MR-LINAC, a New Partner in Radiation Oncology: Current Landscape.

Technological advances in radiation oncology are oriented towards improving treatment precision and tumor control. Among these advances, magnetic-resonance-image-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) stands out, with technological advances to deliver targeted treatments adapted to a tumor's anatomy on the day while minimizing incidental exposure to organs at risk, offering an unprecedented therapeutic advantage compared to X-ray-based IGRT delivery systems. This new technology changes the traditional workflow in radiation oncology and requires an evolution in team coordination to administer more precise treatments. Once implemented, it paves the way for newer indication for radiation therapy to safely deliver higher doses than ever before, with better preservation of healthy tissues to optimize patient outcomes. In this narrative review, we assess the technical aspects of the novel linear accelerators that can deliver MRgRT and summarize the available published experience to date, focusing on oncological results and future challenges.

Use of focal radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer: radiation oncologists' perspectives and perceived barriers to implementation.

BACKGROUND: In a recent phase III randomized control trial, delivering a focal radiotherapy (RT) boost to tumors visible on MRI was shown to improve disease-free survival and regional/distant metastasis-free survival for patients with prostate cancer-without increasing toxicity. The aim of this study was to assess how widely this technique is being applied in current practice, as well as physicians' perceived barriers toward its implementation. METHODS: We invited radiation oncologists to complete an online questionnaire assessing their use of intraprostatic focal boost in December 2022 and February 2023. To include perspectives from a broad range of practice settings, the invitation was distributed to radiation oncologists worldwide via email list, group text platform, and social media. RESULTS: 263 radiation oncologist participants responded. The highest-represented countries were the United States (42%), Mexico (13%), and the United Kingdom (8%). The majority of participants worked at an academic medical center (52%) and considered their practice to be at least partially genitourinary (GU)-subspecialized (74%). Overall, 43% of participants reported routinely using intraprostatic focal boost. Complete GU-subspecialists were more likely to implement focal boost, with 61% reporting routine use. In both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries, less than half of participants routinely use focal boost. The most cited barriers were concerns about registration accuracy between MRI and CT (37%), concerns about risk of additional toxicity (35%), and challenges to accessing high-quality MRI (29%). CONCLUSIONS: Two years following publication of a randomized trial of patient benefit without increased toxicity, almost half of the radiation oncologists surveyed are now routinely offering focal RT boost. Further adoption of this technique might be aided by increased access to high-quality MRI, better registration algorithms of MRI to CT simulation images, physician education on benefit-to-harm ratio, and training on contouring prostate lesions on MRI.

Differential Use of Radiotherapy Fractionation Regimens in Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Technical advances in treatment of prostate cancer and a better understanding of prostate cancer biology have allowed for hypofractionated treatment courses using a higher dose per fraction. Use of ultrahypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has also been characterized. Objective: To characterize US national trends of different RT fractionation schemes across risk groups of prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data collected by the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to characterize the fractionation regimens used for 302 035 patients diagnosed as having prostate cancer from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2020, who underwent definitive RT. The analysis was performed between February 1 and April 30, 2023. Exposure: Stereotactic body RT or ultrahypofractionation, defined as 5 or fewer fractions of external beam RT (EBRT), moderate hypofractionation, defined as 20 to 28 fractions of EBRT, or conventional fractionation, defined as all remaining EBRT fractionation schemes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Temporal trends and clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with SBRT, moderate hypofractionation, and conventional fractionation use. Results: A total of 302 035 men receiving EBRT for localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2020 were identified (40.1% aged 60-69 years). Black patients comprised 17.6% of this cohort; White patients, 77.9%; and other races and ethnicities, 4.5%. Patients with low-risk disease comprised 17.5% of the cohort; favorable intermediate-risk disease, 23.5%; unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, 23.9%; and high-risk disease, 35.1%. Treatment consisted of conventional fractionation for 81.2%, moderate hypofractionation for 12.9%, and SBRT for 6.0%. The rate of increase over time in patients receiving SBRT compared with conventional fractionation was higher (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] for 2005 vs 2004, 3.18 [95% CI, 2.04-4.94; P < .001]; AOR for 2020 vs 2004, 264.69 [95% CI, 179.33-390.68; P < .001]) than the rate of increase in patients receiving moderate hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation (AOR for 2005 vs 2004, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.98-1.12; P = .19]; AOR for 2020 vs 2004, 4.41 [95% CI, 4.15-4.69; P < .001]). Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to receive SBRT compared with conventional fractionation or moderate hypofractionation (AOR for conventional fractionation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.80-0.89; P < .001]; AOR for moderate hypofractionation, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.72-0.81; P < .001]). Compared with 2019, patients treated with all fractionation regimens declined in 2020 by 24.4%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this hospital-based cohort study of patients with prostate cancer treated with definitive EBRT, use of moderate hypofractionation and SBRT regimens for definitive prostate cancer treatment has increased from 2004 to 2020. Despite this increasing trend, findings suggest potential health care disparities for Black patients receiving EBRT for localized prostate cancer. The number of patients treated with EBRT in the year 2020 decreased, coinciding with official onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

A randomized phase II trial of MR-guided prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy administered in 5 or 2 fractions for localized prostate cancer (FORT).

BACKGROUND: Ultra-hypofractionated regimens for definitive prostate cancer (PCa) radiotherapy are increasingly utilized due in part to promising safety and efficacy data complemented by greater patient convenience from a treatment course requiring fewer sessions. As such, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is rapidly emerging as a standard definitive treatment option for patients with localized PCa. The commercially available magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MR-LINAC) integrates MR imaging with radiation delivery, providing several theoretical advantages compared to computed tomography (CT)-guided radiotherapy. MR-LINAC technology facilitates improved visualization of the prostate, real-time intrafraction tracking of prostate and organs-at-risk (OAR), and online adaptive planning to account for target movement and anatomical changes. These features enable reduced treatment volume margins and improved sparing of surrounding OAR. The theoretical advantages of MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) have recently been shown to significantly reduce rates of acute grade ≥ 2 GU toxicities as reported in the prospective randomized phase III MIRAGE trial, which compared MR-LINAC vs CT-based 5 fraction SBRT in patients with localized PCa (Kishan et al. JAMA Oncol 9:365-373, 2023). Thus, MR-LINAC SBRT-utilizing potentially fewer treatments-is warranted and clinically relevant for men with low or intermediate risk PCa electing for radiotherapy as definitive treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 136 men with treatment naïve low or intermediate risk PCa will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 5 or 2 fractions of MR-guided SBRT using permuted block randomization. Randomization is stratified by baseline Expanded PCa Index Composite (EPIC) bowel and urinary domain scores. Patients undergoing 5 fractions will receive 37.5 Gy to the prostate over 10-14 days and patients undergoing 2 fractions will receive 25 Gy to the prostate over 7-10 days. The co-primary endpoints are GI and GU toxicities as measured by change scores in the bowel and urinary EPIC domains, respectively. The change scores will be calculated as pre-treatment (baseline) score subtracted from the 2-year score. DISCUSSION: FORT is an international, multi-institutional prospective randomized phase II trial evaluating whether MR-guided SBRT delivered in 2 fractions versus 5 fractions is non-inferior from a gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity standpoint at 2 years post-treatment in men with low or intermediate risk PCa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04984343 . Date of registration: July 30, 2021. PROTOCOL VERSION: 4.0, Nov 8, 2022.

Randomized phase II trial of MRI-guided salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer in 4 weeks versus 2 weeks (SHORTER).

BACKGROUND: Ultra-hypofractionated image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is increasingly used for definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) facilitates improved visualization, real-time tracking of targets and/or organs-at-risk (OAR), and capacity for adaptive planning which may translate to improved targeting and reduced toxicity to surrounding tissues. Given promising results from NRG-GU003 comparing conventional and moderate hypofractionation in the post-operative setting, there is growing interest in exploring ultra-hypofractionated post-operative regimens. It remains unclear whether this can be done safely and whether MRgRT may help mitigate potential toxicity. SHORTER (NCT04422132) is a phase II randomized trial prospectively evaluating whether salvage MRgRT delivered in 5 fractions versus 20 fractions is non-inferior with respect to gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities at 2-years post-treatment. METHODS: A total of 136 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to salvage MRgRT in 5 fractions or 20 fractions using permuted block randomization. Patients will be stratified according to baseline Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) bowel and urinary domain scores as well as nodal treatment and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Patients undergoing 5 fractions will receive a total of 32.5 Gy over 2 weeks and patients undergoing 20 fractions will receive a total of 55 Gy over 4 weeks, with or without nodal coverage (25.5 Gy over 2 weeks and 42 Gy over 4 weeks) and ADT as per the investigator's discretion. The co-primary endpoints are change scores in the bowel and the urinary domains of the EPIC. The change scores will reflect the 2-year score minus the pre-treatment (baseline) score. The secondary endpoints include safety endpoints, including change in GI and GU symptoms at 3, 6, 12 and 60 months from completion of treatment, and efficacy endpoints, including time to progression, prostate cancer specific survival and overall survival. DISCUSSION: The SHORTER trial is the first randomized phase II trial comparing toxicity of ultra-hypofractionated and hypofractionated MRgRT in the salvage setting. The primary hypothesis is that salvage MRgRT delivered in 5 fractions will not significantly increase GI and GU toxicities when compared to salvage MRgRT delivered in 20 fractions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04422132. Date of registration: June 9, 2020.

Use of focal radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer and perceived barriers toward its implementation: a survey.

Background: In a recent phase III randomized control trial (FLAME), delivering a focal radiotherapy (RT) boost to tumors visible on MRI was shown to improve outcomes for prostate cancer patients without increasing toxicity. The aim of this study was to assess how widely this technique is being applied in current practice as well as physicians' perceived barriers toward its implementation. Methods: An online survey assessing the use of intraprostatic focal boost was conducted in December 2022 and February 2023. The survey link was distributed to radiation oncologists worldwide via email list, group text platform, and social media. Results: The survey initially collected 205 responses from various countries over a two-week period in December 2022. The survey was then reopened for one week in February 2023 to allow for more participation, leading to a total of 263 responses. The highest-represented countries were the United States (42%), Mexico (13%), and the United Kingdom (8%). The majority of participants worked at an academic medical center (52%) and considered their practice to be at least partially genitourinary (GU)-subspecialized (74%). 57% of participants reported not routinely using intraprostatic focal boost. Even among complete subspecialists, a substantial proportion (39%) do not routinely use focal boost. Less than half of participants in both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries were shown to routinely use focal boost. The most commonly cited barriers were concerns about registration accuracy between MRI and CT (37%), concerns about risk of additional toxicity (35%), and challenges to accessing high-quality MRI (29%). Conclusion: Despite level 1 evidence from the FLAME trial, most radiation oncologists surveyed are not routinely offering focal RT boost. Adoption of this technique might be accelerated by increased access to high-quality MRI, better registration algorithms of MRI to CT simulation images, physician education on benefit-to-harm ratio, and training on contouring prostate lesions on MRI.

The role of AI in prostate MRI quality and interpretation: Opportunities and challenges.

Prostate MRI plays an important role in imaging the prostate gland and surrounding tissues, particularly in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. With the widespread adoption of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in recent years, the concerns surrounding the variability of imaging quality have garnered increased attention. Several factors contribute to the inconsistency of image quality, such as acquisition parameters, scanner differences and interobserver variabilities. While efforts have been made to standardize image acquisition and interpretation via the development of systems, such as PI-RADS and PI-QUAL, the scoring systems still depend on the subjective experience and acumen of humans. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly used in many applications, including medical imaging, due to its ability to automate tasks and lower human error rates. These advantages have the potential to standardize the tasks of image interpretation and quality control of prostate MRI. Despite its potential, thorough validation is required before the implementation of AI in clinical practice. In this article, we explore the opportunities and challenges of AI, with a focus on the interpretation and quality of prostate MRI.

Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeting on Pathologic Upgrading and Downgrading at Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The evidence supporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting for biopsy is nearly exclusively based on biopsy pathologic outcomes. This is problematic, as targeting likely allows preferential identification of small high-grade areas of questionable oncologic significance, raising the likelihood of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsies on radical prostatectomy (RP) grade group concordance. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched from July 2018 to January 2022. Studies that conducted systematic and MRI-targeted prostate biopsies and compared biopsy results with pathology after RP were included. We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether pathologic upgrading and downgrading were influenced by biopsy type and a net-benefit analysis using pooled risk difference estimates. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Both targeted only and combined biopsies were less likely to result in upgrading (odds ratio [OR] vs systematic of 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.77, p < 0.001, and 0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.55, p < 0.001), respectively). Targeted only and combined biopsies increased the odds of downgrading (1.24 (95% CI 1.05-1.46), p = 0.012, and 1.96 (95% CI 1.68-2.27, p < 0.001) compared with systematic biopsies, respectively. The net benefit of targeted and combined biopsies is 8 and 7 per 100 if harms of up- and downgrading are considered equal, but 7 and -1 per 100 if the harm of downgrading is considered twice that of upgrading. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of MRI-targeting results in lower rates of upgrading as compared to systematic biopsy at RP (27% vs 42%). However, combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies are associated with more downgrading at RP (19% v 11% for combined vs systematic). Strong heterogeneity suggests further research into factors that influence the rates of up- and downgrading and that distinguishes clinically relevant from irrelevant grade changes is needed. Until then, the benefits and harms of combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies cannot be fully assessed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies to predict cancer grade at prostatectomy. We found that combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies result in more cancers being downgraded than systematic biopsies.

Complex implementation factors demonstrated when evaluating cost-effectiveness and monitoring racial disparities associated with [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT in prostate cancer men.

Prostate cancer (PC) staging with conventional imaging often includes multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) of the prostate, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, and whole-body bone scintigraphy. The recent development of highly sensitive and specific prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) has suggested that prior imaging techniques may be insufficiently sensitive or specific, particularly when evaluating small pathologic lesions. As PSMA PET/CT is considered to be superior for multiple clinical indications, it is being deployed as the new multidisciplinary standard-of-care. Given this, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of [18F]DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT imaging in the evaluation of PC relative to conventional imaging and anti-3-[18F]FACBC (18F-Fluciclovine) PET/CT. We also conducted a single institution review of PSMA PET/CT scans performed primarily for research indications from January 2018 to October 2021. Our snapshot of this period of time in our catchment demonstrated that PSMA PET/CT imaging was disproportionately accessed by men of European ancestry (EA) and those residing in zip codes associated with a higher median household income. The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT should be considered as an alternative to anti-3-[18F]FACBC PET/CT and standard of care imaging for prostate cancer staging. [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT is a new imaging modality to evaluate PC patients with higher sensitivity and specificity in detecting disease than other prostate specific imaging studies. Despite this, access may be inequitable. This discrepancy will need to be addressed proactively as the distribution network of the radiotracer includes both academic and non-academic sites nationwide.

Transcriptomic Heterogeneity in High-risk Prostate Cancer and Implications for Extraprostatic Disease at Presentation on Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) has greater specificity and sensitivity for detection of extraprostatic prostate cancer (PCa) at presentation than conventional imaging. Although the long-term clinical significance of acting on these findings is unknown, it has been shown that the risk of upstaging is prognostic for long-term outcomes in men with high-risk (HR) or very high-risk (VHR) PCa. We evaluated the association between the risk of upstaging on PSMA PET and the Decipher genomic classifier score, a known prognostic biomarker in localized PCa that is being evaluated for its predictive ability to direct systemic therapy intensification. In a cohort of 4625 patients with HR or VHR PCa, the risk of upstaging on PSMA PET was significantly correlated with the Decipher score (p < 0.001). These results should be seen as hypothesis-generating and warrant further studies on the causal pathways linking PSMA findings, Decipher scores, extraprostatic disease, and long-term clinical outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found significant correlation between the risk of having prostate cancer outside the prostate gland on a sensitive scan (based on prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]) at initial staging and the Decipher genetic score. The results warrant further studies on the causal pathways between PSMA scan findings, Decipher scores, disease outside the prostate, and long-term outcomes.

MRI-LINAC: A transformative technology in radiation oncology.

Advances in radiotherapy technologies have enabled more precise target guidance, improved treatment verification, and greater control and versatility in radiation delivery. Amongst the recent novel technologies, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) may hold the greatest potential to improve the therapeutic gains of image-guided delivery of radiation dose. The ability of the MRI linear accelerator (LINAC) to image tumors and organs with on-table MRI, to manage organ motion and dose delivery in real-time, and to adapt the radiotherapy plan on the day of treatment while the patient is on the table are major advances relative to current conventional radiation treatments. These advanced techniques demand efficient coordination and communication between members of the treatment team. MRgRT could fundamentally transform the radiotherapy delivery process within radiation oncology centers through the reorganization of the patient and treatment team workflow process. However, the MRgRT technology currently is limited by accessibility due to the cost of capital investment and the time and personnel allocation needed for each fractional treatment and the unclear clinical benefit compared to conventional radiotherapy platforms. As the technology evolves and becomes more widely available, we present the case that MRgRT has the potential to become a widely utilized treatment platform and transform the radiation oncology treatment process just as earlier disruptive radiation therapy technologies have done.

Prostate cancer grade migration and facility-level treatment trends for grade group 1 disease.

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade prostate cancer (PCa) reflect poor quality of care and prompted changes to guidelines over the past decade. We used the National Cancer Database to characterize Gleason Grade Group (GG)1 PCa diagnosis trends and assess facility-level treatment variability. Between 2010 and 2019, GG1 PCa incidence had a clinically and statistically significant decline, from 45% to 25% at biopsy and from 33% to 9.8% at radical prostatectomy (RP) pathology. Similarly, active surveillance (AS) uptake significantly increased to 49% and 62% among nonacademic and academic sites, respectively. Decreasing rates of definitive therapies were identified: among academic sites, RP decreased from 61.1% to 25.3% and radiation therapy (RT) from 25.2% to 12%, whereas among nonacademic sites, RP decreased from 53.6% to 28% and RT from 37.8% to 21.9% (Ptrend < .001). Declines in the diagnosis and treatment of low-grade disease demonstrate an encouraging shift in PCa epidemiology. However, heterogeneity in AS utilization remains and reflects opportunities for improvement.

Pulse Sequence Dependence of a Simple and Interpretable Deep Learning Method for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Multiparametric MRI.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasingly used for risk stratification and localization of prostate cancer (PCa). Thanks to the great success of deep learning models in computer vision, the potential application for early detection of PCa using mpMRI is imminent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Deep learning analysis of the PROSTATEx dataset. RESULTS: In this study, we show a simple convolutional neural network (CNN) with mpMRI can achieve high performance for detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa), depending on the pulse sequences used. The mpMRI model with T2-ADC-DWI achieved 0.90 AUC score in the held-out test set, not significantly better than the model using Ktrans instead of DWI (AUC 0.89). Interestingly, the model incorporating T2-ADC- Ktrans better estimates grade. We also describe a saliency "heat" map. Our results show that csPCa detection models with mpMRI may be leveraged to guide clinical management strategies. CONCLUSION: Convolutional neural networks incorporating multiple pulse sequences show high performance for detection of clinically-significant prostate cancer, and the model including dynamic contrast-enhanced information correlates best with grade.

Patterns of utilization and clinical adoption of 0.35 Tesla MR-guided radiation therapy in the United States - Understanding the transition to adaptive, ultra-hypofractionated treatments.

Purpose/Objective: Magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) utilization is rapidly expanding worldwide, driven by advanced capabilities including continuous intrafraction visualization, automatic triggered beam delivery, and on-table adaptive replanning (oART). Our objective was to describe patterns of 0.35Tesla(T)-MRgRT (MRIdian) utilization in the United States (US) among early adopters of this novel technology. Materials/Methods: Anonymized administrative data from all US MRIdian treatment systems were extracted for patients completing treatment from 2014 to 2020. Detailed treatment information was available for all MRIdian linear accelerator (linac) systems and some cobalt systems. Results: Seventeen systems at 16 centers delivered 5736 courses and 36,389 fractions (fraction details unavailable for 1223 cobalt courses), of which 21.1% were adapted. Ultra-hypofractionation (UHfx) (1-5 fractions) was used in 70.3% of all courses. At least one adaptive fraction was used for 38.5% of courses (average 1.7 adapted fractions/course), with higher oART use in UHfx dose schedules (47.7% of courses, average 1.9 adapted fractions per course). The most commonly treated organ sites were pancreas (20.7%), liver (16.5%), prostate (12.5%), breast (11.5%), and lung (9.4%). Temporal trends show a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 59.6% in treatment courses delivered, with a dramatic increase in use of UHfx to 84.9% of courses in 2020 and similar increase in use of oART to 51.0% of courses. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive study reporting patterns of utilization among early adopters of MRIdian in the US. Intrafraction MR image-guidance, advanced motion management, and increasing adoption of adaptive radiation therapy has led to a substantial transition to ultra-hypofractionated regimens. 0.35 T-MRgRT has been predominantly used to treat abdominal and pelvic tumors with increasing use of on-table adaptive replanning, which represents a paradigm shift in radiation therapy.

Adaptive magnetic resonance image guided radiation for intact localized prostate cancer how to optimally test a rapidly emerging technology.

Introduction: Prostate cancer is a common malignancy for which radiation therapy (RT) provides an excellent management option with high rates of control and low toxicity. Historically RT has been given with CT based image guidance. Recently, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging capabilities have been successfully integrated with RT delivery platforms, presenting an appealing, yet complex, expensive, and time-consuming method of adapting and guiding RT. The precise benefits of MR guidance for localized prostate cancer are unclear. We sought to summarize optimal strategies to test the benefits of MR guidance specifically in localized prostate cancer. Methods: A group of radiation oncologists, physicists, and statisticians were identified to collectively address this topic. Participants had a history of treating prostate cancer patients with the two commercially available MRI-guided RT devices. Participants also had a clinical focus on randomized trials in localized prostate cancer. The goal was to review both ongoing trials and present a conceptual focus on MRI-guided RT specifically in the definitive treatment of prostate cancer, along with developing and proposing novel trials for future consideration. Trial hypotheses, endpoints, and areas for improvement in localized prostate cancer that specifically leverage MR guided technology are presented. Results: Multiple prospective trials were found that explored the potential of adaptive MRI-guided radiotherapy in the definitive treatment of prostate cancer. Different primary areas of improvement that MR guidance may offer in prostate cancer were summarized. Eight clinical trial design strategies are presented that summarize options for clinical trials testing the potential benefits of MRI-guided RT. Conclusions: The number and scope of trials evaluating MRI-guided RT for localized prostate cancer is limited. Yet multiple promising opportunities to test this technology and potentially improve outcomes for men with prostate cancer undergoing definitive RT exist. Attention, in the form of multi-institutional randomized trials, is needed.

Corrigendum re "Hypofractionated Postoperative Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Is the Field Ready Yet?" [Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;22:9-16].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2020.10.001.].

Trends in Androgen Deprivation Use in Men With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Who Underwent Radiation Therapy.

Purpose: Until 2018, National Cancer Comprehensive Network guidelines recommended androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for all men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who had undergone radiation therapy. Intermediate risk was stratified as favorable and unfavorable in 2018, and ADT recommendation was limited to men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Data suggesting this stratification and treatment deintensification were first published in December 2013. This study characterizes US national trends for demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors associated with ADT use in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who have undergone definitive radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: This retrospective cohort study examined 108,185 men in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from 2004 to 2016. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and associations with the use of ADT were characterized. Results: In total, 108,185 men diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent radiation therapy from 2004 to 2016. Of these men, 41.09% received ADT. Among the 60,705 men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 32.06% received ADT. Among the 47,480 men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 52.64% received ADT. On multivariate analysis, use of ADT was associated with age and year of diagnosis; being a race other than White; having government-based insurance; having a higher prostate-specific antigen level, tumor stage, and Gleason score; receiving treatment at a nonacademic center; and receiving external beam radiation therapy alone. Conclusions: The findings highlight that ADT use is variable in men undergoing definitive radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, with the data suggesting that several clinical and socioeconomic disparities influence its use. The findings suggest that a significant proportion of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer receive ADT and remain candidates for treatment de-escalation, whereas a significant proportion of men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer may be undertreated when ADT is omitted.

Evolving Trends in the Management of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Deferred treatment is a growing management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer. However, it is unknown whether this growth is mediated by patient factors. In this study, we sought to evaluate factors associated with deferred treatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer and shifts in these factors after recent incorporation of active surveillance into national guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 137,915 men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤6, stage cT1-cT2a) in the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2017. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with deferred treatment. Interaction variables were added to determine whether trends in use of deferred treatment over time depend on race, income, education, and insurance status. RESULTS: The use of deferred treatment among men with low-risk prostate cancer increased from 14.7% in 2010-2011 to 46.3% in 2016-2017 (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, deferred treatment was associated with older age, more contemporary year of diagnosis, black race, lower income, higher educational attainment, government insurance, being uninsured, treatment at an academic/research facility, and treatment at a facility in New England (each P < .05). Incorporation of interaction variables showed that black race, belonging to the two lowest income quartiles, government insurance, and being uninsured became less associated with deferred treatment in recent years. CONCLUSIONS: The use of deferred treatment among men with low-risk prostate cancer increased significantly from 2010 to 2017. However, patients who were black, low-income, and not privately insured experienced smaller increases in deferred treatment. Interventions to increase uptake in these groups present opportunities to improve quality of care.

Grade Migration of Prostate Cancer in the United States During the Last Decade.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) screening guidelines have changed over the last decade to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade disease. We sought to examine and attempt to explain how changes in screening strategies have impacted temporal trends in Gleason grade group (GG) PC at diagnosis and radical prostatectomy pathology. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry database, we identified 438 432 men with newly diagnosed PC during 2010-2018. Temporal trends in incidence of GG at biopsy, radical prostatectomy pathology, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and metastasis at diagnosis were examined. The National Health Interview Survey database was examined to evaluate trends in PSA-screening rates, and a literature review evaluating magnetic resonance imaging and biomarkers utilization during this period was performed. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2018, the incidence of low-grade PC (GG1) decreased from 52 to 26 cases per 100 000 (P < .001). The incidence of GG1 as a proportion of all PC decreased from 47% to 32%, and the proportion of GG1 at radical prostatectomy pathology decreased from 32% to 10% (P < .001). However, metastases at diagnosis increased from 3.0% to 5.2% (P < .001). During 2010-2013, PSA screening rates in men aged 50-74 years declined from 39 to 32 per 100 men and remained stable. Utilization rates of magnetic resonance imaging and biomarkers modestly increased from 7.2% in 2012 to 17% in 2019 and 1.3% in 2012 to 13% in 2019, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant decrease in the diagnosis and treatment of GG1 PC between 2010 and 2018. Changes in PSA screening practices appear as the primary contributor. Public health efforts should be directed toward addressing the increase in the diagnoses of metastatic PC.