable factors. The 2-year OS was 52% and 45% (p = .8522), and 2-year PFS was 21% and 44% (p = .0207), for favorable and unfavorable risk patients, respectively. Among patients with stage III-IV, only PS ≥2 adversely impacted OS (p = .0015). CONCLUSION: Most patients treated with PT for LA-NSCLC have unfavorable risk factors. These patients had similar outcomes to favorable-risk patients. Enrollment in future clinical trials may improve if eligibility is less restrictive.

Rationale and early outcomes for the management of thymoma with proton therapy.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy for thymic malignancies is technically challenging due to their close proximity to the heart, lungs, esophagus, and breasts, raising concerns about significant acute and late toxicities from conventional photon radiotherapy. Proton therapy (PT) may reduce the radiation dose to these vital organs, leading to less toxicity. We reviewed the dosimetry and outcomes among patients treated with PT for thymic malignancies at our institution. METHODS: From January 2008 to March 2017, six patients with de novo Masaoka stages II-III thymic malignancies were treated with PT on an IRB-approved outcomes tracking protocol. Patients were evaluated weekly during treatment, then every 3 months for 2 years, then every 6 months for 3 more years, and then annually for CTCAE vs. four toxicities and disease recurrence. Comparison intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were developed for each patient. Mean doses to the heart, esophagus, bilateral breasts, lungs, and V20 of bilateral lungs were evaluated for the two treatment plans. RESULTS: At last follow-up (median follow-up, 2.6 years), there were two patients with recurrences, including metastatic disease in the patient treated definitively with chemotherapy and PT without surgery and a local-regional recurrence in the lung outside the proton field in one of the post-operative cases. No patients with de novo disease experienced grade ≥3 toxicities after PT. The mean dose to the heart, lung, and esophagus was reduced on average by 36.5%, 33.5%, and 60%, respectively, using PT compared with IMRT (P<0.05 for each dose parameter). CONCLUSIONS: PT achieved superior dose sparing to the heart, lung, and esophagus compared to IMRT for thymic malignancies. Patients treated with PT had few radiation-induced toxicities and similar survival compared to historic proton data.

Rectal Culture and Sensitivity Analysis for Reducing Sepsis Risk After Fiducial Marker Placement.

PURPOSE: Placement of fiducial markers for prostate radiotherapy (RT) is associated with a 2% to 3% risk of bacterial urinary tract infection (UTI) that may progress to sepsis necessitating hospitalization. These bacterial UTIs are primarily due to flouroquinolone (FQ) resistant Escherichia coli (E. coli). The incidence of this complication has increased in recent years. The purpose of this study is to determine whether rectal culture and sensitivity (C&S) to identify FQ resistant E. coli obtained before placement of fiducial markers for prostate RT reduces the likelihood of this complication. METHODS: In total, 412 patients treated with RT at the University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute between 2015 and 2017 were included in the study. Rectal C&S were obtained at the time of initial consultation which preceded placement of fiducial markers for planning and realignment for prostate RT. Patients in whom resistant E. coli were identified had their prophylactic antibiotic regimen modified accordingly. Whether bacterial UTI requiring hospitalization following fiducial placement occurred was prospectively recorded in the medical record on the first day of RT. RESULTS: One of 412 patients (0.2%) developed bacterial sepsis requiring hospitalization after fiducial placement. CONCLUSION: Rectal C&S to identify FQ resistant E. coli before placement of fiducial markers for prostate RT likely reduces the risk of bacterial UTI necessitating hospitalization.

Long-term outcomes following proton therapy for prostate cancer in young men with a focus on sexual health.

BACKGROUND: We investigated long-term outcomes for men ≤60 years old treated with proton therapy (PT). METHODS: Of 254 men ≤60 years old were treated with proton therapy alone for prostate cancer. Risk stratification included 56% with low-, 42% with intermediate- and 2% with high-risk disease. Patients received 76-82 Gy at 2 Gy/fraction or 70-72.5 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction. Before treatment and every 6-12 months for 5 years, patients were evaluated by a physician, answered health-related quality of life surveys, including the EPIC, IIEF and IPSS, and had PSA evaluated. RESULTS: Median follow-up for the cohort was 7.1 years; 7-year biochemical-free survival was 97.8%. Eight men (one high-risk; five intermediate-risk and two low-risk) experienced biochemical progression, including one who died of disease 9 years after treatment. Potency (erections firm enough for sexual intercourse) was 90% at baseline and declined to 72% at the first-year follow-up, but declined to only 67% at 5 years. Only 2% of patients developed urinary incontinence requiring pads. The bowel habits mean score declined from a baseline of 96 to 88 at 1 year, which improved over the following years to 93 at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Young men with prostate cancer continue to have excellent results with respect to 7-year biochemical control and 5-year erectile function, without clinically significant urinary incontinence 5 years after proton therapy. Comparative effectiveness studies of proton therapy with surgery and IMRT are needed.