Intermittent androgen suppression for rising PSA level after radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent androgen deprivation for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) elevation after radiotherapy may improve quality of life and delay hormone resistance. We assessed overall survival with intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation in a noninferiority randomized trial. METHODS: We enrolled patients with a PSA level greater than 3 ng per milliliter more than 1 year after primary or salvage radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Intermittent treatment was provided in 8-month cycles, with nontreatment periods determined according to the PSA level. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included quality of life, time to castration-resistant disease, and duration of nontreatment intervals. RESULTS: Of 1386 enrolled patients, 690 were randomly assigned to intermittent therapy and 696 to continuous therapy. Median follow-up was 6.9 years. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events. In the intermittent-therapy group, full testosterone recovery occurred in 35% of patients, and testosterone recovery to the trial-entry threshold occurred in 79%. Intermittent therapy provided potential benefits with respect to physical function, fatigue, urinary problems, hot flashes, libido, and erectile function. There were 268 deaths in the intermittent-therapy group and 256 in the continuous-therapy group. Median overall survival was 8.8 years in the intermittent-therapy group versus 9.1 years in the continuous-therapy group (hazard ratio for death, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.21). The estimated 7-year cumulative rates of disease-related death were 18% and 15% in the two groups, respectively (P=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent androgen deprivation was noninferior to continuous therapy with respect to overall survival. Some quality-of-life factors improved with intermittent therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003653.).

An Updated Analysis of the Survival Endpoints of ASCENDE-RT.

PURPOSE: Using the primary endpoint of time to biochemical progression (TTP), Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (ASCENDE-RT) randomized National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer to low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (LDR-PB) or dose-escalated external beam boost (DE-EBRT). Randomization to the LDR-PB arm resulted in a 2-fold reduction in biochemical progression compared with the DE-EBRT group at a median follow-up of 6.5 years (P < .001). Herein, the primary endpoint and secondary survival endpoints of the ASCENDE-RT trial are updated at a 10-year median follow-up. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to either the LDR-PB or the DE-EBRT arm (1:1). All patients received 1 year of androgen deprivation therapy and 46 Gy in 23 fractions of pelvic RT. Patients in the DE-EBRT arm received an additional 32 Gy in 16 fractions, and those in the LDR-PB arm received an 125I implant prescribed to a minimum peripheral dose of 115 Gy. Two hundred patients were randomized to the DE-EBRT arm and 198 to the LDR-PB arm. RESULTS: The 10-year Kaplan-Meier TTP estimate was 85% ± 5% for LDR-PB compared with 67% ± 7% for DE-EBRT (log rank P < .001). Ten-year time to distant metastasis (DM) was 88% ± 5% for the LDR-PB arm and 86% ± 6% for the DE-EBRT arm (P = .56). There were 117 (29%) deaths. Ten-year overall survival (OS) estimates were 80% ± 6% for the LDR-PB arm and 75% ± 7% for the DE-EBRT arm (P = .51). There were 30 (8%) patients who died of prostate cancer: 12 (6%) in the LDR-PB arm, including 2 treatment-related deaths, and 18 (9%) in the DE-EBRT arm. CONCLUSIONS: Men randomized to the LDR-PB boost arm of the ASCENDE-RT trial continue to experience a large advantage in TTP compared with those randomized to the DE-EBRT arm. ASCENDE-RT was not powered to detect differences in its secondary survival endpoints (OS, DM, and time to prostate cancer-specific death) and none are apparent.

A phase II trial of a soy beverage for subjects without clinical disease with rising prostate-specific antigen after radical radiation for prostate cancer.

Our objective was to evaluate the tolerability and effect of a daily soy beverage in prostate cancer patients with biochemical failure after radiotherapy. Patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after radical radiation for prostate cancer were instructed to consume 500 ml of soy beverage daily for 6 mo. Tolerability of the soy beverage and compliance were assessed. PSA doubling times before and after the consumption of soy were compared. Thirty-four subjects were enrolled; 5 withdrew before 1 mo of soy for reasons unrelated to soy consumption. All remaining 29 subjects were included in the analysis. Mean consumption of the assigned soy beverage was 93%. Mild gastrointestinal upset (38%) not affecting soy consumption was the commonest side effect. PSA showed a declining trend in 4 patients (13.8%), and there was a > 100% prolongation of PSA doubling time in 8 patients (27.6%). However, PSA doubling time also showed a 50% or more shortening in 5 patients (17.2%). In our cohort of North American subjects, 6 mo of a daily soy beverage was well tolerated and was associated with a declining trend or more than 2 times prolongation of PSA doubling time in 41% of subjects. Confirmatory studies are warranted.

ACCORD: A Multicentre, Seamless, Phase 2 Adaptive Randomisation Platform Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Multiple Candidate Agents for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalised Patients: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Stage 1: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of candidate agents as add-on therapies to standard of care (SoC) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in a screening stage. Stage 2: To confirm the efficacy of candidate agents selected on the basis of evidence from Stage 1 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an expansion stage. TRIAL DESIGN: ACCORD is a seamless, Phase 2, adaptive, randomised controlled platform study, designed to rapidly test candidate agents in the treatment of COVID-19. Designed as a master protocol with each candidate agent being included via its own sub-protocol, initially randomising equally between each candidate and a single contemporaneous SoC arm (which can adapt into 2:1). Candidate agents currently include bemcentinib, MEDI3506, acalabrutinib, zilucoplan and nebulised heparin. For each candidate a total of 60 patients will be recruited in Stage 1. If Stage 1 provides evidence of efficacy and acceptable safety the candidate will enter Stage 2 where a total of approximately 126 patients will be recruited into each study arm sub-protocol. Enrollees and outcomes will not be shared across the Stages; the endpoint, analysis and sample size for Stage 2 may be adjusted based on evidence from Stage 1. Additional arms may be added as new potential candidate agents are identified via candidate agent specific sub-protocols. PARTICIPANTS: The study will include hospitalised adult patients (≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the virus that causes COVID-19, that clinically meet Grades 3 (hospitalised - mild disease, no oxygen therapy), Grades 4 (hospitalised, oxygen by mask or nasal prongs) and 5 (hospitalised, non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen) of the WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 9-point category ordinal scale. Participants will be recruited from England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Comparator is current standard of care (SoC) for the treatment of COVID-19. Current candidate experimental arms include bemcentinib, MEDI3506, acalabrutinib, zilucoplan and nebulised heparin with others to be added over time. Bemcentinib could potentially reduce viral infection and blocks SARS-CoV-2 spike protein; MEDI3506 is a clinic-ready anti-IL-33 monoclonal antibody with the potential to treat respiratory failure caused by COVID; acalabrutinib is a BTK inhibitor which is anti-viral and anti-inflammatory; zilucoplan is a complement C5 inhibitor which may block the severe inflammatory response in COVID-19 and; nebulised heparin has been shown to bind with the spike protein. ACCORD is linked with the UK national COVID therapeutics task force to help prioritise candidate agents. MAIN OUTCOMES: Time to sustained clinical improvement of at least 2 points (from randomisation) on the WHO 9-point category ordinal scale, live discharge from the hospital, or considered fit for discharge (a score of 0, 1, or 2 on the ordinal scale), whichever comes first, by Day 29 (this will also define the "responder" for the response rate analyses). RANDOMISATION: An electronic randomization will be performed by Cenduit using Interactive Response Technology (IRT). Randomisation will be stratified by baseline severity grade. Randomisation will proceed with an equal allocation to each arm and a contemporaneous SoC arm (e.g. 1:1 if control and 1 experimental arm; 1:1:1 if two experimental candidate arms etc) but will be reviewed as the trial progresses and may be changed to 2:1 in favour of the candidate agents. BLINDING (MASKING): The trial is open label and no blinding is currently planned in the study. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): This will be in the order of 60 patients per candidate agent for Stage 1, and 126 patients for Stage 2. However, sample size re-estimation may be considered after Stage 1. It is estimated that up to 1800 patients will participate in the overall study. TRIAL STATUS: Master protocol version ACCORD-2-001 - Master Protocol (Amendment 1) 22nd April 2020, the trial has full regulatory approval and recruitment is ongoing in the bemcentinib (first patient recruited 6/5/2020), MEDI3506 (first patient recruited 19/5/2020), acalabrutinib (first patient recruited 20/5/2020) and zilucoplan (first patient recruited 19/5/2020) candidates (and SoC). The recruitment dates of each arm will vary between candidate agents as they are added or dropped from the trial, but will have recruited and reported within a year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2020-001736-95 , registered 28th April 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (Master Protocol with each of the candidate sub-protocols) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Implementation of osteoporosis screening guidelines in prostate cancer patients on androgen ablation.

Androgen ablation (AA) therapy is one of the modalities used to treat prostate cancer. It is well known that AA therapy increases the risk of osteoporosis and fractures. In 2004, the British Columbia Cancer Agency published guidelines regarding bone health in these patients. A key recommendation was to arrange for bone mineral density (BMD) testing if AA was to be used for 6 mo or longer. Our objective was to evaluate how well these guidelines were implemented by reviewing the number of BMDs performed in patients who had been treated at one of the 4 cancer centers in British Columbia. We found that the overall number of BMDs documented after the implementation of the guidelines was significantly greater than the number documented before (25% vs 7.5%, p value < 0.0001). There appeared to be regional differences in implementation, with the greatest effect seen at the Vancouver center, which serves as the chief academic center for the province. The greater effect of guidelines at this center suggests a need for more effective dissemination peripherally. The care gap remaining at even the most impacted center indicates a need for greater efforts to both implement guidelines and monitor their implementation over time.

Pain response in a population-based study of radium-223 (Ra223) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials have shown that radium-223 (Ra223) can prolong survival and improve quality of life in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The objectives of this study were to evaluate pain responses with Ra223 at a population-based level and to determine if there is an association between pain response and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) response. METHODS: All patients from the Vancouver and Kelowna Cancer Centers (CC) in British Columbia who were treated with Ra223 between June 2015 and December 2016 were identified. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) just prior to each Ra223 injection. Pain response was defined as a two or more point improvement in worst pain relative to baseline, without an increase in pain medication level. ALP was determined at each visit, with a response threshold defined as a 30% decrease from baseline, consistent with the definition of response used in the ALSYMPCA trial. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients in Vancouver and Kelowna CC received Ra223 during the study period and 56 patients had at least one BPI record, of which 44 (79%) patients were assessable for change in worst pain. Of the assessable patients, 23 (52%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 38-67) had a pain response, although the use of concurrent external beam radiotherapy was a confounder in four cases. Of the 44 patients assessable for change in worst pain, 59% had ALP responses greater than 30%. An ALP response was seen in 56% of pain-responders vs. 43% of non-pain-responders. There was no association between pain response and ALP response (Phi =-0.05; p=0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Ra223 administration was associated with a meaningful pain response rate in this cohort. There was no correlation between pain response and ALP response.

ASCENDE-RT: An Analysis of Health-Related Quality of Life for a Randomized Trial Comparing Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost With Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the patient-reported health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) outcomes for a multicenter randomized trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of 2 different techniques for dose escalation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 357 men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were stratified by risk group and randomized (1:1) to either a dose-escalated external beam (DE-EBRT) boost (n=177) or a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost (n=180) as part of combined modality therapy. The HR-QoL was assessed using the SF36v2 questionnaire, with additional scales for urinary, bowel, and sexual function. Date of starting androgen deprivation therapy was considered time zero, the median follow-up of 6 years. Scales were scored from 0 to 100; a decline in a mean score ≥10 compared with baseline was considered a clinically significant decline. This was an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Mean domain scores at baseline were well balanced between the 2 treatment arms. A clinically significant decline in mean scores in both the arms compared with baseline was noted for role physical (DE-EBRT [-11.4] and LDR-PB [-15.3]) and sexual function scale (DE-EBRT [-15.1] and LDR-PB [-19.2]). There was a significantly larger drop in mean scores in the LDR-PB group compared with the DE-EBRT group for physical function (-15.3 vs -6.9; P=.03), urinary function (-3.6 vs -0.5; P=.04). CONCLUSION: At 6 years' follow up, there were no significant differences in mean scores in 9 of 11 scales compared with baseline in both arms. A clinically significant decline in mean scores was noted in both arms for role physical and sexual function scales. There was a statistically significant decline in physical function and urinary function scales in the LDR-PB arm compared with the DE-EBRT arm.

The impact of comorbidities on the benefits of prolonged androgen ablation in patients with T3-4 prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the survival benefit associated with prolonged androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (EBRT) varies with baseline estimates of overall survival in cT3-4 prostate cancer patients (PCa). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 1997, the BC Cancer Agency adopted as standard a policy of prolonged ADT (>18months) with EBRT for locally advanced PCa. Two cohorts of cT3-T4 PCa treated with EBRT were selected: 1993-1995 (early: N=725) and 1999-2001 (late: N=584). Duration of ADT and baseline prognostic factors (age, clinical stage, grade, presenting PSA, and Charlson index (CCI)) were abstracted from charts. Estimates of 10-year (E10) survival using an age-adjusted CCI were calculated and patients were grouped into low (<60%), medium (60-90%) and high (>90%) E10. In each E10 group, actual overall survivals were compared by era using log rank test. RESULTS: There were 318 low, 544 medium, and 447 high E10 patients with median follow-up of 11.1years. Gleason grade and T stage were not statistically different between E10 groups. As expected, median age and baseline CCI were higher in lower E10 groups (p<0.0001). Overall survival was higher in the late era, but varied with E10 group: low (43% vs. 49%, p=0.54), medium (55% vs. 64%, p=0.02) and high (66% vs. 77%, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: The policy of prolonged ADT with EBRT provides a survival benefit that varies with baseline risk of death from other causes. Absolute benefit from ADT is largest in those with medium or high E10.

Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): An Analysis of Survival Endpoints for a Randomized Trial Comparing a Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost to a Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the primary endpoint of biochemical progression-free survival (b-PFS) and secondary survival endpoints from ASCENDE-RT, a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ASCENDE-RT enrolled 398 men, with a median age of 68 years; 69% (n=276) had high-risk disease. After stratification by risk group, the subjects were randomized to a standard arm with 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy, pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy, followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. Of the 398 trial subjects, 200 were assigned to DE-EBRT boost and 198 to LDR-PB boost. The median follow-up was 6.5 years. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, men randomized to DE-EBRT were twice as likely to experience biochemical failure (multivariable analysis [MVA] hazard ratio [HR] 2.04; P=.004). The 5-, 7-, and 9-year Kaplan-Meier b-PFS estimates were 89%, 86%, and 83% for the LDR-PB boost versus 84%, 75%, and 62% for the DE-EBRT boost (log-rank P<.001). The LDR-PB boost benefited both intermediate- and high-risk patients. Because the b-PFS curves for the treatment arms diverge sharply after 4 years, the relative advantage of the LDR-PB should increase with longer follow-up. On MVA, the only variables correlated with reduced overall survival were age (MVA HR 1.06/y; P=.004) and biochemical failure (MVA HR 6.30; P<.001). Although biochemical failure was associated with increased mortality and randomization to DE-EBRT doubled the rate of biochemical failure, no significant overall survival difference was observed between the treatment arms (MVA HR 1.13; P=.62). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 78 Gy EBRT, men randomized to the LDR-PB boost were twice as likely to be free of biochemical failure at a median follow-up of 6.5 years.

ASCENDE-RT: An Analysis of Treatment-Related Morbidity for a Randomized Trial Comparing a Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost with a Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) morbidity and erectile dysfunction in a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ASCENDE-RT (Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy) enrolled 398 men, median age 68 years, who were then randomized to either a standard arm that included 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. At clinic visits, investigators recorded GU and GI morbidity and information on urinary continence, catheter use, and erectile function. Exclusion of 15 who received nonprotocol treatment and correction of 14 crossover events left 195 men who actually received a DE-EBRT boost and 188, an LDR-PB boost. Median follow-up was 6.5 years. RESULTS: The LDR-PB boost increased the risk of needing temporary catheterization and/or requiring incontinence pads. At 5 years the cumulative incidence of grade 3 GU events was 18.4% for LDR-PB, versus 5.2% for DE-EBRT (P<.001). Compared with the cumulative incidence, the 5-year prevalence of grade 3 GU morbidity was substantially lower for both arms (8.6% vs 2.2%, P=.058). The 5-year cumulative incidence of grade 3 GI events was 8.1% for LDR-PB, versus 3.2% for DE-EBRT (P=.124). The 5-year prevalence of grade 3 GI toxicity was lower than the cumulative incidence for both arms (1.0% vs 2.2%, respectively). Among men reporting adequate baseline erections, 45% of LDR-PB patients reported similar erectile function at 5 years, versus 37% after DE-EBRT (P=.30). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of acute and late GU morbidity was higher after LDR-PB boost, and there was a nonsignificant trend for worse GI morbidity. No differences in the frequency of erectile dysfunction were observed.

Relationship between delay in radiotherapy and biochemical control in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether a delay in radiotherapy is associated with a poorer biochemical control for prostate cancer. METHODS: The time to treatment (TTT) from diagnosis of prostate cancer to radiotherapy was analyzed with respect to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) control in 1024 hormone-naive patients. The Kaplan-Meier PSA control curves for patients with TTT less than the median were compared with those for patients with TTT greater than the median in 3 predefined risk groups. Statistical significant differences in PSA control were further analyzed using Cox multivariate analysis with pretreatment PSA, Gleason score, T stage, and radiotherapy dose as covariates. RESULTS: The median TTT and median follow-up are 3.7 months and 49 months respectively. Patients with a longer TTT have a statistically significant better PSA control than patients with a shorter TTT if they have intermediate- or high-risk disease. However in multivariate analysis TTT was not found to be significant in predicting PSA control, with pretreatment PSA and Gleason score emerging as highly significant in predicting PSA failure in both intermediate- and high-risk disease. CONCLUSION: In this study in prostate cancer patients in British Columbia, there was no evidence that a longer time interval between diagnosis and radiotherapy was associated with poorer PSA control.

Hemoglobin levels do not predict biochemical outcome for localized prostate cancer treated with neoadjuvant androgen-suppression therapy and external-beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether hemoglobin (Hb) levels affect outcome in men with localized prostate adenocarcinoma (LPA) treated with neoadjuvant androgen-suppression therapy (NAST) and external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 563 men with LPA treated with NAST (median: 5.3 months) and EBRT who had Hb levels during treatment were retrospectively reviewed. Patient, tumor, and treatment variables, including the following Hb variables, were subjected to univariate and multivariable analyses to identify factors that predict biochemical control (bNED) and overall survival (OS): pre-EBRT Hb, Hb nadir during EBRT, and change in Hb from pre-EBRT to nadir during EBRT. RESULTS: Median PSA follow-up was 4.25 years. Forty-nine percent of men were anemic during EBRT, with a median Hb of 13.4 g/dL, and 68% experienced a decline in Hb from pre-EBRT to during EBRT of median 0.6 g/dL. Five-year Nadir+2 bNED and OS rates were similar for anemic and nonanemic patients during EBRT. High percent-positive biopsies, PSA and Gleason score, and use of AA monotherapy predicted worse bNED. High stage and age predicted worse OS. Hb variables were not predictive of bNED or OS. CONCLUSIONS: Anemia is a common side effect of NAST and is usually mild. Hb levels, however, do not predict biochemical control or survival.

GU radiation oncologists consensus on bone loss from androgen deprivation.

The majority of GU radiation oncologists in Canada attended a consensus meeting in November 2004. The topic of osteoporosis in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer was identified as a key theme. A chaired session with keynote speakers and review of the evidence took place followed by open debate. Participants were provided with background information. Osteoporosis was defined as a T-score < or = -2.5, but the importance of risk factors and clinical findings is noted. Dual DEXA is the current standard for assessment of bone density and relates well to fracture risk. The lifetime risk of fracture is 13% for men over the age of 50 years even without the influence of ADT. Lifestyle, dietary and supplementation advice are provided both to prevent and to manage osteoporosis. The role for prophylactic bisphosphonate therapy in men on ADT without osteoporosis has not been established. Follow-up DEXA scans are required to monitor density, risk and response to interventions. Fracture incidence and BMD should be considered in the trial design of studies involving prolonged ADT. Osteoporosis is a treatable condition and the oncologist should employ ADT with this knowledge. A follow-up e-mail survey was carried out regarding the consensus statement. Responses were received from 49 of the 69 attendees (71%), and overall there was an 89% agreement with the consensus statement. This is now adopted as national practice guidelines for radiation oncologists employed prolonged ADT in prostate cancer patients.

Predictive factors for erectile dysfunction in men with prostate cancer after brachytherapy: is dose to the penile bulb important?

PURPOSE: To determine predictive factors for postimplant erectile dysfunction (ED) in a cohort of patients, according to prospectively collected data; specifically, to assess the impact of penile bulb volume and D50 and D95 (dose covering 50% and 95% of the penile bulb volume, respectively) on ED. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three hundred forty-two patients were identified who were potent before implant and who had at least 2 years' follow-up. Patient, tumor, treatment, and dosimetric data were collected on all patients. Postimplant ED was defined according to both physician-documented and patient-documented outcome data. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to create multivariable models of predictors for ED at 1, 2, and 3 years after implant. RESULTS: Physician-documented rates of ED were 57%, 48%, and 38% at 1, 2, and 3 years after implant, respectively. Patient-documented rates of ED were 70% and 66% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed age and degree of pre-implant erectile function to be consistently significant predictors of ED. Use of hormones was significant at the 1-year physician-documented ED endpoint but not thereafter, in keeping with the time course of testosterone recovery. Penile bulb volume, D50, and D95 were not found to be predictive for ED at any time point, in contrast to previous studies. In addition, planning ultrasound target volume, number of needles, and institutional case sequence number were significant predictors of ED at various time points, consistent with a traumatic etiology of ED. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support penile bulb dosimetry as an independent predictive factor for ED after implant, using physician-documented or patient-documented outcomes.

PSA failure and the risk of death in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To determine the relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure and cause-specific and overall survival in prostate cancer patients treated with radical radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with and without PSA failure were compared with respect to overall survival and cause-specific survival in a cohort of 1786 patients. The relationship between PSA failure and survival was further investigated among six subgroups defined by three tumor risk groups (high, intermediate, and low risk based on T stage, Gleason score, and presenting PSA) and two age groups (<75 years and >/=75 years). RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival among patients who had PSA failure was 79.5% vs. 87.5% among patients who had not failed (p = 0.0003). The corresponding 5-year cause-specific survival was 84.4% vs. 99.0% (p <0.0001). When the six subgroups are considered separately, PSA failure was associated with a worse cause-specific survival in the groups with intermediate- and high-risk disease. PSA failure was only associated with a worse overall survival in one subgroup: patients younger than 75 with high-risk disease. Deaths from nonprostate causes made the survival curves of patients with and without PSA failure in the other subgroups almost identical. CONCLUSION: PSA failure in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy was associated with a poorer overall survival, which is seen mainly in younger patients with high-risk disease.

Impact of neoadjuvant androgen ablation and other factors on late toxicity after external beam prostate radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the late toxicity profile of prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy, to investigate the possible risk factors for late toxicity, and to determine whether neoadjuvant androgen ablation (NAA) is a factor. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 1192 patients with > or =24 months' follow-up. Late GI and GU toxicities were scored with a modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/Subjective, Objective, Management, and Analytic scale. All patients were treated with external beam radiotherapy (52.5 Gy in 20 fractions to 72 Gy in 36 fractions), using either conventional or three-dimensional conformal techniques. Of the 1192 patients, 40% received NAA (median 5 months). Risk factors investigated on multivariate analysis were age, past medical history, use of pelvic fields, dose, fractionation, use and duration of neo- and adjuvant androgen ablation, and acute toxicity (Grade 2 or greater). RESULTS: The median follow-up for the group was 49 months (range 24-105). The incidence of late Grade 2-3 GI or GU toxicity was 30% at 5 years (GI 12% and GU 20%). The incidence of late Grade 3 GI or GU toxicity was 8% at 5 years (GI 2.7% and GU 5.5%). No Grade 4 toxicity occurred. The risk factors of significance in relation to the development of late Grade 3 GU toxicity were coexisting GU disease (p = 0.02), prior transurethral resection of the prostate or transurethral resection of bladder tumor (p <0.0001), and presence of acute GU toxicity (p = 0.012). For late Grade 3 GI toxicity, short-term (< or =2 months) NAA (p = 0.0002) and coexisting GI disease (p = 0.017) were risk factors. CONCLUSION: Short-term (< or =2 months) NAA, but not longer durations of NAA, increases the risk of developing Grade 3 GI late toxicity. The possible mechanism of this phenomenon is unclear.

Spiritual care in a multicultural oncology environment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Increasingly, oncology is practiced within multicultural environments. All aspects of care, including spiritual care should be delivered to patients with cancer in a culturally sensitive manner. In this article, we discuss the influence of culture on patients with cancer throughout the disease process by highlighting relevant reports in the literature. RECENT FINDINGS: Most articles focussing on culture and oncology are single-author or single-institution narrative reports pertaining to experiences with an individual racial, ethnic, religious or minority patient group. The majority of articles are found within the palliative care and nursing literature. SUMMARY: Health-related values vary widely across cultures, and the experience of spiritual care in oncology differs greatly across cultural groups. Although culture is generally recognized as an important health determinant that impacts the experience of care, the extent of different cultural influences is not well understood due to a paucity of relevant data, and reports on resources and educational strategies to optimize culturally competent spiritual care are similarly lacking.

Radiation oncology in undergraduate medical education: a literature review.

PURPOSE: To review the published literature pertaining to radiation oncology in undergraduate medical education. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE Daily Update and EMBASE databases were searched for the 11-year period of January 1, 1998, through the last week of March 2009. A medical librarian used an extensive list of indexed subject headings and text words. RESULTS: The search returned 640 article references, but only seven contained significant information pertaining to teaching radiation oncology to medical undergraduates. One article described a comprehensive oncology curriculum including recommended radiation oncology teaching objectives and sample student evaluations, two described integrating radiation oncology teaching into a radiology rotation, two described multidisciplinary anatomy-based courses intended to reinforce principles of tumor biology and radiotherapy planning, one described an exercise designed to test clinical reasoning skills within radiation oncology cases, and one described a Web-based curriculum involving oncologic physics. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first review of the literature pertaining to teaching radiation oncology to medical undergraduates, and it demonstrates the paucity of published work in this area of medical education. Teaching radiation oncology should begin early in the undergraduate process, should be mandatory for all students, and should impart knowledge relevant to future general practitioners rather than detailed information relevant only to oncologists. Educators should make use of available model curricula and should integrate radiation oncology teaching into existing curricula or construct stand-alone oncology rotations where the principles of radiation oncology can be conveyed. Assessments of student knowledge and curriculum effectiveness are critical.