Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Dimensional reduction based on peak fitting of Raman micro spectroscopy data improves detection of prostate cancer in tissue specimens.

SIGNIFICANCE: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. An accurate diagnosis of its severity at detection plays a major role in improving their survival. Recently, machine learning models using biomarkers identified from Raman micro-spectroscopy discriminated intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) from cancer tissue with a ≥85 % detection accuracy and differentiated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) from IDC-P with a ≥97.8 % accuracy. AIM: To improve the classification performance of machine learning models identifying different types of prostate cancer tissue using a new dimensional reduction technique. APPROACH: A radial basis function (RBF) kernel support vector machine (SVM) model was trained on Raman spectra of prostate tissue from a 272-patient cohort (Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, CHUM) and tested on two independent cohorts of 76 patients [University Health Network (UHN)] and 135 patients (Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec-Université Laval, CHUQc-UL). Two types of engineered features were used. Individual intensity features, i.e., Raman signal intensity measured at particular wavelengths and novel Raman spectra fitted peak features consisting of peak heights and widths. RESULTS: Combining engineered features improved classification performance for the three aforementioned classification tasks. The improvements for IDC-P/cancer classification for the UHN and CHUQc-UL testing sets in accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) are (numbers in parenthesis are associated with the CHUQc-UL testing set): +4 % (+8 % ), +7 % (+9 % ), +2 % (6%), +9 (+9) with respect to the current best models. Discrimination between HGPIN and IDC-P was also improved in both testing cohorts: +2.2 % (+1.7 % ), +4.5 % (+3.6 % ), +0 % (+0 % ), +2.3 (+0). While no global improvements were obtained for the normal versus cancer classification task [+0 % (-2 % ), +0 % (-3 % ), +2 % (-2 % ), +4 (+3)], the AUC was improved in both testing sets. CONCLUSIONS: Combining individual intensity features and novel Raman fitted peak features, improved the classification performance on two independent and multicenter testing sets in comparison to using only individual intensity features.

Identification of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on tissue specimens using Raman micro-spectroscopy: A diagnostic accuracy case-control study with multicohort validation.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in North American men. Pathologists are in critical need of accurate biomarkers to characterize PC, particularly to confirm the presence of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P), an aggressive histopathological variant for which therapeutic options are now available. Our aim was to identify IDC-P with Raman micro-spectroscopy (RµS) and machine learning technology following a protocol suitable for routine clinical histopathology laboratories. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used RµS to differentiate IDC-P from PC, as well as PC and IDC-P from benign tissue on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded first-line radical prostatectomy specimens (embedded in tissue microarrays [TMAs]) from 483 patients treated in 3 Canadian institutions between 1993 and 2013. The main measures were the presence or absence of IDC-P and of PC, regardless of the clinical outcomes. The median age at radical prostatectomy was 62 years. Most of the specimens from the first cohort (Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal) were of Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (51%) while most of the specimens from the 2 other cohorts (University Health Network and Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec-Université Laval) were of Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 (51% and 52%, respectively). Most of the 483 patients were pT2 stage (44%-69%), and pT3a (22%-49%) was more frequent than pT3b (9%-12%). To investigate the prostate tissue of each patient, 2 consecutive sections of each TMA block were cut. The first section was transferred onto a glass slide to perform immunohistochemistry with H&E counterstaining for cell identification. The second section was placed on an aluminum slide, dewaxed, and then used to acquire an average of 7 Raman spectra per specimen (between 4 and 24 Raman spectra, 4 acquisitions/TMA core). Raman spectra of each cell type were then analyzed to retrieve tissue-specific molecular information and to generate classification models using machine learning technology. Models were trained and cross-validated using data from 1 institution. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 87% ± 5%, 86% ± 6%, and 89% ± 8%, respectively, to differentiate PC from benign tissue, and 95% ± 2%, 96% ± 4%, and 94% ± 2%, respectively, to differentiate IDC-P from PC. The trained models were then tested on Raman spectra from 2 independent institutions, reaching accuracies, sensitivities, and specificities of 84% and 86%, 84% and 87%, and 81% and 82%, respectively, to diagnose PC, and of 85% and 91%, 85% and 88%, and 86% and 93%, respectively, for the identification of IDC-P. IDC-P could further be differentiated from high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), a pre-malignant intraductal proliferation that can be mistaken as IDC-P, with accuracies, sensitivities, and specificities > 95% in both training and testing cohorts. As we used stringent criteria to diagnose IDC-P, the main limitation of our study is the exclusion of borderline, difficult-to-classify lesions from our datasets. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we developed classification models for the analysis of RµS data to differentiate IDC-P, PC, and benign tissue, including HGPIN. RµS could be a next-generation histopathological technique used to reinforce the identification of high-risk PC patients and lead to more precise diagnosis of IDC-P.

Specific requirements for translation of biological research into clinical radiation oncology.

Radiotherapy has been optimized over the last decades not only through technological advances, but also through the translation of biological knowledge into clinical treatment schedules. Optimization of fractionation schedules and/or the introduction of simultaneous combined systemic treatment have significantly improved tumour cure rates in several cancer types. With modern techniques, we are currently able to measure factors of radiation resistance or radiation sensitivity in patient tumours; the definition of new biomarkers is expected to further enable personalized treatments. In this Review article, we overview important translation paths and summarize the quality requirements for preclinical and translational studies that will help to avoid bias in trial results.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the results from the APCCC 2019. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: The Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017.

BACKGROUND: In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. OBJECTIVE: To present the report of APCCC 2017. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. CONCLUSIONS: The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. PATIENT SUMMARY: The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process.

The Utility of Serum CA9 for Prognostication in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Carbonic anhydrase IX (CA9) catalyses the interconversion of carbon dioxide to carbonic acid and bicarbonate and is considered a putative biomarker of tumour hypoxia. We set out to evaluate the prognostic significance of CA9 in prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Plasma samples were assessed from 68 men with high-risk localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT), and 20 men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) treated with docetaxel chemotherapy between 2010 and 2012 at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Canada. RESULTS: Of the 68 patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, 57 underwent RP and 11 underwent RT. Baseline CA9 was not associated with recurrence or prostate-specific antigen in either group (p=0.98 and 0.20, respectively). CA9 levels before chemotherapy correlated with overall survival (r=-0.37; two-sided p=0.11). CONCLUSION: Baseline CA9 in men with CRPC may portend a more aggressive prostate cancer phenotype with poorer survival.

RNF168 and USP10 regulate topoisomerase IIα function via opposing effects on its ubiquitylation.

Topoisomerase IIα (TOP2α) is essential for chromosomal condensation and segregation, as well as genomic integrity. Here we report that RNF168, an E3 ligase mutated in the human RIDDLE syndrome, interacts with TOP2α and mediates its ubiquitylation. RNF168 deficiency impairs decatenation activity of TOP2α and promotes mitotic abnormalities and defective chromosomal segregation. Our data also indicate that RNF168 deficiency, including in human breast cancer cell lines, confers resistance to the anti-cancer drug and TOP2 inhibitor etoposide. We also identify USP10 as a deubiquitylase that negatively regulates TOP2α ubiquitylation and restrains its chromatin association. These findings provide a mechanistic link between the RNF168/USP10 axis and TOP2α ubiquitylation and function, and suggest a role for RNF168 in the response to anti-cancer chemotherapeutics that target TOP2.

Excellence in Radiation Research for the 21st Century (EIRR21): description of an innovative research training program.

PURPOSE: To describe and assess an interdisciplinary research training program for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and clinical fellows focused on radiation medicine; funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research since 2003, the program entitled "Excellence in Radiation Research for the 21st Century" (EIRR21) aims to train the next generation of interdisciplinary radiation medicine researchers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Online surveys evaluating EIRR21 were sent to trainees (n=56), mentors (n=36), and seminar speakers (n=72). Face-to-face interviews were also conducted for trainee liaisons (n=4) and participants in the international exchange program (n=2). RESULTS: Overall response rates ranged from 53% (mentors) to 91% (trainees). EIRR21 was well received by trainees, with the acquisition of several important skills related to their research endeavors. An innovative seminar series, entitled Brainstorm sessions, imparting "extracurricular" knowledge in intellectual property protection, commercialization strategies, and effective communication, was considered to be the most valuable component of the program. Networking with researchers in other disciplines was also facilitated owing to program participation. CONCLUSIONS: EIRR21 is an innovative training program that positively impacts the biomedical community and imparts valuable skill sets to foster success for the future generation of radiation medicine researchers.

Uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase is a radiosensitizing target for head and neck cancer.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) is the eighth most common malignancy worldwide, comprising a diverse group of cancers affecting the head and neck region. Despite advances in therapeutic options over the last few decades, treatment toxicities and overall clinical outcomes have remained disappointing, thereby underscoring a need to develop novel therapeutic approaches in HNC treatment. Uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase (UROD), a key regulator of heme biosynthesis, was identified from an RNA interference-based high-throughput screen as a tumor-selective radiosensitizing target for HNC. UROD knockdown plus radiation induced caspase-mediated apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in HNC cells in vitro and suppressed the in vivo tumor-forming capacity of HNC cells, as well as delayed the growth of established tumor xenografts in mice. This radiosensitization appeared to be mediated by alterations in iron homeostasis and increased production of reactive oxygen species, resulting in enhanced tumor oxidative stress. Moreover, UROD was significantly overexpressed in HNC patient biopsies. Lower preradiation UROD mRNA expression correlated with improved disease-free survival, suggesting that UROD could potentially be used to predict radiation response. UROD down-regulation also radiosensitized several different models of human cancer, as well as sensitized tumors to chemotherapeutic agents, including 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, and paclitaxel. Thus, our study has revealed UROD as a potent tumor-selective sensitizer for both radiation and chemotherapy, with potential relevance to many human malignancies.

First report on the patient database for the identification of the genetic pathways involved in patients over-reacting to radiotherapy: GENEPI-II.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the most radiosensitive patient group would have huge clinical implications. METHODS: A tissue bank containing skin fibroblasts, whole blood, lymphocytes, plasma and lymphoblastoid cell lines from clinically radiation hypersensitive patients was established from patients in Europe and Canada. Over-reacting individuals had CTCAE3.0 severe acute side effects grade 2 or more occurring at very low radiation doses where these side effects are unexpected or grade 3-4 lasting more than 4 weeks after the end of radiotherapy and/or requiring surgical intervention at any time or severe late side effects grade 3-4. RESULTS: Eleven patients have been identified with a mean age of 61.6±8.5 years (range 49-74). Two patients were male, 9 female. One patient had non-small cell lung cancer, 6 breast cancer, 2 head and neck cancer, one lymphoma and one meningioma. The mean follow-up time after radiotherapy was 1658±1048 days (range 84-3752). CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of an international tissue bank of the rare group of patients with extreme hypersensitivity to radiotherapy was proven to be feasible and should enable in-depth molecular studies.

Efficacy of combining GMX1777 with radiation therapy for human head and neck carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Rapidly metabolizing tumor cells have elevated levels of nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase, an enzyme involved in NAD(+) biosynthesis, which serves as an important substrate for proteins involved in DNA repair. GMX1777, which inhibits nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase, was evaluated in two human head and neck cancer models in combination with radiotherapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Effects of GMX1777-mediated radiosensitization were examined via metabolic and cytotoxicity assays in vitro; mechanism of action, in vivo antitumor efficacy, and radiosensitization were also investigated. RESULTS: IC(50) values of GMX1777 for FaDu and C666-1 cells were 10 and 5 nmol/L, respectively, which interacted synergistically with radiotherapy. GMX1777 induced a rapid decline in intracellular NAD(+) followed by ATP reduction associated with significant cytotoxicity. These metabolic changes were slightly increased with the addition of radiotherapy, although poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase activity was significantly reduced when GMX1777 was combined with radiotherapy, thereby accounting for the synergistic cytotoxicity of these two modalities. Systemic GMX1777 administration with local tumor radiotherapy caused complete disappearance of FaDu and C666-1 tumors for 50 and 20 days, respectively. There was also significant reduction in tumor vascularity, particularly for the more sensitive FaDu model. [(18)F]FDG-positron emission tomography/computed tomography images showed reduction in [(18)F]FDG uptake after GMX1777 administration, showing decreased glucose metabolism in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: Our data represent the first report showing that GMX1777 plus radiotherapy is an effective therapeutic strategy for head and neck cancer, mediated via pleiotropic effects of inhibition of DNA repair and tumor angiogenesis, while sparing normal tissues. Therefore, GMX1777 combined with radiotherapy definitely warrants clinical evaluation in human head and neck cancer patients.

Clinical application of high-dose, image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the feasibility and early toxicity of dose-escalated image-guided IMRT to the pelvic lymph nodes (LN), prostate (P), and seminal vesicles (SV). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 103 high-risk prostate cancer patients received two-phase, dose-escalated, image-guided IMRT with 3 years of androgen deprivation therapy. Clinical target volumes (CTVs) were delineated using computed tomography/magnetic resonance co-registration and included the prostate, portions of the SV, and the LN. Planning target volume margins (PTV) used were as follows: P (10 mm, 7 mm posteriorly), SV (10 mm), and LN (5 mm). Organs at risk (OaR) were the rectal and bladder walls, femoral heads, and large and small bowel. The IMRT was planned with an intended dose of 55.1 Gy in 29 fractions to all CTVs (Phase 1), with P+SV consecutive boost of 24.7 Gy in 13 fractions. Daily online image guidance was performed using bony landmarks and intraprostatic markers. Feasibility criteria included delivery of intended doses in 80% of patients, 95% of CTV displacements incorporated within PTV during Phase 1, and acute toxicity rate comparable to that of lower-dose pelvic techniques. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients (88%) received the total prescription dose. All patients received at least 72 Gy. In Phase 1, 63 patients (61%) received the intended 55.1 Gy, whereas 87% of patients received at least 50 Gy. Dose reductions were caused by small bowel and rectal wall constraints. All CTVs received the planned dose in >95% of treatment fractions. There were no Radiation Therapy Oncology Group acute toxicities greater than Grade 3, although there were five incidences equivalent to Grade 3 within a median follow-up of 23 months. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that dose escalation to the PLN+P+SV using IMRT is feasible, with acceptable rates of acute toxicity.

A phase II study of localized prostate cancer treated to 75.6 Gy with 3D conformal radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate toxicity, biochemical failure-free survival (bFFS) and biopsy-proven local control for prostate cancer patients treated with 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions using 6-field conformal radiotherapy to prostate alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1997 to 1999, 140 patients with T1-2NxM0, Gleason scoreor=grade 2: 2%, and GU>or=grade 2: 1%. The 3-year bFFS of patients failure-free before biopsy was 93% (95% CI: 83-100) from a negative biopsy and 22% (95% CI: 0-56) from a positive biopsy (P=0.001). Patients reported significantly more late toxicity than physicians (GI: P=0.003, GU: P<0.001). At 5.0 years median follow-up, cause-specific survival was 98% (95% CI: 96-100), overall survival was 91% (95% CI: 86-97), and bFFS was 55% (95% CI: 45-64). CONCLUSIONS: 75.6 Gy caused modest levels of acute and late toxicity. Three-year biopsies predicted subsequent biochemical outcome.

Polarographic electrode study of tumor oxygenation in clinically localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To describe the oxygenation of clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Intraprostatic oxygen tension was measured using the Eppendorf electrode in 55 unanesthetized men with localized prostate cancer before radiotherapy. Measurements were made along two tracks through regions of suspected tumor in the prostate, and core needle biopsies were then obtained from the same regions. RESULTS: The median pO(2) ranged from 0.2 to 57.3 mm Hg, and the grand median pO(2) was 4.5 mm Hg. The percentage of oxygen readings <5 mm Hg (HP(5)) ranged from 0% to 100% (median 60%). The track 1 oxygen readings were greater than those from track 2. Statistically significant heterogeneity was found in the individual oxygen readings: the between- and within-tumor components accounted for 32% and 68% of the total variability, respectively. However, the between-tumor variability in HP(5) significantly exceeded the within-tumor variability (61% vs. 39%). No association was found between oxygen values and clinical factors, including age, T stage, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen level, hemoglobin concentration, or prior hormonal treatment. No difference was noted in the oxygenation between regions of tumor and normal prostate tissue, as determined from the core biopsies. CONCLUSION: Localized prostate cancer is characterized by marked hypoxia and significant heterogeneity in oxygenation, similar to other human tumors. The normal prostate may contain regions of low oxygen concentration. HP(5), as determined in this study, should adequately discriminate among patients with prostate cancer and allow the independent prognostic significance of oxygenation to be evaluated once the study matures.