Is Ultrahypofractionated Whole Pelvis Radiation Therapy (WPRT) as Well Tolerated as Conventionally Fractionated WPRT in Patients With Prostate Cancer? Early Results From the HOPE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to evaluate the acute toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) impact of ultrahypofractionated whole pelvis radiation therapy (WPRT) compared with conventional WPRT fractionation after high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (HDR-BT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The HOPE trial is a phase 2, multi-institutional randomized controlled trial of men with prostate-confined disease and National Comprehensive Cancer Network unfavorable intermediate-, high-, or very-high-risk prostate cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive conventionally fractionated WPRT (standard arm) or ultrahypofractionated WPRT (experimental arm) in a 1:1 ratio. All patients underwent radiation therapy with 15 Gy HDR-BT boost in a single fraction followed by WPRT delivered with conventional fractionation (45 Gy in 25 daily fractions or 46 Gy in 23 fractions) or ultrahypofractionation (25 Gy in 5 fractions delivered on alternate days). Acute toxicities measured during radiation therapy and at 6 weeks posttreatment were assessed using the clinician-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0, and QOL was measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled and treated across 3 Canadian institutions, of whom 39 and 41 patients received external radiation therapy with conventionally fractionated and ultrahypofractionated WPRT, respectively. All patients received androgen deprivation therapy except for 2 patients treated in the ultrahypofractionated arm. The baseline clinical characteristics of the 2 arms were similar, with 51 (63.8%) patients having high or very-high-risk prostate cancer disease. Treatment was well tolerated with no significant differences in the rate of acute adverse events between arms. No grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths were reported. Ultrahypofractionated WPRT had a less detrimental impact on the EPIC-50 bowel total, function, and bother domain scores compared with conventional WPRT in the acute setting. By contrast, more patients treated with ultrahypofractionated WPRT reached the minimum clinical important difference on the EPIC-50 urinary domains. No significant QOL differences between arms were noted in the sexual and hormonal domains. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrahypofractionated WPRT after HDR-BT is a well-tolerated treatment strategy in the acute setting that has less detrimental impact on bowel QOL domains compared with conventional WPRT.

18F-DCFPyL PSMA-PET affects management of salvage radiotherapy for post-prostatectomy patients with biochemical failure: A matched cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to assess the effect of 18F-DCFPyL prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) on the management and outcomes of patients receiving salvage radiotherapy following biochemical failure (BF) post-radical prostatectomy (RP) using a matched cohort analysis. METHODS: A PSMA-PET cohort of patients with BF post-RP was identified through a prospective registry. Patients from this registry were included if they did not have disease outside of the pelvis and underwent salvage radiotherapy to the prostate and/or pelvis. Case-control matching was performed with a contemporary cohort of patients with BF post-RP without PSMA-PET information. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included in the PSMA-PET cohort and 80 were analyzed in the non-PSMA-PET cohort. The PSMA-PET cohort had a significantly higher pre-radiotherapy median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 0.48 ng/mL compared to 0.20 ng/mL in the non-PSMA-PET cohort (p<0.001), but these levels were similar after matching. The PSMA-PET cohort had a higher proportion of patients receiving radiotherapy to pelvic lymph nodes (n=27 [61.4%] vs. n=16 [20.0%], p<0.001). Median followup was 26 months (interquartile range 18.8-33) for both cohorts. BF-free survival and event-free survival were not significantly different between the two cohorts for all (p=0.662 and >0.99) and matched patients (p=0.808 and 0.808), respectively. Metastasis-free survival was significantly higher in the matched PSMA-PET cohort compared to the matched non-PSMA-PET cohort (p=0.046), although a higher proportion of patients in the non-PSMA-PET cohort underwent PSMA-PET restaging after BF (52% vs. 20%, p=0.08726). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that patients undergoing PSMA-PET scans after BF post-RP had a higher likelihood of pelvic nodal treatment at the time of salvage RT. Despite higher PSA levels at salvage, we identified no recurrence or survival differences.

Planning for the Effect of the SC.24 Trial on Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Utilization at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess the potential real-world effect of the recently reported SC.24 trial on spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) utilization. We estimated the proportion of patients treated with conventional radiation therapy (CRT) who would have been eligible for spine SBRT per trial inclusion criteria and analyzed the potential estimated increased costs to our institution. Methods and Materials: This was a retrospective review of patients who received spine CRT at our institution between August and October 2020. Data abstracted included demographics, SC.24 eligibility criteria, provider-reported pain response, and survival. A cost analysis and time survey was performed using institutional and provincial data. Results: Of 73 patients reviewed, 24 patients (33%) were eligible. The most common exclusion factors included irradiation of ≥3 consecutive spinal segments (n = 32, 44%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >2 (n = 17, 23%), and symptomatic spinal cord compression (n = 13, 18%). Of eligible patients, the mean age was 68.92 years, median spinal instability in neoplasia score was 8 (interquartile range, 7-9), and median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2). The most common primary cancer types among eligible patients were lung (n = 10) and breast (n = 4). The median survival of eligible patients was 10 months (95% confidence interval, 4 months to not reached) with 58% surviving longer than 3 months. Of patients who had subjective pain documented after CRT, 54% had at least some response. The cost of spine SBRT was estimated at CA$4764.80 compared with $3589.10 for CRT, and tasks for spine SBRT took roughly 3 times as long as those for CRT. Conclusions: One-third of patients who received palliative spine CRT met eligibility criteria for SC.24. This possible expanded indication for spine SBRT can have a substantial effect on resource utilization. These data may be useful in guiding resource planning at institutions looking to commence a spine SBRT program.

Proton Radiotherapy for Management of Medulloblastoma: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to comprehensively review all studies examining clinical outcomes of craniospinal irradiation with proton radiotherapy for medulloblastoma (MB) to determine whether theoretical dosimetric advantages have translated into superior clinical outcomes (including survival and toxicities) compared with traditional photon-based techniques. Methods and Materials: We performed a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles reporting on clinical outcomes of pediatric and/or adult patients with MB treated with proton radiotherapy were included. Evidence quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle Ottawa scale and GRADE score. Results: Thirty-five studies were included, with a total of 2059 patients reported (representing an estimated 630-654 unique patients). None of the studies were randomized, 12 were comparative, 9 were prospective, 3 were mixed, and 22 were retrospective. Average mean/median follow-up was 5.0 years (range, 4 weeks to 12.6 years). The majority of studies (n = 19) reported on treatment with passive scatter proton beams exclusively. Average study quality was 6.0 out of 9 (median, 6; standard deviation, 1.6). Nine studies scored ≥8 out of 9 on the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale; an overall "moderate" GRADE score was assigned. Well-designed comparative cohort studies with adequate follow-up demonstrate superior neurocognitive outcomes, lower incidence of hypothyroidism (23% vs 69%), sex hormone deficiency (3% vs 19%), greater heights, and reduced acute toxicities in patients treated with protons compared to photons. Overall survival (up to 10 years), progression-free survival (up to 10 years), brain stem injury, and other endocrine outcomes were similar to those reported for photon radiation. There was insufficient evidence to make conclusions on endpoints of quality of life, ototoxicity, secondary malignancy, alopecia, scoliosis, cavernomas, and cerebral vasculopathy. Conclusions: Moderate-grade evidence supports proton radiotherapy as a preferred treatment for craniospinal irradiation of MB based on equivalent disease control and comparable-to-improved toxicity versus photon beam radiation therapy.

Prostate cancer classification using radiomics and machine learning on mp-MRI validated using co-registered histology.

BACKGROUND: Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) is emerging as a useful tool for prostate cancer (PCa) detection but currently has unaddressed limitations. Computer aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have been developed to address these needs, but many approaches used to generate and validate the models have inherent biases. METHOD: All clinically significant PCa on histology was mapped to mp-MRI using a previously validated registration algorithm. Shape and size matched non-PCa regions were selected using a proposed sampling algorithm to eliminate biases towards shape and size. Further analysis was performed to assess biases regarding inter-zonal variability. RESULTS: A 5-feature Naïve-Bayes classifier produced an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.80 validated using leave-one-patient-out cross-validation. As mean inter-class area mismatch increased, median AUC trended towards positively biasing classifiers to producing higher AUCs. Classifiers were invariant to differences in shape between PCa and non-PCa lesions (AUC: 0.82 vs 0.82). Performance for models trained and tested only in the peripheral zone was found to be lower than in the central gland (AUC: 0.75 vs 0.95). CONCLUSION: We developed a radiomics based machine learning system to classify PCa vs non-PCa tissue on mp-MRI validated on accurately co-registered mid-gland histology with a measured target registration error. Potential biases involved in model development were interrogated to provide considerations for future work in this area.

Can We Identify Predictors of Success in Contouring Education for Radiation Oncology Trainees? An Analysis of the Anatomy and Radiology Contouring Bootcamp.

PURPOSE: Although several different contouring instructional programs are available to radiation oncologists and trainees, very little is known about which methods and resources benefit learners most, and whether some learners may need alternate forms of instruction. This study aimed to determine the factors that were predictors of learners' success in anatomy, radiology, and contouring education. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Participants in the online and face-to-face Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp completed pre- and postintervention evaluations that assessed anatomy/radiology knowledge, contouring skills, self-confidence, and spatial ability. Baseline factors were assessed as predictors of outcomes across multiple educational domains. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty (face-to-face: n = 40; online: n = 140) participants enrolled in the ARC Bootcamp, and 57 (face-to-face: n = 30; online: n = 27) participants completed both evaluations. Of the participants enrolled, 37% were female, and most were radiation oncology residents (62%). In the anatomy/radiology knowledge testing, all quartiles (based on baseline performance) improved numerically; however, the largest improvements occurred in learners with the lowest baseline scores (P < .001). At the end of the Bootcamp, learners with lower-performing scores did not reach the level of learners with the highest baseline scores (Bonferroni-corrected P < .001). Regarding the contouring assessment, improvements were only evident for the participants with lower-performing baseline scores (P < .05). Spatial anatomy skills, as measured by the spatial anatomy task, were correlated to contouring ability. Overall, the greatest improvements were seen for learners in postgraduate year 1 to 3, those with no previous rotation experience in a given discipline, and those who attended from other programs (ie, medical physics residents and medical students). CONCLUSIONS: The ARC Bootcamp improved all levels of performers' anatomy and radiology knowledge but only lower-performers' contouring ability. The course alone does not help lower-performing learners reach the abilities of higher-performers. The ARC Bootcamp tends to be most beneficial for participants with less radiation oncology experience. Curriculum modifications can be made to help support ARC Bootcamp participants with lower performing scores.

Stereotactic Radiation for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET): Extended Long-Term Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Long-term randomized data assessing the effect of ablative therapies in patients with oligometastases are lacking. The Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET) randomized phase 2 trial was originally designed with 5 years of follow-up, but the trial was amended in 2016 to extend follow-up to 10 years. Herein we report oncologic outcomes beyond 5 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were eligible if they had a controlled primary tumor and 1 to 5 metastases, with all metastases amenable to SABR. Patients were randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care treatment (control arm) versus SABR to all metastases plus standard of care (SABR arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General [FACT-G]), and time to new metastases. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were randomized between 2012 and 2016 (n = 33 in arm 1 vs n = 66 in arm 2). Primary tumor sites included lung (n = 18), breast (n = 18), colon (n = 18), prostate (n = 16), and other (n = 29). Eight-year OS was 27.2% in the SABR arm versus 13.6% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.84; P = .008). Eight-year PFS estimates were 21.3% versus 0.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.72; P < .001). Rates of grade ≥ 2 acute or late toxic effects were 30.3% versus 9.1% (P = .019), with no new grade 3 to 5 toxic effects. FACT-G quality of life scores declined over time in both arms, but there were no differences in quality of life scores between arms. The use of systemic therapy overall was similar between arms, but patients in the SABR arm were less likely to require cytotoxic chemotherapy (33.3% vs 54.6%, respectively, P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: SABR achieved durable improvements in OS and PFS, with no new major toxicity signals with extended follow-up. A minority of patients randomized to the SABR arm (21.3%) achieved > 5 years of survival without recurrence.

Targeting prostate lesions on multiparametric MRI with HDR brachytherapy: Optimal planning margins determined using whole-mount digital histology.

PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has demonstrated the ability to localize intraprostatic lesions. It is our goal to determine how to optimally target the underlying histopathological cancer within the setting of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten prostatectomy patients had pathologist-annotated mid-gland histology registered to pre-procedural mpMRI, which were interpreted by four different observers. Simulated HDR-BT plans with realistic catheter placements were generated by registering the mpMRI lesions and corresponding histology annotations to previously performed clinical HDR-BT implants. Inverse treatment planning was used to generate treatment plans that treated the entire gland to a single dose of 15 Gy, as well as focally targeted plans that aimed to escalate dose to the mpMRI lesions to 20.25 Gy. Three margins to the lesion were explored: 0 mm, 1 mm, and 2 mm. The analysis compared the dose that would have been delivered to the corresponding histologically-defined cancer with the different treatment planning techniques. RESULTS: mpMRI-targeted plans delivered a significantly higher dose to the histologically-defined cancer (p < 0.001), in comparison to the standard treatment plans. Additionally, adding a 1 mm margin resulted in significantly higher D98, and D90 to the histologically-defined cancer in comparison to the 0 mm margin targeted plans (p = 0.019 & p = 0.0026). There was no significant difference between plans using 1 mm and 2 mm margins. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a 1 mm margin to intraprostatic mpMRI lesions significantly increased the dose to histologically-defined cancer, in comparison applying no margin. No significant effect was observed by further expanding the margins.

Is Remote Learning as Effective as In-Person Learning for Contouring Education? A Prospective Comparison of Face-to-Face versus Online Delivery of the Anatomy and Radiology Contouring Bootcamp.

PURPOSE: The Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a face-to-face (F2F) intervention providing integrated education for radiation oncology (RO) residents and medical physicists. To increase access, we launched an online offering in 2019. We evaluated the effect of the online course on participants' knowledge acquisition, contouring skills, and self-confidence by comparing it with the F2F course. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using modules, the online course offers content similar to that of the F2F comparator. Participants from the 2019 F2F and the 2019-2020 online course completed pre- and postevaluations assessing anatomy and radiology knowledge, contouring skills, self-confidence, and course satisfaction. RESULTS: There were 180 individuals enrolled (F2F: n = 40; online: n = 140); 57 participants (F2F: n = 30; online: n = 27) completed both evaluations. The online course had a wider geographic participation (19 countries) than F2F (4 countries). F2F had primarily RO resident participation (80%), compared with online (41%). Both cohorts demonstrated similar improvements in self-confidence pertaining to anatomy and radiology knowledge, contouring skills, and interpreting radiology images (all P < .001). Both the online (mean ± SD improvement: 6.6 ± 6.7 on a 40-point scale; P < .001) and F2F (3.7 ± 5.7; P = .002) groups showed anatomy and radiology knowledge improvement. Only the F2F group demonstrated improvement with the contouring assessment (F2F: 0.10 ± 0.17 on a 1-point Dice scale; P = .004; online: 0.07 ± 0.16; P = .076). Both cohorts perceived the course as a positive experience (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale; online: 4.5 ± 0.6), stated it would improve their professional practice (F2F: 4.6 ± 0.5; online: 4.2 ± 0.8), and said they would recommend it to others (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4; online: 4.4 ± 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The online ARC Bootcamp demonstrated improved self-confidence, knowledge scores, and high satisfaction levels among participants. The offering had lower completion rates but was more accessible to geographic regions, provided a flexible learning experience, and allowed for ongoing education during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Implementation and evaluation of an online anatomy, radiology and contouring bootcamp for radiation therapists.

BACKGROUND: As new treatments and technologies have been introduced in radiation oncology, the clinical roles of radiation therapists (RTs) have expanded. However, there are few formal learning opportunities for RTs. An online, anatomy, radiology and contouring bootcamp (ARC Bootcamp) originally designed for medical residents was identified as a prospective educational tool for RTs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an RT edition of the ARC Bootcamp on knowledge, contouring, and confidence, as well as to identify areas for future modification. METHODS: Fifty licensed RTs were enrolled in an eight-week, multidisciplinary, online RT ARC Bootcamp. Contouring practice was available throughout the course using an online contouring platform. Outcomes were evaluated using a pre-course and post-course multiple-choice quiz (MCQ), contouring evaluation and qualitative self-efficacy and satisfaction survey. RESULTS: Of the fifty enrolled RTs, 30 completed the course, and 26 completed at least one of the post-tests. Nineteen contouring dice similarity coefficient (DSC) scores were available for paired pre- and post-course analysis. RTs demonstrated a statistically significant increase in mean DSC scoring pooled across all contouring structures (mean ± SD improvement: 0.09 ± 0.18 on a scale from 0 to 1, p=0.020). For individual contouring structures, 3/15 reached significance in contouring improvement. MCQ scores were available for 26 participants and increased after RT ARC Bootcamp participation with a mean ± SD pre-test score of 18.6 ± 4.2 (46.5%); on a 40-point scale vs. post-test score of 24.5 ± 4.3 (61.4%) (p < 0.001). RT confidence in contouring, anatomy knowledge and radiographic identification improved after course completion (p < 0.001). Feedback from RTs recommended more contouring instruction, less in-depth anatomy review and more time to complete the course. CONCLUSIONS: The RT ARC Bootcamp was an effective tool for improving anatomy and radiographic knowledge among RTs. The course demonstrated improvements in contouring and overall confidence. However, only approximately half of the enrolled RTs completed the course, limiting statistical power. Future modifications will aim to increase relevance to RTs and improve completion rates.

Development, Implementation, and Initial Participant Feedback of an Online Anatomy and Radiology Contouring Bootcamp in Radiation Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a face-to-face (F2F) course designed to ensure radiation oncology residents were equipped with the knowledge and skillset to use radiation therapy techniques properly. The ARC Bootcamp was proven to be a useful educational intervention for improving learners' knowledge of anatomy and radiology and contouring ability. An online version of the course was created to increase accessibility to the ARC Bootcamp and provide a flexible, self-paced learning environment. This study aimed to describe the instructional design model used to create the online offering and report participants' motivation to enroll in the course and the online ARC Bootcamp's strengths and improvement areas. METHODS: The creation of the online course followed the analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE) framework. The course was structured in a linear progression of locked modules consisting of radiology and contouring lectures, anatomy labs, and integrated evaluations. RESULTS: The online course launched on the platform Teachable in November 2019, and by January 2021, 140 participants had enrolled in the course, with 27 participants completing all course components. The course had broad geographic participation with learners from 19 different countries. Of the participants enrolled, 34% were female, and most were radiation oncology residents (56%), followed by other programs (24%), such as medical physics residents or medical students. The primary motivator for participants to enroll was to improve their subject knowledge/skill (44%). The most common strength identified by participants was the course's quality (41%), and the most common improvement area was to incorporate more course content (41%). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of the online ARC Bootcamp using the ADDIE framework was feasible. The course is accessible to diverse geographic regions and programs and provides a flexible learning environment; however, the course completion rate was low. Participants' feedback regarding their experiences will inform future offerings of the online course.

Prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography for lesion-directed high-dose-rate brachytherapy dose escalation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging (PSMA-PET) has demonstrated potential for intra-prostatic lesion localization. We leveraged our existing database of co-registered PSMA-PET imaging with cross sectional digitized pathology to model dose coverage of histologically-defined prostate cancer when tailoring brachytherapy dose escalation based on PSMA-PET imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a previously-developed automated approach, we created segmentation volumes delineating underlying dominant intraprostatic lesions for ten men with co-registered pathology-imaging datasets. To simulate realistic high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) treatments, we registered the PSMA-PET-defined segmentation volumes and underlying cancer to 3D trans-rectal ultrasound images of HDR-BT cases where 15 Gray (Gy) was delivered. We applied dose/volume optimization to focally target the dominant intraprostatic lesion identified on PSMA-PET. We then compared histopathology dose for all high-grade cancer within whole-gland treatment plans versus PSMA-PET-targeted plans. Histopathology dose was analyzed for all clinically significant cancer with a Gleason score of 7or greater. RESULTS: The standard whole-gland plans achieved a median [interquartile range] D98 of 15.2 [13.8-16.4] Gy to the histologically-defined cancer, while the targeted plans achieved a significantly higher D98 of 16.5 [15.0-19.0] Gy (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to use digital histology to confirm the effectiveness of PSMA-PET HDR-BT dose escalation using automatically generated contours. Based on the findings of this study, PSMA-PET lesion dose escalation can lead to increased dose to the ground truth histologically defined cancer.

Can Polymetastatic Disease Be ARRESTed Using SABR? A Dosimetric Feasibility Study to Inform Development of a Phase 1 Trial.

PURPOSE: Phase 2 randomized trials suggest that stereotactic ablative radiation therapy improves progression-free and overall survival in patients with oligometastatic cancer, with phase 3 trials currently testing stereotactic ablative radiation therapy in up to 10 metastases. Whether stereotactic radiation therapy could provide similar benefits in polymetastatic disease (>10 metastases) is unknown. We sought to evaluate the dosimetric feasibility of using stereotactic radiation therapy in polymetastatic disease in preparation for a phase 1 trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five craniospinal computed tomography simulations were used to simulate 24 metastatic targets (n = 2 patients), 30 targets (n = 2 patients), and 50 targets (n = 1 patient) that were not present on the initial scan. Creation of radiation therapy plans was attempted for doses up to 30 Gy in 5 fractions, with de-escalation to 24 Gy/4, 18 Gy/3, 12 Gy/2, or 6 Gy/1 if not feasible based on standardized dose constraints. Plans were created using Raystation for delivery on linear accelerators using volumetric modulated arc therapy and validated using Mobius 3D. RESULTS: A stereotactic radiation therapy treatment plan was generated for each simulated patient. Dose constraints were met to a dose of 30 Gy in 5 fractions for the patients with 24 and 30 lesions. For the patient with 50 targets, dose de-escalation to 12 Gy in 2 fractions was required to meet lung constraints. Estimated beam-on time varied between 18 and 29 minutes per fraction of 6 Gy. Median D95 planning target volume dosimetry ranged from 96.6% to 97.7% of the prescription dose. The conformity index (R100) range was 0.89 to 0.95, and R50 range was 6.84 to 8.72. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic radiation therapy treatment plans meeting standardized dose constraints could be created in the setting of 24 to 50 metastatic lesions using volumetric modulated arc therapy. This safety of this approach is being evaluated in a phase 1 trial (NCT04530513).

Ablative radiation therapy to restrain everything safely treatable (ARREST): study protocol for a phase I trial treating polymetastatic cancer with stereotactic radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with polymetastatic cancer are most often treated with systemic therapy to improve overall survival and/or delay progression, with palliative radiotherapy reserved for sites of symptomatic disease. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has shown promise in the treatment of oligometastatic disease, but the utility of SABR in treating all sites of polymetastatic disease has yet to be evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of SABR in patients with polymetastatic disease. METHODS: Up to 48 patients with polymetastatic cancer (> 10 sites) will be enrolled on this phase I, modified 3 + 3 design trial. Eligible patients will have exhausted (or refused) standard systemic therapy options. SABR will be delivered as an escalating number of weekly fractions of 6 Gy, starting at 6 Gy × 2 weekly fractions (dose level 1). The highest dose level (dose level 4) will be 6 Gy × 5 weekly fractions. Feasibility and safety of SABR will be evaluated 6 weeks following treatment using a composite endpoint of successfully completing treatment as well as toxicity outcomes. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first to explore delivering SABR in patients with polymetastatic disease. SABR will be planned using the guiding principles of: strict adherence to dose constraints, minimization of treatment burden, and minimization of toxicity. As this represents a novel use of radiotherapy, our phase I study will allow for careful selection of the MTD for exploration in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04530513 on August 28, 2020.

A multiobserver study investigating the effectiveness of prostatic multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to dose escalate corresponding histologic lesions using high-dose-rate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Using multiparametric MRI data and the pathologic data from radical prostatectomy specimens, we simulated the treatment planning of dose-escalated high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) to the Multiparametric MRI dominant intraprostatic lesion (mpMRI-DIL) to compare the dose potentially delivered to the pathologically confirmed locations of the high-grade component of the cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Pathologist-annotated prostatectomy midgland histology sections from 12 patients were registered to preprostatectomy mpMRI scans that were interpreted by four radiologists. To simulate realistic HDR-BT, we registered each observer's mpMRI-DILs and corresponding histology to two transrectal ultrasound images of other HDR-BT patients with a 15-Gy whole-gland prescription. We used clinical inverse planning to escalate the mpMRI-DILs to 20.25 Gy. We compared the dose that the histopathology would have received if treated with standard treatment plans to the dose mpMRI-targeting would have achieved. The histopathology was grouped as high-grade cancer (any Gleason Grade 4 or 5) and low-grade cancer (only Gleason Grade 3). RESULTS: 212 mpMRI-targeted HDR-BT plans were analyzed. For high-grade histology, the mpMRI-targeted plans achieved significantly higher median [IQR] D98 and D90 values of 18.2 [16.7-19.5] Gy and 19.4 [17.8-20.9] Gy, respectively, in comparison with the standard plans (p = 0.01 and p = 0.003). For low-grade histology, the targeted treatment plans would have resulted in a significantly higher median D90 of 17.0 [16.1-18.4] Gy in comparison with standard plans (p = 0.015); the median D98 was not significantly higher (p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective pilot study of 12 patients, mpMRI-based dose escalation led to increased dose to high-grade, but not low-grade, cancer. In our data set, different observers and mpMRI sequences had no substantial effect on dose to histologic cancer.

A Novel Salvage Option for Local Failure in Prostate Cancer, Reirradiation Using External Beam or Stereotactic Radiation Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Reirradiation (re-RT) using external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a novel salvage strategy for local failure in prostate cancer. We performed a systematic review describing oncologic and toxicity outcomes for salvage EBRT/stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) re-RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registered (#141466) systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression was conducted using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception through September 2019. Outcome measures included local control (LC), biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and ≥grade 3 genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. EBRT and SBRT data were collected separately. Meta-regression explored disease and toxicity outcomes as a function of equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2), length of follow-up, and partial versus whole prostate reirradiation. RESULTS: Nineteen studies representing 13 cohorts were included (428 patients). Weighted mean follow-up was 26.1 months. Median re-RT EQD2 was 77.1 Gy (α/ß = 1.5), with 92% of patients receiving SBRT, 52.1% of patients receiving partial prostate re-RT, and 30.1% of patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy with re-RT. LC was 83.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.5%-90.9%) and BRFS was 59.3% (47.9%-70.7%). Reported late toxicity ≥grade 3 was 3.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-5.8%) for GU and 2.0% (95% CI, 0.1%-4.0%) for GI. Meta-regression found higher LC, BRFS, and reported GU/GI toxicity with increasing EQD2, with partial prostate re-RT associated with less reported GU/GI toxicity and no detriment to LC and BRFS. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage re-RT using EBRT, particularly with SBRT, is an emerging technique to treat isolated local failure of prostate cancer. With short-term follow-up, LC, BRFS, and reported toxicities appear reasonable, although further follow-up is required before definitive statements on late toxicities can be made. Our review is limited by incomplete reporting of androgen deprivation therapy use in the primary literature. Further prospective studies and longer follow-up are needed before considering re-RT as standard practice.

Is hypofractionated whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) as well tolerated as conventionally fractionated WPRT in prostate cancer patients? The HOPE trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer are at increased risk of lymph node metastasis and are thought to benefit from whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT). There has been recent interest in the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in treating prostate cancer. However, toxicity and cancer outcomes associated with hypofractionated WPRT are unclear at this time. This phase II study aims to investigate the impact in quality of life associated with hypofractionated WPRT compared to conventionally fractionated WPRT. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with unfavourable intermediate-, high- or very high-risk prostate cancer will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) + conventionally fractionated (45 Gy in 25 fractions) WPRT vs. HDR-BT + hypofractionated (25 Gy in 5 fractions) WPRT. Randomization will be performed with a permuted block design without stratification. The primary endpoint is late bowel toxicity and the secondary endpoints include acute and late urinary and sexual toxicity, acute bowel toxicity, biochemical failure-, androgen deprivation therapy-, metastasis- and prostate cancer-free survival of the hypofractionated arm compared to the conventionally fractionated arm. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare hypofractionated WPRT to conventionally fractionated WPRT with HDR-BT boost. Hypofractionated WPRT is a more attractive and convenient treatment approach, and may become the new standard of care if demonstrated to be well-tolerated and effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04197141 on December 12, 2019.

Histologic validation of auto-contoured dominant intraprostatic lesions on [18F] DCFPyL PSMA-PET imaging.

BACKGROUND: PSMA-PET1 has shown good concordance with histology, but there is a need to investigate the ability of PSMA-PET to delineate DIL2 boundaries for guided biopsy and focal therapy planning. OBJECTIVE: To determine threshold and margin combinations that satisfy the following criteria: ≥95% sensitivity with max specificity and ≥95% specificity with max sensitivity. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We registered pathologist-annotated whole-mount mid-gland prostatectomy histology sections cut in 4.4 mm intervals from 12 patients to pre-surgical PSMA-PET/MRI by mapping histology to ex-vivo imaging to in-vivo imaging. We generated PET-derived tumor volumes using boundaries defined by thresholded PET volumes from 1-100% of SUV3max in 1% intervals. At each interval, we applied margins of 0-30 voxels in one voxel increments, giving 3000 volumes/patient. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Mean and standard deviation of sensitivity and specificity for cancer detection within the 2D oblique histologic planes that intersected with the 3D PET volume for each patient. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A threshold of 67% SUV max with an 8.4 mm margin achieved a (mean ± std.) sensitivity of 95.0 ± 7.8% and specificity of 76.4 ± 14.7%. A threshold of 81% SUV max with a 5.1 mm margin achieved sensitivity of 65.1 ± 28.4% and specificity of 95.1 ± 5.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence of thresholding and margin expansion of PSMA-PET images targeted at DILs validated with histopathology demonstrated excellent mean sensitivity and specificity in the setting of focal therapy/boosting and guided biopsy. These parameters can be used in a larger validation study supporting clinical translation.