ACR Appropriateness Criteria® posttreatment follow-up of prostate cancer

Comparison of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy treatment options for prostate cancer

We review radiation therapy (RT) options available for prostate cancer, including external beam (EBRT; with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, stereotactic body RT [SBRT]) and brachytherapy (BT), with an emphasis on the outcomes, toxicities, and contraindications for therapies. PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015) that included men treated on prospective studies with a primary endpoint of patient outcomes, with ⩾70 patients, and ⩾5year median follow up. Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 16 used EBRT, and 10 used BT. Long-term freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were roughly equivalent between conventional and hypofractionated RT with intensity modulation (evidence level 1B), with 10-year FFBF rates of 45-90%, 40-60%, and 20-50% (for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively). SBRT had promising rates of BF, with shorter follow-up (5-year FFBF of >90% for low-risk patients). Similarly, BT (5-year FFBF for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients have generally been >85%, 69-97%, 63-80%, respectively) and BT+EBRT were appropriate in select patients (evidence level 1B). Differences in overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer specific mortality (5-year rates: 82-97%, 1-14%, 0-8%, respectively) have not been detected in randomized trials of dose escalation or in studies comparing RT modalities. Studies did not use patient-reported outcomes, through Grade 3-4 toxicities were rare (<5%) among all modalities. There was limited evidence available to compare proton therapy to other modalities. The treatment decision for a man is usually based on his risk group, ability to tolerate the procedure, convenience for the patient, and the anticipated impact on quality of life. To further personalize therapy, future trials should report (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education status; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics.

Evaluation of Posttreatment Follow-Up of Patients With Prostate Cancer Relative to the American College of Radiology's Appropriateness Criteria

OBJECTIVE

The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria panel has recommended that patients with prostate cancer who have received treatment undergo imaging only after suspected cancer recurrence. We examined whether local physicians followed this recommendation and what types of imaging examinations were ordered in a cohort of patients with local prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Rochester Epidemiology Project, a research consortium that collects, links, and stores medical record information of Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents, was used to capture the complete medical history of treated patients with prostate cancer from 2000 through 2011. Clinical information and imaging examinations performed were retrieved by chart review. Suspected recurrence was defined as treatment-specific prostate-specific antigen level elevations, bone pain, or abnormal digital rectal examination findings.

RESULTS

Of the 670 treated patients with prostate cancer who were included in the final analysis, 129 (19%) underwent posttreatment imaging. After excluding imaging related to retreatment or another cancer, 13 patients (i.e., 2% of the entire cohort and 10% of imaged patients) underwent imaging in the absence of suspected recurrence. A total of 90 patients (70% of imaged patients) underwent imaging after suspected recurrence. Of these 90 patients, 62 (69%) underwent a bone scan as their first imaging modality either alone or in combination with other imaging modalities. Of the providers who ordered a bone scan first, 27% were urologists, 23% were radiation oncologists, and 24% were primary care physicians.

CONCLUSION

Most patients in this study did not undergo imaging in the absence of suspected recurrence. Various types of imaging examinations were ordered for patients with suspected recurrence.

Practice-based evidence to evidence-based practice: building the National Radiation Oncology Registry

The National Radiation Oncology Registry (NROR), sponsored by the Radiation Oncology Institute and the American Society for Radiation Oncology, is designed to collect standardized information on cancer care delivery among patients treated with radiotherapy in the United States and will focus on patients with prostate cancer. Stakeholders were engaged through a forum that emphasized the need for patient-centered outcomes, minimal data burden, and maximal connectivity to existing registries and databases. An electronic infrastructure is under development to provide connectivity across radiation oncology and hospital information systems. The NROR Gateway features automatic abstraction as well as aggregation of treatment and outcome data. The prostate cancer data dictionary provides standardized elements in four domains: facility, physician, patient, and treatment. The pilot phase will consist of clinical centers chosen to provide a representative mix of radiation treatment modalities, facility types, population-based settings, and regional locations. The initial set of radiation practice metrics includes physician board certification and maintenance, ordering of staging scans, active surveillance discussion, dose prescriptions for low-risk/high-risk disease, radiation fields for low-risk/high-risk disease, image-guided radiation therapy use, androgen deprivation therapy use, post-brachytherapy implant computed tomography dosimetry, collection of toxicity assessments, and longitudinal patient follow-up. The NROR pilot study will provide the framework for expansion to a nationwide electronic registry for radiation oncology.