Dose-Escalated Radiation Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Total Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Patient-Reported Outcomes From NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of a phase III trial evaluating total androgen suppression (TAS) combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or RT plus TAS (arm 2) consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist with oral antiandrogen for 6 months. The primary PRO was the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50). Secondary PROs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-fatigue and EuroQOL five-dimensions scale questionnaire (EQ-5D). PRO change scores, calculated for each patient as the follow-up score minus baseline score (at the end of RT and at 6, 12, and 60 months), were compared between treatment arms using a two-sample t test. An effect size of 0.50 standard deviation was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: For the primary PRO instrument (EPIC), the completion rates were ≥86% through the first year of follow-up and 70%-75% at 5 years. For the EPIC hormonal and sexual domains, there were clinically meaningful (P < .0001) deficits in the RT + TAS arm. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences by 1 year between arms. There were also no clinically meaningful differences at any time points between arms for PROMIS-fatigue, EQ-5D, and EPIC bowel/urinary scores. CONCLUSION: Compared with dose-escalated RT alone, adding TAS demonstrated clinically meaningful declines only in EPIC hormonal and sexual domains. However, even these PRO differences were transient, and there were no clinically meaningful differences between arms by 1 year.

Managing a Locally Advanced Cervix Cancer Patient With COVID-19: Lessons Learned.

We present the case of a woman diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) while undergoing chemoradiation for locally advanced cervix cancer. This diagnosis had implications for the treatment of her cancer, and a number of important decisions had to be made. We present the issues that arose and how her oncologic care was managed.

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.

Is prostate brachytherapy a dying art? Trends and variation in the definitive management of prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Declining prostate brachytherapy utilization has been reported in several studies, despite strong evidence for efficacy and safety compared to alternatives. We sought to evaluate contemporary trends in brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and prostatectomy utilization in a publicly funded healthcare system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with localized prostate cancer diagnosed and treated between 2006 and 2017 in Ontario, Canada were identified using administrative data. Men received EBRT, brachytherapy (monotherapy or boost) or prostatectomy as initial definitive management. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated patient-, tumour-, and provider-factors on treatment utilization. RESULTS: 61,288 men were included. On multivariable regression, the odds of receiving brachytherapy boost increased 24% per year (odds ratio [OR]:1.24, 95% CI 1.22-1.26, p < 0.01), brachytherapy monotherapy increased 3% per year (OR:1.03, 95% CI:1.02-1.04, p < 0.01), and prostatectomy declined by 6% per year (OR:0.94, 95% CI 0.93-0.95, p < 0.01). Treatment year was not significant on multivariable modelling of EBRT. In a separate multivariable model limited to those who received radiotherapy, if the first radiation oncologist seen performed brachytherapy, the OR of receiving brachytherapy monotherapy over EBRT was 5.66 (95% CI: 5.11-6.26, p < 0.01) and 2.88 (95% CI: 2.60-3.19, p < 0.01) for brachytherapy boost over EBRT alone. Substantial geographic, provider and patient variation in treatment receipt was observed. CONCLUSION: We found increasing brachytherapy utilization, largely driven by increasing utilization of brachytherapy boost. To our knowledge, this is the first report of increasing brachytherapy use in the era of dose escalated EBRT.

The role of adjuvant therapy in stage IA serous and clear cell uterine cancer: A multi-institutional pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVE: As the optimal adjuvant management of stage IA serous or clear cell endometrial cancer is controversial, a multi-institutional review was conducted with the objective of evaluating the appropriateness of various strategies including observation. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews for 414 consecutive patients who underwent hysterectomy for FIGO stage IA endometrial cancer with serous, clear cell or mixed histology between 2004 and 2015 were conducted in 6 North American centers. Time-to-event outcomes were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank test, univariable and multivariable cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS: Post-operative management included observation (50%), chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) (27%), RT only (16%) and chemotherapy only (7%). The 178 RT patients received external beam (EBRT, 16%), vaginal vault brachytherapy (VVB, 56%) or both (28%). Among patients without any adjuvant treatment, 5-year local control (LC), disease free survival (DFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were 82% (95% confidence interval: 74-88), 70% (62-78) and 90% (82-94), respectively. CSS in patients without adjuvant treatment was improved with adequate surgical staging (100% vs. 87% (77-92), log-rank p=0.022). Adjuvant VVB was associated with improved LC (5-year 96% (91-99) vs. 84% (76-89), log-rank p=0.007) and DFS (5-year 79% (66-88) vs. 71% (63-77), log-rank p=0.033). Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better LC (5-year 96% (90-98) vs. 84% (77-89), log-rank p=0.014) and DFS (5-year 84% (74-91) vs. 69% (61-76), log-rank p=0.009). On multivariable analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy and VVB were associated with improved LC while adjuvant chemotherapy and age were significant for DFS. CONCLUSIONS: In stage IA serous or clear cell uterine cancer, adjuvant RT and chemotherapy were associated with better LC and DFS. Observation may be appropriate in patients who have had adequate surgical staging.

Creation of RTOG compliant patient CT-atlases for automated atlas based contouring of local regional breast and high-risk prostate cancers.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of IMRT to treat breast and prostate cancers at high risk of regional nodal spread relies on accurate contouring of targets and organs at risk, which is subject to significant inter- and intra-observer variability. This study sought to evaluate the performance of an atlas based deformable registration algorithm to create multi-patient CT based atlases for automated contouring. METHODS: Breast and prostate multi-patient CT atlases (n = 50 and 14 respectively) were constructed to be consistent with RTOG consensus contouring guidelines. A commercially available software algorithm was evaluated by comparison of atlas-predicted contours against manual contours using Dice Similarity coefficients. RESULTS: High levels of agreement were demonstrated for prediction of OAR contours of lungs, heart, femurs, and minor editing required for the CTV breast/chest wall. CTVs generated for axillary nodes, supraclavicular nodes, prostate, and pelvic nodes demonstrated modest agreement. Small and highly variable structures, such as internal mammary nodes, lumpectomy cavity, rectum, penile bulb, and seminal vesicles had poor agreement. CONCLUSIONS: A method to construct and validate performance of CT-based multi-patient atlases for automated atlas based auto-contouring has been demonstrated, and can be adopted for clinical use in planning of local regional breast and high-risk prostate radiotherapy.