Increased tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy among rectal cancer patients taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly used antihypertensive medications that have been reported to affect aberrant angiogenesis and the dysregulated inflammatory response. Because of such mechanisms, it was hypothesized that these medications might affect the tumor response to neoadjuvant radiation in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: One hundred fifteen patients who were treated with neoadjuvant radiation at the University of Wisconsin (UW) between 1999 and 2012 were identified. Univariate analyses were performed with anonymized patient data. In a second independent data set, 186 patients with rectal cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant radiation at the Queen's Medical Center of the University of Hawaii (UH) between 1995 and 2010 were identified. These data were independently analyzed as before. Multivariate analyses were performed with aggregate data. RESULTS: Among patients taking ACEIs/ARBs in the UW data set, a significant 3-fold increase in the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy (52% vs 17%, P = .001) was observed. This finding was confirmed in the UH data set, in which a significant 2-fold-increased pCR rate (24% vs 12%, P = .03) was observed. Identified patient and treatment characteristics were otherwise balanced between patients taking and not taking ACEIs/ARBs. No significant effect was observed on pCR rates with other medications, including statins, metformin, and aspirin. Multivariate analyses of aggregate data identified ACEI/ARB use as a strong predictor of pCR (odds ratio, 4.02; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-7.82; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidental use of ACEIs/ARBs among patients with rectal cancer is associated with a significantly increased rate of pCR after neoadjuvant treatment. Cancer 2016;122:2487-95. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Analysis of urological procedures in men who died from prostate cancer using a population-based approach.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Very few studies have examined end-of-life urological studies in men with prostate cancer. These studies reported fewer procedures in men who received primary therapy for prostate cancer. However, these studies were typically single institution or had a short follow-up period. The present study is the first population-based study examining end-of-life urological procedures and uses a geographic region encompassing 385 000 patients. Furthermore, this study incorporates both hospital- and office-based procedures. This approach has not been previously undertaken. OBJECTIVE: To determine using a population-based approach whether men with end-stage prostate cancer who had definitive primary therapy might require fewer urological interventions. Repeated urological procedures can impact health-related quality of life in patients dying from prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Marshfield Epidemiological Study Area (MESA) database and tumour registry, we compared end-of-life interventions in men who died from prostate cancer between 1991 and 2009. Patient charts were queried for urological procedures using International Classification of Disease Modification, 9th edition (ICD9) codes for 3 years before death. Clinicopathological information was examined including whether the patient had a history of primary therapy (radiation or radical prostatectomy). RESULTS: Among 280 patients dying from prostate cancer, 52 (19%) required 153 urological procedures during the last 3 years of life. The frequency of procedures increased closer to death. The most common procedures involved nephrostomy tube (56%), Foley catheter (24%) and transurethral resection of the prostate (10%). Clinicopathological features did not predict the need for an end-of-life urological procedure. There was no difference in the frequency of upper or lower tract procedures in surgery or radiation patients compared with patients without primary therapy (P = 0.556 and P = 0.508). Using a Kaplan-Meier analysis, there were no differences between groups in the proportion of patients not requiring a procedure (n = 280; P = 0.179). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first population-based study to examine the frequency of urological procedures in patients with end-stage prostate cancer. A minority of patients (19%) required urological procedures during the final 3 years of life. A history of surgery or radiation did not influence the overall risk for urological intervention.

Toxicity and Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life Outcomes After Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Focal Boost to Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Identified Prostate Cancer Lesions: Results of a Phase 2 Trial.

PURPOSE: In this prospective phase 2 trial, we investigated the toxicity and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to the prostate gland and a simultaneous focal boost to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-identified intraprostatic lesions while also de-escalating dose to the adjacent organs at risk. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients included low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤7, prostate specific antigen ≤20, T stage ≤2b). SBRT was prescribed to 40 Gy in 5 fractions delivered every other day to the prostate, with any areas of high disease burden (MRI-identified prostate imaging reporting and data system 4 or 5 lesions) simultaneously escalated to 42.5 to 45 Gy and areas overlapping organs at risk (within 2 mm of urethra, rectum, and bladder) constrained to 36.25 Gy (n = 100). Patients without a pretreatment MRI or without MRI-identified lesions were treated to dose of 37.5 Gy with no focal boost (n = 14). RESULTS: From 2015 to 2022, a total of 114 patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 42 months. No acute or late grade 3+ gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed. One patient developed late grade 3 genitourinary (GU) toxicity at 16 months. In patients treated with focal boost (n = 100), acute grade 2 GU and GI toxicity was seen in 38% and 4% of patients, respectively. Cumulative late grade 2+ GU and GI toxicities at 24 months were 13% and 5% respectively. Patient-reported outcomes showed no significant long-term change from baseline in urinary, bowel, hormonal, or sexual quality-of-life scores after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT to a dose of 40 Gy to the prostate gland with a simultaneous focal boost up to 45 Gy is well tolerated with similar rates of acute and late grade 2+ GI and GU toxicity as seen in other SBRT regimens without intraprostatic boost. Moreover, no significant long-term changes were seen in patient-reported urinary, bowel, or sexual outcomes from pretreatment baseline.

Early hypofractionated salvage radiotherapy for postprostatectomy biochemical recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Postprostatectomy adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy, when using standard fractionation, requires 6.5 to 8 weeks of treatment. The authors report on the safety and efficacy of an expedited radiotherapy course for salvage prostate radiotherapy. METHODS: A total of 108 consecutive patients were treated with salvage radiation therapy to 65 grays (Gy) in 26 fractions of 2.5 Gy. Median follow-up was 32.4 months. Median presalvage prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 0.44 (range, 0.05-9.50). Eighteen (17%) patients received androgen deprivation after surgery or concurrently with radiation. RESULTS: The actuarial freedom from biochemical failure for the entire group at 4 years was 67% ± 5.3%. An identical 67% control rate was seen at 5 years for the first 50 enrolled patients, whose median follow-up was longer at 43 months. One acute grade 3 genitourinary toxicity occurred, with no acute grade 3 gastrointestinal and no late grade 3 toxicities observed. On univariate analysis, higher Gleason score (P = .006), PSA doubling time ≤12 months (P = .03), perineural invasion (P = .06), and negative margins (P = .06) showed association with unsuccessful salvage. On multivariate analysis, higher Gleason score (P = .057) and negative margins (P = .088) retained an association with biochemical failure. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated radiotherapy (65 Gy in 2.5 Gy fractions in about 5 weeks) reduces the length of treatment by from 1-½ to 3 weeks relative to other treatment schedules commonly used, produces low rates of toxicity, and demonstrates encouraging efficacy at 4 to 5 years. Hypofractionation may provide a convenient, resource-efficient, and well-tolerated salvage approach for the estimated 20,000 to 35,000 US men per year experiencing biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy.

A Phase 1 Dose Escalation Study of Neoadjuvant SBRT Plus Elective Nodal Radiation with Concurrent Capecitabine for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: The role of neoadjuvant radiation for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma is controversial. We performed a prospective dose-escalation study of neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with concurrent capecitabine and elective nodal irradiation (ENI) followed by surgical resection to explore the toxicity and feasibility of this approach. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with biopsy proven, resectable cancers of the pancreatic head were enrolled. A 4 + 4 dose-escalation design was employed delivering 5 fractions of 5 to 7 Gy to primary tumor with concurrent capecitabine. The maximum tolerated dose level was expanded for an additional 4 patients. Patients at all dose levels were treated with ENI delivering 25 Gy in 5 fractions. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined as any grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicity (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0) attributable to chemoradiation occurring within 90 days of SBRT. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients were enrolled with 16 patients evaluable and 13 patients ultimately proceeding to surgery. The most common toxicity was nausea (56%). There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and SBRT was maximally dose escalated to 35 Gy in 5 fractions for 8 patients. All patients completing surgery had R0 resections. Seven patients (54%) had moderate treatment effect identified in pathologic specimens. Three patients (23%) developed locoregional recurrences, with 2 (15%) partially included within the treated volume. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT was safely dose escalated to 35 Gy in 5 fractions along with concurrent capecitabine and ENI. This regimen will be used in a future expansion cohort.

A Prospective Multi-Institutional Phase I/II Trial of Step-Wise Dose-per-Fraction Escalation in Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase I/II, multi-institutional trial explored the tolerance and efficacy of stepwise increasing hypofractionation (HPFX) radiation therapy regimens for fraction sizes up to 4.3 Gy in localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three escalating dose-per-fraction schedules were designed to yield similar predicted tumor control while maintaining equivalent predicted late toxicity. HPFX levels I, II, and III were carried out sequentially and delivered schedules of 64.7 Gy/22 fx/2.94 Gy, 58.08 Gy/16 fx/3.63 Gy, and 51.6 Gy/12 fx/4.3 Gy, respectively with next level escalations contingent upon acceptable gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. The primary endpoints were biochemical control and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 347 patients were recruited by 5 institutions with 101, 111, and 135 patients treated on HPFX levels I, II, and III with median follow-ups of 100, 85.5, and 61.7 months, respectively (83.2 months combined). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network low- or intermediate-risk group distribution was 46% and 54%, respectively. Sixteen percent of patients, primarily intermediate risk, received 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. The 8-year nadir + 2 actuarial biochemical control rates for HPFX levels I, II, and III were 91.1% ± 3.0%, 92.7% ± 2.7%, and 88.5% ± 4.6%, respectively (Kaplan-Meier log rank, 0.903). Among clinical covariates, only Gleason score reached near significance in multivariate analysis (P = .054). Twenty-six patients failed biochemically (crude incidence of 7.5%), and there were 5 cause-specific deaths. GI and genitourinary toxicities were acceptable and similar across the 3 HPFX levels. The combined actuarial cumulative incidence of grade 2+ GI and genitourinary toxicities at 7 years were 16.3% ± 2.1% and 22.1% ± 2.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HPFX employing fraction sizes extending into the 3.6 to 4.3 Gy/fraction range can be delivered with excellent oncologic outcomes. Such schedules, positioned between moderate and ultra-HPFX, may provide additional options for patients wishing to avoid prolonged treatment schedules associated with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Cardiac Toxicity in Operable Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated With or Without Chemoradiation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate predictors of cardiac events in esophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NA CRT) followed by surgery compared with surgery alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients treated for esophageal cancer between 2006 and 2016. A total of 123 patients were identified; 70 were treated with surgery alone, and 53 were treated with NA CRT. Cardiac events were scored based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03), and dosimetric data was compiled for all patients who received radiation. Univariate analysis and multivariable analysis (MVA) were performed to identify predictors of cardiac events. Competing risk of death regression was performed to a model the cumulative incidence of cardiac events. RESULTS: The overall rates of grade ≥3 cardiac events were 24.5% in the NA CRT group versus 10% in the surgery group (P=0.04). On MVA, use of NA CRT (P<0.01, hazard ratio [HR]: 3.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35-9.09) predicted for grade ≥3 cardiac events, though no dosimetric variable predicted for grade ≥3 cardiac events or overall survival. On MVA, NA CRT predicted for pericardial effusions of any grade (P<0.01, HR: 3.70, 95% CI: 1.67-8.33). The V45 Gy was the most significant predictor of pericardial effusions (P=0.012, HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.06) CONCLUSIONS:: NA CRT significantly increased the rate of grade ≥3 cardiac events compared with patients treated with surgery alone. Although no dosimetric parameter predicted for grade ≥3 cardiac events or survival, the V45 Gy predicted for pericardial effusions.

Salvage hypofractionated radiotherapy for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether hypofractionation is well tolerated and to preliminarily assess biochemical control of this regimen in a postprostatectomy, salvage setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective analysis was performed in 50 patients treated between May 2003 and December 2005 with hypofractionated radiotherapy for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Radiotherapy was prescribed to the prostatic fossa to 65-70 Gy in 26-28 fractions of 2.5 Gy each, using intensity-modulated radiotherapy with daily image localization. Toxicities were scored using a modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale and the Fox Chase modification of Late Effects Normal Tissue scale. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range, 5.3-35.9). RESULTS: No Grade 3 or greater acute or late toxicities were observed. Grade 2 toxicities included four acute genitourinary, one acute gastrointestinal, two late genitourinary, and two late gastrointestinal toxicities. Of the 50 patients, 39 demonstrated a continuous biochemical response after salvage therapy, 3 had an initial response before prostate-specific antigen failure, and 7 had prostate-specific antigen progression, 1 of whom died of progressive metastatic disease. Finally, 1 patient discontinued therapy because of the diagnosis of a metachronous pancreatic cancer and died without additional prostate cancer follow-up. All remaining patients were alive at the last follow-up visit. A lower presalvage prostate-specific antigen level was the only significant prognostic factor for improved biochemical control. The estimated actuarial biochemical control rate at 2 years was 72.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The toxicity and early biochemical response rates were consistent with expectations from conventional fractionation. Additional follow-up is required to better document the biochemical control, but these results suggest that hypofractionation is a well-tolerated approach for salvage radiotherapy.

Bcl-2 and Bax expression predict prostate cancer outcome in men treated with androgen deprivation and radiotherapy on radiation therapy oncology group protocol 92-02.

PURPOSE: Bcl-2 is antiapoptotic, and its overexpression has been associated with resistance to androgen deprivation and poor outcome in some patients treated with radiotherapy. Bax is proapoptotic, regulating Bcl-2 through heterodimer formation. In a prior study, Bcl-2 and Bax were not related to outcome in locally advanced patients treated with radiotherapy or short-term androgen deprivation + radiotherapy (STAD+RT) on another Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial (86-10). A follow-up investigation was carried out here in more contemporary high-risk men treated on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 92-02 with STAD+RT or long-term AD+RT (LTAD+RT). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Adequate tissue was available to be analyzed immunohistochemically in 502 patients for Bcl-2 and 343 patients for Bax. Univariate and multivariate analyses by Cox proportional hazards models were applied to end points of failure. RESULTS: Bcl-2 was positive in 45.6% cases, and Bax expression altered in 53.9% cases. Abnormal Bcl-2 was not related to any of the failure end points tested. Altered Bax expression was significantly associated with any failure (P = 0.023) and marginally with biochemical failure (P = 0.085). The combination of negative Bcl-2/normal Bax expression seemed more robust, being significantly related to reduced biochemical failure (P = 0.036) and any failure (P = 0.046). The predictive value of negative Bcl-2/normal Bax was most pronounced in those who received STAD+RT, as opposed to LTAD+RT. CONCLUSIONS: Normal Bax expression was associated with significantly more favorable outcome. The combination of negative Bcl-2 and normal Bax was more consistently significant, particularly when STAD+RT was the treatment administered. These data suggest that LTAD+RT should be used when either Bcl-2 or Bax is abnormally expressed.

Semen AMACR protein as a novel method for detecting prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Alpha methylacyl A coenzyme racemase (AMACR) has shown to be an excellent immunohistological biomarker for prostate cancer (CaP). Given the connection between prostate and urethra, we hypothesized that semen ejaculate would be an ideal specimen for detection of CaP specific biomarkers, such as AMACR. This study explores the detection of semen AMACR protein in men with and without CaP. METHODS: Semen ejaculates from 28 biopsy proven CaP patients prior to radical prostatectomy and 15 age-comparable controls were analyzed. An indirect sandwich ELISA chemiluminescence assay was used to detect semen AMACR, PSA, and Matriptase proteins. Tissue AMACR protein was quantified in 12 corresponding prostatectomy specimens using automated quantitative analysis (AQUA). RESULTS: Semen AMACR protein was detected in 23 of 28 (82%) CaP patients and 23 of 24 (96%) CaP patients with significant tumor volume (>0.5 cc or 0.3 g). Among the 5 cancer patients with undetectable semen AMACR, 4 patients had small tumor volumes (<1% or 0.3 g). Semen AMACR protein was also detected in 7 of 15 (47%) control noncancer patients. Using 76 ng/ml as a cutoff value, 20 of 28 (71%) patients and 20 of 24 (83%) patients with significant tumor volume were positive for semen AMACR protein, whereas only 5 of 15 (33%) age-comparable controls were positive. AMACR levels degrade with time. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate that AMACR protein is detectable in semen ejaculate. The higher AMACR levels detected in cancer patients suggests that semen AMACR protein may be useful as a noninvasive test for prostate cancer. Further validation is warranted.

Helical tomotherapy: image guidance and adaptive dose guidance.

Helical tomotherapy is a volumetric image-guided, fully dynamic, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery system. The daily use of its pretreatment megavoltage (MV) CT imaging for patient setup verification allows one to correct for interfraction setup error. This is a primary requirement for the accurate delivery of complex IMRT treatment plans, which give differential radiation doses to various target volumes while conformally avoiding normal critical structures. In particular, image guidance using MV CT allows for direct target position verification with the patient in the actual treatment position just prior to therapy delivery. Moreover, since helical MV CT imaging is a slow CT imaging technique, it allows for the encoding of target motion in the resulting MV CT data set, and therefore the pretreatment verification of a motion envelope defined from four-dimensional CT.

Platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy for tumors of the head and neck and the esophagus.

The addition of concurrent chemotherapy (CT) to standard radiotherapy (RT) for locoregional treatment has been established to improve overall survival in a variety of solid tumors. Among the many CT regimens evaluated in combination with RT in randomized controlled clinical trials and summarized in meta-analyses, platinum-containing regimens have consistently shown a survival benefit across tumor types. Cisplatin and carboplatin have been studied both as single agents and in combination with other cytotoxic drugs, concurrently with RT, but the optimal platinum-based regimen to be combined with RT continues to be explored with further investigation. In this article, the role of platinum-based CT as part of concurrent CT/RT will be discussed using 2 tumor sites in the aerodigestive tract as a paradigm: squamous-cell carcinomas of the head and neck and esophageal carcinomas. For each tumor type, we will review the state of the evidence and comment on the current state of practice and on future directions for clinical research in combined modality CT/RT.

Integral radiation dose to normal structures with conformal external beam radiation.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate the integral dose (ID) received by normal tissue from intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-five radiation treatment plans including IMRT using a conventional linac with both 6 MV (6MV-IMRT) and 20 MV (20MV-IMRT), as well as three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) using 6 MV (6MV-3DCRT) and 20 MV (20MV-3DCRT) and IMRT using tomotherapy (6MV) (Tomo-IMRT), were created for 5 patients with localized prostate cancer. The ID (mean dose x tissue volume) received by normal tissue (NTID) was calculated from dose-volume histograms. RESULTS: The 6MV-IMRT resulted in 5.0% lower NTID than 6MV-3DCRT; 20 MV beam plans resulted in 7.7%-11.2% lower NTID than 6MV-3DCRT. Tomo-IMRT NTID was comparable to 6MV-IMRT. Compared with 6MV-3DCRT, 6MV-IMRT reduced IDs to the rectal wall and penile bulb by 6.1% and 2.7%, respectively. Tomo-IMRT further reduced these IDs by 11.9% and 16.5%, respectively. The 20 MV did not reduce IDs to those structures. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in NTID between 3DCRT and IMRT is small. The 20 MV plans somewhat reduced NTID compared with 6 MV plans. The advantage of tomotherapy over conventional IMRT and 3DCRT for localized prostate cancer was demonstrated in regard to dose sparing of rectal wall and penile bulb while slightly decreasing NTID as compared with 6MV-3DCRT.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the novel redox-active agent, motexafin gadolinium, with concurrent radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic or biliary cancers.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of the novel anticancer agent, motexafin gadolinium (MGd), administered concurrently with radiation therapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced pancreatic or biliary tumors. The pharmacokinetics of MGd were also evaluated. METHODS: Cohorts of three to six patients were treated with escalating doses of MGd, administered three times per week for a total of 16 doses concurrent with RT. The dose of RT was fixed at 5,040 cGy, and given in 28 fractions, from Monday to Friday of every week. Plasma MGd concentrations were measured by high performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: Eight patients were treated at dose level 1 (2.9 mg/kg), with one DLT (grade 3 fever). Three patients were treated at dose level 2 (3.6 mg/kg), and two DLTs were noted. One DLT was grade 3 nausea and vomiting (N/V), and the other was grade 3 skin toxicity. The most common toxicity was N/V. There were no objective responses. The median survival was 6 months. The MGd plasma concentration versus time profile in each patient was best fit by a two-compartment, open, linear model. There was minimal accumulation of MGd in plasma with the three-times/week dosing schedule. Simulation of the time course of MGd in the peripheral compartment indicated that maximal MGd concentrations of 1-2 micromol/kg occurred between 4 and 6 h after MGd infusion. CONCLUSION: Dose level 1 (2.9 mg/kg of MGd) is the recommended dose for combination with (RT) in phase II studies for locally advanced pancreatic and biliary cancers. Patient tolerance might be improved by modification of the RT schedule and antiemetic prophylaxis.

Radiation Dose Escalation in Esophageal Cancer Revisited: A Contemporary Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base, 2004 to 2012.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of radiation dose escalation on overall survival (OS) for patients with nonmetastatic esophageal cancer treated with concurrent radiation and chemotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients diagnosed with stage I to III esophageal cancer treated from 2004 to 2012 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base. Patients who received concurrent radiation and chemotherapy with radiation doses of ≥50 Gy and did not undergo surgery were included. OS was compared using Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 6854 patients were included; 3821 (55.7%) received 50 to 50.4 Gy and 3033 (44.3%) received doses >50.4 Gy. Univariate analysis revealed no significant difference in OS between patients receiving 50 to 50.4 Gy and those receiving >50.4 Gy (P=.53). The dose analysis, binned as 50 to 50.4, 51 to 54, 55 to 60, and >60 Gy, revealed no appreciable difference in OS within any group compared with 50 to 50.4 Gy. Subgroup analyses investigating the effect of dose escalation by histologic type and in the setting of intensity modulated radiation therapy also failed to reveal a benefit. Propensity score matching confirmed the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS among the dose levels. The factors associated with improved OS on multivariable analysis included female sex, lower Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, private insurance, cervical/upper esophagus location, squamous cell histologic type, lower T stage, and node-negative status (P<.01 for all analyses). CONCLUSIONS: In this large national cohort, dose escalation >50.4 Gy did not result in improved OS among patients with stage I to III esophageal cancer treated with definitive concurrent radiation and chemotherapy. These data suggest that despite advanced contemporary treatment techniques, OS for patients with esophageal cancer remains unaltered by escalation of radiation dose >50.4 Gy, consistent with the results of the INT-0123 trial. Furthermore, these data highlight that many radiation oncologists have not embraced the concept that dose escalation does not improve OS. Although local control, not investigated in the present study, might benefit from dose escalation, novel therapies are needed to improve the OS of patients with esophageal cancer.

Quality of life outcomes from a dose-per-fraction escalation trial of hypofractionation in prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This multi-institutional phase I/II trial explored patient-assessed tolerance of increasingly hypofractionated (HPFX) radiation for low/intermediate risk prostate cancer. METHODS: 347 patients enrolled from 2002 to 2010. Three increasing dose-per-fraction schedules of 64.7 Gy/22 fx, 58.08 Gy/16 fx and 51.6 Gy/12 fx were each designed to yield equivalent predicted late toxicity. Three quality of life (QoL) surveys were administered prior to treatment and annually upto 3 years. RESULTS: Bowel QoL data at 3years revealed no significant difference among regimens (p=0.469). Bowel QoL for all regimens declined transiently, largely recovering by three years, with only the 22 fraction decrement reaching significance. Bladder outcomes at 3 years were comparable (p=0.343) although, for all patients combined, a significant decline was observed from the baseline (p=0.008). Spitzer quality of life data revealed similarly excellent, 3-year means (p=0.188). International erectile function data also revealed no significant differences at 3 years although all measures except intercourse satisfaction worsened post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Three-year QoL changes for bowel, bladder and SQLI were modest and similar for 3 HPFX regimens spanning 2.94-4.3 Gy per fraction. These favorable patient-scored outcomes demonstrate the safety and tolerability of such regimens and may be leveraged to support further implementation of mild to moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in the setting of low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Patient-reported quality of life after stereotactic body radiation therapy versus moderate hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluate changes in bowel, urinary and sexual patient-reported quality of life following treatment with moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (<5Gray/fraction) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT;5-10Gray/fraction) for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a pooled multi-institutional analysis of men treated with moderate hypofractionation or SBRT, we compared minimally detectable difference in bowel, urinary and sexual quality of life at 1 and 2years using chi-squared analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: 378 men received moderate hypofractionation compared to 534 men who received SBRT. After 1year, patients receiving moderate hypofractionation were more likely to experience worsening in bowel symptoms (39.5%) compared to SBRT (32.5%; p=.06), with a larger difference at 2years (37.4% versus 25.3%, p=.002). Similarly, patients receiving moderate fractionation had worsening urinary symptom score compared to patients who underwent SBRT at 1 and 2years (34.7% versus 23.1%, p<.001; and 32.8% versus 14.0%, p<.001). There was no difference in sexual symptom score at 1 or 2years. After adjusting for age and cancer characteristics, patients receiving SBRT were less likely to experience worsening urinary symptom scores at 2years (odds ratio: 0.24[95%CI: 0.07-0.79]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received SBRT or moderate hypofractionation have similar patient-reported change in bowel and sexual symptoms, although there was worse change in urinary symptoms for patients receiving moderate hypofractionation.

The alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer: what is it, really?

Two recent studies of fractionated external beam radiotherapy in early prostate cancer provide outcome data that allow a statistical estimation of the alpha/beta-ratio of the linear-quadratic model when combined with clinical data on the steepness of the dose-response curve. Results of the large randomized PR5 trial by the Ontario Clinical Oncology Group/National Cancer Institute of Canada yield an estimate of alpha/beta at 1.12 Gy with 95% confidence interval (-3.3, 5.6) Gy. A non-randomized study by Valdagni and colleagues of hyper-fractionation delivered BID versus conventional fractionation yields an alpha/beta-estimate of 8.3 Gy with 95% confidence interval (0.7, 16) Gy. Thus, the confidence interval of this latter study cannot exclude even very low values of alpha/beta. Furthermore, this point estimate may be an over-estimate if incomplete repair plays a role in the BID group of the Italian study. Taken together, the outcomes of these two studies still favor a high fractionation sensitivity of prostate cancer.

On voxel-by-voxel accumulated dose for prostate radiation therapy using deformable image registration.

Since delivered dose is rarely the same with planned, we calculated the delivered total dose to ten prostate radiotherapy patients treated with rectal balloons using deformable dose accumulation (DDA) and compared it with the planned dose. The patients were treated with TomoTherapy using two rectal balloon designs: five patients had the Radiadyne balloon (balloon A), and five patients had the EZ-EM balloon (balloon B). Prostate and rectal wall contours were outlined on each pre-treatment MVCT for all patients. Delivered fractional doses were calculated using the MVCT taken immediately prior to delivery. Dose grids were accumulated to the last MVCT using DDA tools in Pinnacle3 TM (v9.100, Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Fitchburg, USA). Delivered total doses were compared with planned doses using prostate and rectal wall DVHs. The rectal NTCP was calculated based on total delivered and planned doses for all patients using the Lyman model. For 8/10 patients, the rectal wall NTCP calculated using the delivered total dose was less than planned, with seven patients showing a decrease of more than 5% in NTCP. For 2/10 patients studied, the rectal wall NTCP calculated using total delivered dose was 2% higher than planned. This study indicates that for patients receiving hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer with a rectal balloon, total delivered doses to prostate is similar with planned while delivered dose to rectal walls may be significantly different from planned doses. 8/10 patients show significant correlation between rectal balloon anterior-posterior positions and some VD values.

Clinical promise tempered by reality in the delivery of combined chemoradiation for common solid tumors.

Until quite recently, there was no firmly established role for cytotoxic chemotherapy in the curative management approach for many of our most common malignancies. Systemic therapy was often reserved for recurrent or metastatic disease after initial surgery and/or radiotherapy. Today, the treatment of many advanced cancer patients involves integration of chemotherapy into the definitive treatment strategy. This evolution in therapy is largely a reflection of the clinical trials process that has defined clinical benefit for the addition of chemotherapy in several settings. This is good news overall. It validates years of preclinical experimentation that predicted advantage in combining chemotherapy with radiation. Moreover, with a primary objective to increase cancer cure rates, we now see confirmatory evidence across a spectrum of recent clinical trials. Tempering this good news is the fact that these gains are often quite small. They are commonly accompanied by increased toxicity and are generally achieved in good performance status patients who may not accurately reflect the broad cancer population. In addition, the first generation of positive trials for a particular disease site are often accomplished with vastly differing treatment regimens. This frequently leaves the general oncologist to query "which specific approach is best?" In this article, we briefly trace the evolution of current therapy approaches in 2 common human solid tumors, namely cancer of the head and neck and non-small-cell cancer of the lung. The focus involves the development of chemoradiation strategies in the definitive treatment setting. Clearly, surgery plays a critical role in treatment for many patients in these anatomic categories. However, we lack randomized trials that directly compare operative versus nonoperative treatment approaches and thus have consciously neglected review of the surgical series for purposes of this article.