A pooled patient-reported outcomes analysis of moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy and photon-based intensity modulated radiation therapy for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize and compare late patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This multi-institutional analysis included low- or intermediate-risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient-reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction. RESULTS: 287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional analysis of low- or intermediate-risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.

Preference Elicitation and Treatment Decision-Making Among Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial Results of Healium.

BACKGROUND: Elicitation of patients' preferences is an integral part of shared decision-making, the recommended approach for prostate cancer decision-making. Existing decision aids for this population often do not specifically focus on patients' preferences. Healium is a brief interactive web-based decision aid that aims to elicit patients' treatment preferences and is designed for a low health literate population. OBJECTIVE: This study used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether Healium, designed to target preference elicitation, is as efficacious as Healing Choices, a comprehensive education and decision tool, in improving outcomes for decision-making and emotional quality of life. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had not yet made a treatment decision were randomly assigned to the brief Healium intervention or Healing Choices, a decision aid previously developed by our group that serves as a virtual information center on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Assessments were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post baseline, and included decisional outcomes (decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, and preparation for decision-making), and emotional quality of life (anxiety/tension and depression), along with demographics, comorbidities, and health literacy. RESULTS: A total of 327 individuals consented to participate in the study (171 were randomized to the Healium intervention arm and 156 were randomized to Healing Choices). The majority of the sample was non-Hispanic (272/282, 96%), White (239/314, 76%), married (251/320, 78.4%), and was on average 62.4 (SD 6.9) years old. Within both arms, there was a significant decrease in decisional conflict from baseline to 6 weeks postbaseline (Healium, P≤.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001), and a significant increase in satisfaction with one's decision from 6 weeks to 3 months (Healium, P=.04; Healing Choices, P=.01). Within both arms, anxiety/tension (Healium, P=.23; Healing Choices, P=.27) and depression (Healium, P=.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001) decreased from baseline to 6 weeks, but only in the case of depression was the decrease statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Healium, our brief decision aid focusing on treatment preference elicitation, is as successful in reducing decisional conflict as our previously tested comprehensive decision aid, Healing Choices, and has the added benefit of brevity, making it the ideal tool for integration into the physician consultation and electronic medical record. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05800483; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05800483.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. Part III: Principles of Radiation and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part III of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of radiation and offering several future directions of further relevant study in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts I and II for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of active surveillance and surgery and follow-up (Part II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding management of patients using radiation therapy as well as important future directions of research are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of active surveillance and surgery as well as follow-up for patients after primary treatment. Please refer to Parts I and III for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding active surveillance, surgical management, and patient follow-up are detailed. CONCLUSION: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Adverse Events Reported by Patients With Cancer After Administration of a 2-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel's discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

A personalized decision aid for prostate cancer shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: A shared decision-making model is preferred for engaging prostate cancer patients in treatment decisions. However, the process of assessing an individual's preferences and values is challenging and not formalized. The purpose of this study is to develop an automated decision aid for patient-centric treatment decision-making using decision analysis, preference thresholds and value elicitations to maximize the compatibility between a patient's treatment expectations and outcome. METHODS: A template for patient-centric medical decision-making was constructed. The inputs included prostate cancer risk group, pre-treatment health state, treatment alternatives (primarily focused on radiation in this model), side effects (erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, nocturia and bowel incontinence), and treatment success (5-year freedom from biochemical failure). A linear additive value function was used to combine the values for each attribute (side effects, success and the alternatives) into a value for all prospects. The patient-reported toxicity probabilities were derived from phase II and III trials. The probabilities are conditioned on the starting state for each of the side effects. Toxicity matrices for erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, nocturia and bowel incontinence were created for the treatment alternatives. Toxicity probability thresholds were obtained by identifying the patient's maximum acceptable threshold for each of the side effects. Results are represented as a visual. R and Rstudio were used to perform analyses, and R Shiny for application creation. RESULTS: We developed a web-based decision aid. Based on preliminary use of the application, every treatment alternative could be the best choice for a decision maker with a particular set of preferences. This result implies that no treatment has determinist dominance over the remaining treatments and that a preference-based approach can help patients through their decision-making process, potentially affecting compliance with treatment, tolerance of side effects and satisfaction with the decision. CONCLUSIONS: We present a unique patient-centric prostate cancer treatment decision aid that systematically assesses and incorporates a patient's preferences and values to rank treatment options by likelihood of achieving the preferred outcome. This application enables the practice and study of personalized medicine. This model can be expanded to include additional inputs, such as genomics, as well as competing, concurrent or sequential therapies.

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment. METHODS: The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07-13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18-17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3-33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7-28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9-24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0-35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. INTERPRETATION: In this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, or External Beam Radiotherapy With Brachytherapy Boost and Disease Progression and Mortality in Patients With Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer.

Importance: The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes. Results: Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.68] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.71]). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 [95% CI, 0.17-0.43] for RP and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19-0.47] for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96] for RP and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84] for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67-1.26], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.80-1.44], and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.85-2.11]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.

Contemporary use trends and survival outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy or bladder-preservation therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: The current study was performed to examine temporal trends and compare overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) or bladder-preservation therapy (BPT) for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. METHODS: The authors reviewed the National Cancer Data Base to identify patients with AJCC stage II to III urothelial carcinoma of the bladder from 2004 through 2013. Patients receiving BPT were stratified as having received any external-beam radiotherapy (any XRT), definitive XRT (50-80 grays), and definitive XRT with chemotherapy (CRT). Treatment trends and OS outcomes for the BPT and RC cohorts were evaluated using Cochran-Armitage tests, unadjusted Kaplan-Meier curves, adjusted Cox multivariate regression, and propensity score matching, using increasingly stringent selection criteria. RESULTS: A total of 32,300 patients met the inclusion criteria and were treated with RC (22,680 patients) or BPT (9620 patients). Of the patients treated with BPT, 26.4% (2540 patients) and 15.5% (1489 patients), respectively, were treated with definitive XRT and CRT. Improved OS was observed for RC in all groups. After adjustments with more rigorous statistical models controlling for confounders and with more restrictive BPT cohorts, the magnitude of the OS benefit became attenuated on multivariate (any XRT: hazard ratio [HR], 2.115 [95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.045-2.188]; definitive XRT: HR, 1.870 [95% CI, 1.773-1.972]; and CRT: HR, 1.578 [95% CI, 1.474-1.691]) and propensity score (any XRT: HR, 2.008 [95% CI, 1.871-2.154]; definitive XRT: HR, 1.606 [95% CI, 1.453-1.776]; and CRT: HR, 1.406 [95% CI, 1.235-1.601]) analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In the National Cancer Data Base, receipt of BPT was associated with decreased OS compared with RC in patients with stage II to III urothelial carcinoma. Increasingly stringent definitions of BPT and more rigorous statistical methods adjusting for selection biases attenuated observed survival differences. Cancer 2017;123:4337-45. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Adjuvant radiation therapy, androgen deprivation, and docetaxel for high-risk prostate cancer postprostatectomy: Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG study 0621.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 trials have demonstrated a benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) for men who have adverse factors at radical prostatectomy (RP). However, some patients have a high risk of progression despite ART. The role of systemic therapy with ART in this high-risk group remains to be defined. METHODS: Patients who had either a post-RP prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir > 0.2 ng/mL and a Gleason score ≥7 or a PSA nadir ≤0.2 ng/mL, a Gleason score ≥8, and a pathologic tumor (pT) classification ≥ pT3 received 6 months of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) plus radiotherapy and 6 cycles of docetaxel. The primary objective was to assess whether the addition of ADT and docetaxel to ART resulted in a freedom from progression (FFP) rate ≥ 70% compared with an expected rate of 50%. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to model associations between factors and outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 74 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The pathologic tumor classification was pT2 in 4% of patients, pT3 in 95%, and pT4 in 1%. The Gleason score was 7 in 18% of patients and ≥8 in 82%. Post-RP PSA levels were ≤0.2 ng/mL in 53% of patients and >0.2 ng/mL in 47%. The 3-year FFP rate was 73% (95% confidence interval, 61%-83%), and the 3-year cumulative incidence of biochemical, distant, and local failure was 26%, 7%, and 0%, respectively. In multivariate models, postprostatectomy PSA nadir was associated with 3-year FFP, Gleason score, and PSA with biochemical failure. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was common; however, only 3 episodes of febrile neutropenia occurred. Late toxicities were not impacted by the addition of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Combined ADT, docetaxel, and ART for men with high-risk prostate cancer after prostatectomy exceeded the prespecified study endpoint of 70% 3-year FFP. Phase 3 trials assessing combined local and systemic therapies for these high-risk patients are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2489-96. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The need for androgen deprivation therapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate if androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes for patients with localized, intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in the dose-escalated era. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study using a single institutional database. We included patients with localized, intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) with 3D conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (74-80 Gy in daily fraction of 1.8 Gy-2.0 Gy, or 70.2 Gy in daily fraction of 2.7 Gy) from 1992 to 2013. To further risk stratify the patients, PSA 10 ng/mL-20 ng/mL, Gleason 3+4, and T2b-T2c were assigned risk score (RS) of 1, while Gleason 4+3 was assigned RS of 2. Patients with prior treatment for prostate cancer, those on long term ADT (>= 23 months), or those with follow up < 1 year were excluded. We defined initial ADT as initiation within 9 months prior to the start of RT, during RT, or within 2 months after the completion of RT. Outcomes for patients who received initial ADT were compared to men treated with RT alone. Covariates included number of intermediate risk factors, age, and baseline comorbidities. Kaplan Meier estimates were compared using log rank tests. Competing risk regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate hazard ratios adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Of 1,134 patients included in this study, 155 received initial ADT with median duration of 4.0 months (m) (range 0.5 m-22.0 m). The median follow up was 56.4 m (range 12.3 m-200.7 m). Patients on ADT had higher RS compared to those with radiation alone (RS 1: 48% versus 58%; RS 2: 35% versus 32%; RS 3: 14% versus 9%; RS 4: 3% versus 1%; p=0.01). When patients with ADT were compared to those treated with radiation alone, there were no significant differences in freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) (84.0% versus 87.3%, p = 0.83), freedom from distant metastasis (FFDM) (94.4% versus 96.9%, p = 0.41), or overall survival (OS) (92.3% versus 90.7%, (p = 0.48) at 5 years. Among patients with RS >= 2, there were still no significant differences in FFBF, FFDM, or OS when patients treated with ADT were compared to those treated with radiation alone. In multivariable analyses adjusting for RS and age, the adjusted hazard ratio for ADT use was sHR = 0.89 (95% CI = 0.64-1.66, p = 0.64) for BCF; sHR = 1.13 (95% CI = 0.48-2.65, p = 0.77) for DM. For overall mortality, adjusted HR = 1.23 (95% CI = 0.76-2.01, p = 0.40) where comorbidities (including diabetes, cardiac disease, and hypertension) were also included as covariates. CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer with definitive dose-escalated EBRT alone resulted in acceptable outcomes, and it failed to show improved outcomes in patients who received short term ADT.

Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2016.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after an initial diagnosis of prostate cancer and management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring, treatment of recurrent disease, and systemic therapy for metastatic castration-recurrent prostate cancer also are included. This article summarizes the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel's most significant discussions for the 2016 update of the guidelines, which include refinement of risk stratification methods and new options for the treatment of men with high-risk and very-high-risk disease and progressive castration-naïve disease.

Fox Chase Cancer Center's Genitourinary Division: a national resource for research, innovation and patient care.

Founded in 1904, Fox Chase Cancer Center remains committed to its mission. It is one of 41 centers in the country designated as a Comprehensive Cancer Center by the National Cancer Institute, is a founding member of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, holds the magnet designation for nursing excellence, is one of the first to establish a family cancer risk assessment program, and has achieved national distinction because of the scientific discoveries made there that have advanced clinical care. Two of its researchers have won Nobel prizes. The Genitourinary Division is nationally recognized and viewed as one of the top driving forces behind the growth of Fox Chase due to its commitment to initiating and participating in clinical trials, its prolific contributions to peer-reviewed publications and presentations at scientific meetings, its innovations in therapies and treatment strategies, and its commitment to bringing cutting-edge therapies to patients.

ASTRO APEx® and RO-ILS™ are applicable to medical malpractice in radiation oncology.

AIM: To analyze malpractice trials in radiation oncology and assess how ASTRO APEx® and RO-ILS™ apply to such cases. METHODS: The Westlaw database was reviewed using PICOS/PRISMA methods. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to find factors associated with outcomes. RESULTS: Of 34 cases identified, external beam was used in 26 (77%). The most common factors behind malpractice were excessive toxicity (80%) and lack of informed consent (66%). ASTRO APEx pillars and ROI-LS had applicability to all but one case. Factors favoring the defendant included statute of limitations (odds ratio: 8.1; 95% CI: 1.3-50); those favoring the plaintiff included patient death (odds ratio: 0.7; 95% CI: 0.54-0.94). CONCLUSION: APEx and RO-ILS are applicable to malpractice trials in radiation oncology.

Patient reported outcomes among treatment modalities for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: To characterize patient reported outcomes for urinary and sexual function using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) comparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR), post-prostatectomy IMRT (PPRT), and radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated for prostate cancer from 2001-2012 completed self-reported SHIM and IPSS surveys. Subgroups were created by baseline score. Mean change from baseline was determined at each time point for the cohort and subgroups. Statistical analysis was performed with generalized estimating equation method. Incontinence was not captured in the questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 14,523 IPSS surveys from 3,515 men were evaluated. Patients treated with IMRT experienced a minimal decrease in IPSS score from baseline. PPRT scores did not differ from IMRT at any time point (range: +/- 3 points from baseline in IPSS score over 50 months). LDR had an initial IPSS rise (between 5-10 points on the IPSS over 1-9 months) versus IMRT but returned to comparable levels at 34 months. RP was associated with a lower IPSS versus IMRT. LDR had the largest rise from baseline, with return toward baseline. A total of 2,624 SHIM surveys from 857 men were evaluated. LDR and PPRT did not differ from IMRT at any time point (range: +/- 5 points from baseline in SHIM score for 36 months). RP experienced the largest decline from baseline (up to -7 points on SHIM score), at 3 to 7 months; RP had a larger early decrease in SHIM score versus IMRT between 3 and 22 months, after which there was no difference. CONCLUSIONS: IPSS and SHIM score patterns differed among treatment modalities. These data can be used to predict changes in urinary and sexual function over time based on modality and baseline score.

Impact of obesity on outcomes after definitive dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous publications have demonstrated conflicting results regarding body mass index (BMI) and prostate cancer (CaP) outcomes after definitive radiotherapy (RT) before the dose escalation era. The goal of the current study was to determine whether increasing BMI was associated with outcomes in men with localized CaP who were treated with dose-escalated RT. METHODS: The authors identified patients with localized (T1b-T4N0M0) CaP who were treated with definitive intensity-modulated RT and image-guided RT from 2001 through 2010. BMI was analyzed as a continuous variable. Adjusting for confounders, multivariable competing risk and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association between BMI and the risk of biochemical failure (BF), distant metastases (DM), cause-specific mortality (CSM), and overall mortality. RESULTS: Of the 1442 patients identified, approximately 20% had a BMI <25 kg/m(2) , 48% had a BMI of 25 to 29.9 kg/m(2) , 23% had a BMI of 30 to 34.9 kg/m(2) , 6% had a BMI of 35 to 39.9 kg/m(2) , and 4% had a BMI of ≥40 kg/m(2) . The median follow-up was 47.6 months (range, 1-145 months), with a median age of 68 years (range, 36-89 years). The median dose was 78 grays (range, 76-80 grays) and 30% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy. Increasing BMI was found to be inversely associated with age (P<.001) and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level (P = .018). On multivariable analysis, increasing BMI was associated with an increased risk of BF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.00-1.07 [P = .042]), DM (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11 [P = .004]), CSM (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.07-1.23 [P<.001]), and overall mortality (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08 [P = .004]). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with CaP receiving dose-escalated intensity-modulated RT with daily image-guidance, increasing BMI appears to be associated with an increased risk of BF, DM, CSM, and overall mortality.