The role of overall treatment time in the outcome of radiotherapy of prostate cancer: An analysis of biochemical failure in 4839 men treated between 1987 and 1995

Does Time to Initiation of Adjuvant Radiotherapy Affect Reconstruction Outcomes after Endoscopic Resection of Skull Base Malignancies?

Introduction and Objective  It is unclear if the length of the time interval to initiation of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) after endoscopic endonasal surgery affects reconstruction outcomes. In this study we present our experience with adjuvant RT after endoscopic endonasal procedures, to determine if the time to RT after surgery impacts post-RT reconstruction complication rates. Methods  A retrospective cohort study of 164 patients who underwent endoscopic endonasal surgery between 1998 and 2021 was conducted. Using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs), we evaluated several variables and the complications that occurred during the 1-year period after starting RT. Results  Seventy-eight (47.5%) and eighty-six patients (52.5%) received RT before and after the sixth postoperative week, respectively. The overall post-RT complication rates were 28%, most of these were severe infections ( n  = 20, 12.2%) and delayed CSF leak ( n  = 4, 2.5%). There was no significant difference in the post-RT complications between the patients who received postoperative RT before or after the sixth operative week (HR: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.63-2.02; p = 0.675 ). Univariate analysis demonstrated negative impact associated with smoking history ( p = 0.015 ), the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy ( p = 0.0001 ), and the use of photon therapy ( p = 0.012 ); and we found a positive impact with the use of multilayer reconstruction techniques (overall, p = 0.041 ; with fat, p = 0.038 ; and/or fascia graft, p = 0.035 ). After a multivariate analysis only, smoking history was an independent risk factor for post-RT complications ( p = 0.012 ). Conclusion  Delaying RT for more than 6 weeks after endoscopic endonasal surgery does not provide a significant benefit for reconstruction outcomes. However, special attention may be warranted in patients with smoking history who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or in patients who will receive photon-based RT after surgery as these groups were found to have increased complication rates post-RT.

Hospital factors determining overall survival in cancer patients undergoing curative treatment

BACKGROUND

In oncology, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) are key indicators. The factors that affect OS and QoL include tumor-related characteristics (stage and grade), patient-related factors (performance status and comorbidities), and cancer-directed therapy (CDT)-related aspects. In addition, external factors such as governance or policy (e.g., inaccessibility to CDT, increased distance to service, poor socioeconomic status, lack of insurance), and hospital-related factors (e.g., facility volume and surgeon volume) can influence OS and QoL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary objective of this narrative review was to identify hospital-related factors that affect OS and QoL in patients receiving curative CDT. The authors defined extrinsic factors that can be modified at the hospital level as "hospital-related" factors. Only factors supported by randomized controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews (SR) and/or meta-analyses (MA), and population database (PDB) analyses that address the relationship between OS and hospital factors were considered.

RESULTS

The literature review found that high hospital or oncologist volume, adherence to evidence-based medicine (EBM), optimal time-to-treatment initiation (TTI), and decreased overall treatment time (OTT) increase OS in patients undergoing curative CDT. The use of case management strategies was associated with better symptom management and treatment compliance, but had a mixed effect on QoL. The practice of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in cancer patients did not result in an increase in OS. There was insufficient evidence to support the impact of factors such as teaching or academic centers, hospital infrastructure, and treatment compliance on OS and QoL.

CONCLUSION

The authors conclude that hospital policies should focus on increasing hospital and oncologist volume, adhering to EBM, optimizing TTI, and reducing OTT for cancer patients receiving curative treatment.

The application of nanoparticles in theranostic systems targeting breast cancer stem cells: current progress and future challenges

Breast cancer (BC) is one of the diseases with the highest female mortality rates in the world and is closely related to breast cancer stem cells (BCSCs). Conventional breast cancer chemotherapy drugs target noncancer stem cells (non-CSCs), while cancer stem cells (CSCs) can still survive, which is an important reason for breast cancer drug resistance and local recurrence or distant metastasis. How to eradicate BCSCs while killing BCs is the key factor to improve the effect, and it is also an important scientific problem to be solved urgently. Therefore, targeted BCSC therapy has become a research hotspot. Interestingly, the emergence of nanotechnology provides a new idea for targeting BCSCs. This study summarizes the current application status of nanomaterials in targeting BCSCs, and attempts to construct a new type of lipid nanoparticle (LNP) that can target BCSCs through mRNA, providing a new idea for the treatment of BC.

Conditional Risks of Biochemical Failure and Prostate Cancer-Specific Death in Patients Undergoing External Beam Radiotherapy: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

As patients achieve years of survival after treatment for prostate cancer, the risk of biochemical failure (BF) or prostate cancer-specific death (PCSD) may evolve over time, with clinical relevance to both patients and clinicians.

Objective

To determine conditional BF-free survival, PSCD, and overall survival estimates for patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer enrolled in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0126 and RTOG 0415 clinical trials. A secondary objective was to determine whether prognostic factors at diagnosis remain relevant at later points in follow-up.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A pooled secondary analysis of patients treated with external-beam radiotherapy alone and enrolled in the prospective randomized clinical trials RTOG 0126 and RTOG 0415 was performed. Patients included for analysis were enrolled between March 2002 and December 2009 with a median follow-up of 6.9 years. Overall survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method at various survivorship time points. Cumulative incidence was used to calculate BF rates using the Phoenix definition, as well as PCSD. Risk factors such as Gleason score, tumor (T) stage, prostate-specific antigen level, and the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions of prescribed dose were analyzed at different time points using multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to February 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Conditional risks of BF and PCSD after completion of external-beam radiotherapy.

Results

A total of 2591 patients (median [IQR] age, 69 [63-73] years) were included in the study with a mean (range) PSA level of 7.1 (4.7-8.9) ng/mL, 1334 patients (51.5%) with a Gleason score 6 disease, and 1706 patients (65.8%) with T1 disease. Rates of BF from time of treatment were 1.63% (95% CI, 1.20%-2.18%) at 1 year, 7.04% (95% CI, 6.09%-8.08%) at 3 years, 12.54% (95% CI, 11.28%-13.88%) at 5 years, and 22.32% (95% CI, 20.46%-24.24%) at 8 years. For patients surviving 1, 3, and 5 years without BF, the rates of BF in the next 5 years were 14.20% (95% CI, 12.80%-15.66%), 17.19% (95% CI, 15.34%-19.14%), and 18.85% (95% CI, 16.21%-21.64%), respectively. At the initial time point, the rate of PCSD in the next 5 years was 0.66% (95% CI, 0.39%-1.04%). For patients who achieved 1, 3, 5, and 8 years of survivorship, the rates of PCSD in the next 5 years were 1.16% (95% CI, 0.77-1.67) at 1 year, 2.42% (95% CI, 1.74%-3.27%) at 3 years, 2.88% (95% CI, 2.01%-3.99%) at 5 years, and 3.49% (95% CI, 0.98%-8.73%) at 8 years.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this secondary analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials of patients undergoing external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer, the conditional risks of BF and death from prostate cancer increased with time for patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy alone. These results could inform optimal trial design and may be helpful information for patients evaluated in follow-up.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00033631; NCT00331773.

From once-weekly to semi-weekly whole prostate gland stereotactic radiotherapy with focal boosting: Primary endpoint analysis of the multicenter phase II hypo-FLAME 2.0 trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The hypo-FLAME trial showed that once-weekly (QW) focal boosted prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is associated with acceptable acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Currently, we investigated the safety of reducing the overall treatment time (OTT) of focal boosted prostate SBRT from 29 to 15 days.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were treated with SBRT delivering 35 Gy in 5 fractions to the whole prostate gland with an iso-toxic boost up to 50 Gy to the intraprostatic lesion(s) in a semi-weekly (BIW) schedule. The primary endpoint was radiation-induced acute toxicity (CTCAE v5.0). Changes in quality of life (QoL) were examined in terms of proportions achieving a minimal clinically important change (MCIC). Finally, acute toxicity and QoL scores of the BIW schedule were compared with the results of the prior QW hypo-FLAME schedule (n = 100).

RESULTS

Between August 2020 and February 2022, 124 patients were enrolled and treated BIW. No grade ≥3 GU or GI toxicity was observed. The 90-days cumulative incidence of grade 2 GU and GI toxicity rates were 47.5% and 7.4%, respectively. Patients treated QW scored significant less grade 2 GU toxicity (34.0%, p = 0.01). No significant differences in acute GI toxicity were observed. Furthermore, patients treated QW had a superior acute bowel and urinary QoL.

CONCLUSION

Semi-weekly prostate SBRT with iso-toxic focal boosting is associated with acceptable acute GU and GI toxicity. Based on the comparison between the QW and BIW schedule, patients should be counselled regarding the short-term advantages of a more protracted schedule. Registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04045717.

Radiobiological analysis of preliminary results of a phase II study of pelvic hypofractionated and accelerated radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer patients

Purpose

Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRT) is widely applied for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer. Pelvic node irradiation improves control of the disease. Although the therapeutic guidelines support the use of hypofractionated and accelerated radiotherapy (HypoAR), this is addressed to prostate and seminal vesicles. At the same time, the safety and efficacy of HypoAR for pelvic node irradiation remain obscure.

Material and Methods

In a phase II study, we evaluated the feasibility of pelvic HypoAR in 22 high-risk prostate cancer patients. The RT scheme delivers 14 consecutive fractions of 3.67 Gy (total 51.38 Gy) to the prostate, 3.5 Gy (total 49 Gy) to the seminal vesicles, and 2.7 Gy (total 37.8 Gy) to the lymph nodes, using image-guided volumetric modulated arc therapy. A comparative radiobiological analysis of dose-volume histogram is performed (HypoAR vs. hypothetical equivalent CRT regimens, without and with time correction).

Results

Our clinical experience shows impressively low early and short-term late toxicities, without any grade III events, within a median follow-up of 30 months. Only one biochemical relapse was recorded 30 months after irradiation. In radiobiological analysis, considering an α/β-value of 4 Gy and a λ-value of 0.2 Gy/day for late effects, all comparisons predicted significantly lower toxicity for the HypoAR regimen (p < 0.05). For early toxicities (α/β = 10 Gy), a λ-value lower than 0.4 Gy/day favors the HypoAR regimen, which is along with the clinical results.

Conclusion

Radiobiological analysis favors HypoAR as a safe and effective regimen for high-risk prostate cancer patients, which is confirmed in the current phase II clinical study.

Stereotactic MRI-guided radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer (SMILE): a prospective, multicentric phase-II-trial

Background

Normofractionated radiation regimes for definitive prostate cancer treatment usually extend over 7–8 weeks. Recently, moderate hypofractionation with doses per fraction between 2.2 and 4 Gy has been shown to be safe and feasible with oncologic non-inferiority compared to normofractionation. Radiobiologic considerations lead to the assumption that prostate cancer might benefit in particular from hypofractionation in terms of tumor control and toxicity. First data related to ultrahypofractionation demonstrate that the overall treatment time can be reduced to 5–7 fractions with single doses > 6 Gy safely, even with simultaneous focal boosting of macroscopic tumor(s). With MR-guided linear accelerators (MR-linacs) entering clinical routine, invasive fiducial implantations become unnecessary. The aim of the multicentric SMILE study is to evaluate the use of MRI-guided stereotactic radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer in 5 fractions regarding safety and feasibility.

Methods

The study is designed as a prospective, one-armed, two-stage, multi-center phase-II-trial with 68 patients planned. Low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients will be eligible for the study as well as early high-risk patients (cT3a and/or Gleason Score ≤ 8 and/or PSA ≤ 20 ng/ml) according to d’Amico. All patients will receive definitive MRI-guided stereotactic radiation therapy with a total dose of 37.5 Gy in 5 fractions (single dose 7.5 Gy) on alternating days. A focal simultaneous integrated boost to MRI-defined tumor(s) up to 40 Gy can optionally be applied. The primary composite endpoint includes the assessment of urogenital or gastrointestinal toxicity ≥ grade 2 or treatment-related discontinuation of therapy. The use of MRI-guided radiotherapy enables online plan adaptation and intrafractional gating to ensure optimal target volume coverage and protection of organs at risk.

Discussion

With moderate hypofractionation being the standard in definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer at many institutions, ultrahypofractionation could be the next step towards reducing treatment time without compromising oncologic outcomes and toxicities. MRI-guided radiotherapy could qualify as an advantageous tool as no invasive procedures have to precede in therapeutic workflows. Furthermore, MRI guidance combined with gating and plan adaptation might be essential in order to increase treatment effectivity and reduce toxicity at the same time.

Two-Weekly High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost After External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Outcome and Toxicity Analysis

Purpose

Evaluation of clinical outcome of two-weekly high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer.

Methods

338 patients with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive EBRT followed by a two-weekly high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BT boost) in the period of 2002 to 2019 were analyzed. EBRT, delivered in 46 Gy (D_Mean) in conventional fractionation, was followed by two fractions HDR-BT boost with 9 Gy (D_90%) two and four weeks after EBRT. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was added in 176 (52.1%) patients. Genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was evaluated utilizing the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) and biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix definition.

Results

Median follow-up was 101.8 months. 15 (4.4%)/115 (34.0%)/208 (61.5%) patients had low-/intermediate-/high-risk cancer according to the D`Amico risk classification. Estimated 5-year and 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was 84.7% and 75.9% for all patients. The estimated 5-year bRFS was 93.3%, 93.4% and 79.5% for low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease, respectively. The estimated 10-year freedom from distant metastasis (FFM) and overall survival (OS) rates were 86.5% and 70.0%. Cumulative 5-year late GU toxicity and late GI toxicity grade ≥ 2 was observed in 19.3% and 5.0% of the patients, respectively. Cumulative 5-year late grade 3 GU/GI toxicity occurred in 3.6%/0.3%.

Conclusions

Two-weekly HDR-BT boost after EBRT for localized prostate cancer showed an excellent toxicity profile with low GU/GI toxicity rates and effective long-term biochemical control.

Ultrahypofractionation of localized prostate cancer : Statement from the DEGRO working group prostate cancer

Due to its low fractionation sensitivity, also known as “alpha/beta ratio,” in relation to its surrounding organs at risk, prostate cancer is predestined for hypofractionated radiation schedules assuming an increased therapeutic ratio compared to normofractionated regimens. While moderate hypofractionation (2.2–4 Gy) has been proven to be non-inferior to normal fractionation in several large randomized trials for localized prostate cancer, level I evidence for ultrahypofractionation (>4 Gy) was lacking until recently. An accumulating body of non-randomized evidence has recently been strengthened by the publication of two randomized studies comparing ultrahypofractionation with a normofractionated schedule, i.e., the Scandinavian HYPO-RT trial by Widmark et al. and the first toxicity results of the PACE‑B trial. In this review, we aim to give a brief overview of the current evidence of ultrahypofractionation, make an overall assessment of the level of evidence, and provide recommendations and requirements that should be followed before introducing ultrahypofractionation into routine clinical use.

Treatment interruptions affect biochemical failure rates in prostate cancer patients treated with proton beam therapy: Report from the multi-institutional proton collaborative group registry

INTRODUCTION

To date, no studies examining the effect of treatment interruptions (TI) with proton beam therapy (PBT) have been published. The goal of our study was to determine the predictors of TI amongst patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with PBT and to determine whether TI are associated with biochemical failure (BF). We hypothesized that any correlation between TI and biochemical control would be more pronounced in high risk groups.

METHODS

Data for 4278 patients with PCa was obtained from the prospectively collected Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) data registry. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis (MVA) was used to model possible predictors of BF. A subset analysis was performed for high risk patients treated with ADT and PBT. Finally, propensity score (PS) analysis was performed to account for any indication bias caused by lack of randomization.

RESULTS

Total treatment duration (OR, 1.05 [1.04-1.06]; p < 0.001) increased the likelihood of TI on MVA. TI did not have a statistically significant correlation with BF (OR, 1.44 [0.86-2.39]; p = 0.162) amongst PS matched patients. However, on subset analyses of high risk group patients with PS matching, there was a trend towards worse BF in patients with TI (OR 3.85; 95%CI (0.96-15.44); p = 0.057).

CONCLUSION

In the first analysis of its kind, the results suggest that TI in high risk PCa patients treated with PBT and ADT have worse BF rates. Interventions such as increased patient education, proper maintenance of proton facilities, and decreasing total treatment duration with alternative fractionation schedules may help avoid the unintended negative effects on tumor control due to TI. However, future analyses on a larger patient population is needed.

Impact of non-adherence to radiotherapy on 1-year survival in cancer patients in Catalonia, Spain

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the effects of non-adherence to external beam radiation therapy in cancer patients receiving treatment with a curative.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study collected health records data for all cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy with curative intent in 2016 in Catalonia, Spain. Adherence was defined as having received at least 90% of the total dose prescribed. A logistic regression model was used to assess factors related to non-adherence, and its association with one-year survival was evaluated using Cox regression.

RESULTS

The final sample included 8721 patients (mean age 63.6 years): breast cancer was the most common tumour site (38.1%), followed by prostate and colon/rectum. Treatment interruptions prolonged the total duration of therapy in 70.7% of the patients, and 1.0% were non-adherent. Non-adherence was associated with advanced age, female gender, and some localization of primary tumour (head and neck, urinary bladder, and haematological cancers). The risk of death in non-adherent patients was higher than in adherent patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval 0.97-2.74), after adjusting for the potential confounding effect of age, gender, tumour site and comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

Non-adherence to radiotherapy, as measured by the received dose, is very low in our setting, and it may have an impact on one-year survival.

A radiobiological study of the schemes with a low number of fractions in high-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer

Purpose

Schemes with high doses per fraction and small number of fractions are commonly used in high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) for prostate cancer. Our aim was to analyze the differences between published clinical results and the predictions of radiobiological models for absorbed dose required in a single fraction monotherapy HDR-BT.

Material and methods

Published HDR-BT clinical results for low- and intermediate-risk patients with prostate cancer were revised. For 13 clinical studies with 16 fractionation schedules between 1 and 9 fractions, a dose-response relation in terms of the biochemical control probability (BC) was established using Monte Carlo-based statistical methods.

Results

We obtained a value of α/β = 22.8 Gy (15.1-60.2 Gy) (95% CI) much larger than the values in the range 1.5-3.0 Gy that are usually considered to compare the results of different fractionation schemes in prostate cancer radiotherapy using doses per fraction below 6 Gy. The doses in a single fraction producing BC = 90% and 95% were 22.3 Gy (21.5-24.2 Gy) and 24.3 Gy (23.0-27.9 Gy), respectively.

Conclusions

The α/β obtained in our analysis of 22.8 Gy for a range of dose per fraction between 6 and 20.5 Gy was much greater than the one currently estimated for prostate cancer using low doses per fraction. This high value of α/β explains reasonably well the data available in the region of high doses per fraction considered.

[Practical update of total dose compensation in case of temporary interruption of external radiotherapy in the COVID-19 pandemic context]

L’étalement est un facteur important de récidive locale et indirectement d’évolution à distance, notamment, en cas de durée de traitement allongée. La pandémie actuelle a un impact sur les patients en cours de radiothérapie qui doivent interrompre leur traitement de manière parfois prolongée du fait de la nécessité de soins respiratoires induits par le COVID-19. Les modèles utilisés de compensation de la dose totale en cas d’interruption prolongée de la radiothérapie sont connus, mais il nous a semblé important de synthétiser afin que chaque oncologue radiothérapeute puisse proposer un traitement le plus optimal possible tant en termes de risque de récidive locale que de protection des tissus sains. L’objectif de ce type de recommandation est d’homogénéiser les pratiques de l’ensemble de la discipline.

Seven or less Fractions is Not the Standard of Care for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Evidence is accumulating for seven and less fractions in localised prostate cancer, including one large randomised trial. However, there is much more evidence yet to come and changing practice in advance of this may be premature. We review the reasons to persist with moderate hypofractionation for prostate cancer radiotherapy, until the results of further phase III studies are known.

A Phase I/II Study of Stereotactic Hypofractionated Once-weekly Radiation Therapy (SHORT) for Prostate Cancer

AIMS

Stereotactic radiation therapy has been investigated predominantly in patients with low-intermediate-risk disease. We conducted a clinical trial of stereotactic hypofractionated radiation therapy delivered in once-weekly fractions on patients with all-risk non-metastatic disease to test feasibility, acute toxicities and patient-reported outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase I/II study, 30 patients with prostatic adenocarcinoma, any Gleason score, T1-4N0 and prostate-specific antigen ≤60 ng/ml were treated with volumetric intensity modulated arc radiation therapy to a dose of 35 Gy in five fractions delivered once weekly. Patients with high-risk disease also received elective nodal irradiation to a dose of 25 Gy in five fractions simultaneously. Androgen deprivation was offered to intermediate- and high-risk patients. The primary outcome was acute toxicity. Secondary outcome measures included biochemical control and late toxicity. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the International Prostate Symptom Score and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ).

RESULTS

All 30 patients completed treatment per-protocol. Most patients had T3 (60%) and Gleason 7 (50%) tumours. The median prostate-specific antigen was 17 ng/ml. High-risk disease was present in 20 patients (66.7%). There was a low incidence of acute toxicities (grade 2 + urinary 3.3%, grade 2 rectal 0%). Within the EORTC QLQ framework, only the urinary symptom score showed a clinically meaningful worsening from a mean of 20/100 at baseline to 34/100 at the end of treatment (P < 0.001), but reduced to 24/100 at 6 months (P = 0.08). With a median follow-up of 41.5 months, two patients each reported grade 2 late urinary and rectal toxicity. The 3- and 4-year biochemical control rates were 96.7 and 87.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In a cohort of mainly high-risk cancers, stereotactic once-weekly radiation therapy was easy to implement and well tolerated, with a low incidence of acute and late toxicity and excellent biochemical control.

Prostate cancer dose-response, fractionation sensitivity and repopulation parameters evaluation from 25 international radiotherapy outcome data sets

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to model the biochemical free survival at 5 years and to evaluate the parameters defining dose-response curve, dose-fractionation radiosensitivity and repopulation.

METHODS

It was carried out a literature search on Pubmed to retrieve data sets of patients treated with external beam radiation therapy of 1.8-4.0 Gy per fraction and overall treatment time of 3 to 10 weeks. 10 groups were identified, based on risk class and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dose-response curve D₅₀ (dose at 50% probability of control) and g₅₀ (steepness), α/β (dose-fractionation radiosensitivity), and repopulation parameters, d_prolif and T_prolif , were calculated. Bootstrap-based cross-validation was performed and median and 95% CI (confidence interval) were evaluated.

RESULTS

25 data sets, including 20,310 patients, were considered. The median (95% CI) D₅₀ and g₅₀ values were 62 (CI 53 - 66) Gy and 1.6 (0.8 - 2.4). ADT patients showed lower values of D₅₀ and g₅₀ (57 ± 5 Gy and 1.1 ± 0.4) compared to no-ADT patients (65 ± 2 Gy and 2.3 ± 0.6), with p < 0.0001 and p = 0.002. If we did not consider any dependence on overall treatment time, the median (95% CI) value of α/β was 1.4 (1.0 - 1.9) Gy with p < 0.0001 for all patients. The median values of d_{proli f} and T_prolif were 0.0 to 0.3 Gy/d and 18-40 days.

CONCLUSION

Dose-response curve resulted dependent on risk class and ADT, with higher steepness for no-ADT patients. Low values of dose-fractionation radiosensitivity were found, supporting the use of moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy in each risk class. A limited dependence on repopulation was observed.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Prostate cancer response to moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy was reliably quantified considering risk class and androgen deprivation therapy.

Twice- vs. thrice-weekly moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: does overall treatment time matter?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of overall treatment time (OTT) in disease control, acute, and long-term side effects with moderate hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa) delivered either twice- or thrice-a-week.

METHODS

157 patients with localized PCa were treated consecutively with 56 Gy in 4 Gy/fraction delivered either twice (86 patients, from 2003 to 2010, group-1) or thrice a week (71 patients, from 2010 to 2017, group-2) using IMRT or VMAT techniques. Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were scored according to the CTCAE v3.0 grading scale. Median follow-up was 110 and 56 months for groups 1 and 2, respectively.

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, patients treated thrice-a-week experienced higher acute ≥ grade-2 GU toxicity compared to those treated twice a week (25.4% vs 5.8%, p = 0.001) even though none presented ≥ grade-3 GU or GI toxicity in the thrice-a-week group. The 5-year ≥ grade-2 late GU toxicity-free survival was higher in group-1 (95.9 ± 2.3%) than in group-2 (81.5 ± 4.9%, p = 0.003), while no differences in ≥ grade-2 late GI toxicity-free survival were observed between both groups (97.5 ± 1.7% vs. 97 ± 2.1% for groups 1 and 2, respectively). The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was not different for patients treated twice compared to those treated thrice-a-week (80.6 ± 4.5% vs. 85.3 ± 4.8%, respectively, p = 0.441), as much as for patients treated in > 5 weeks vs. those treated in ≤ 5 weeks (81.3 ± 4.4% vs. 84.4 ± 5.1%, respectively, p = 0.584).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective hypothesis-generating analysis, less vs. more than 5 weeks OTT may increase acute and late GU toxicities without significantly improving bRFS in patients treated to high effective doses (> 80 Gy) with moderate hypofractionated RT. Prospective trials evaluating the impact of OTT on hypofractionated schedules for PCa are warranted.

Awareness and surveillance of radiation treatment schedules reduces head and neck overall treatment time

•

Overall treatment time for HNC treatment was reduced according to DAHANCA guidelines.

•

Sufficient accelerator capacity alone did not sufficiently minimize treatment time.

•

Surveillance of treatment calendars reduced breaches to 3% (6fx/wk) and 13% (5 fx/wk).

•

Radiobiological efficacy was increased by 1.3 Gy (6 fx/wk) and 2.0 Gy (5 fx/wk).

•

Surveillance of treatment calendars presented minimal financial costs.

Background and purpose

Overall treatment time (OTT) is essential for local tumour control and survival in radiotherapy of head and neck cancer (HNC). National radiotherapy guidelines of the Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (DAHANCA) recommend a maximum OTT of 41 days for moderately accelerated radiation treatment (6 fractions/week) and 48 days for conventional treatment (5 fractions/week). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of surveillance of the radiotherapy course length and treatment gaps in HNC patients to reduce OTT.

Methods

The study included 2011 patients with HNC undergoing radical radiation treatment with 66–68 Gy in 33–34 fractions in 2003–2017 at Odense University Hospital. In February 2016, a systematic weekly review by two radiation therapists of all planned treatment courses was introduced to check OTT of individual patients to portend likely breaks or treatment prolongations. Schedules that violated the OTT guidelines were conferred with the responsible radiation oncologist, and treatment rescheduled by treating twice daily to catch up with a delay.

Results

The mean length of accelerated treatment courses was reduced from a maximum of 40.9 days in 2007 to 38.3 days in 2017 and from 50.3 days to 45.9 days for conventional courses. The percentage of individual treatment courses that violated the recommended OTT was reduced to 3% of the accelerated treatments and 13% for the conventional treatments.

Conclusion

Continuous surveillance of treatment schedules of HNC patients by a brief weekly survey reduced treatment course duration to an extent that was radiobiologically and clinically meaningful.

Long-term results of a phase II study of hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer: moderate versus extreme hypofractionation

Background

We performed a prospective phase II study to compare acute toxicity among five different hypofractionated schedules using proton therapy. This study was an exploratory analysis to investigate the secondary end-point of biochemical failure-free survival (BCFFS) of patients with long-term follow-up.

Methods

Eighty-two patients with T1-3bN0M0 prostate cancer who had not received androgen-deprivation therapy were randomized to one of five arms: Arm 1, 60 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE)/20 fractions/5 weeks; Arm 2, 54 CGE/15 fractions/5 weeks; Arm 3, 47 CGE/10 fractions/5 weeks; Arm 4, 35 CGE/5 fractions/2.5 weeks; and Arm 5, 35 CGE/5 fractions/4 weeks. In the current exploratory analysis, these ardms were categorized into the moderate hypofractionated (MHF) group (52 patients in Arms 1–3) and the extreme hypofractionated (EHF) group (30 patients in Arms 4–5).

Results

At a median follow-up of 7.5 years (range, 1.3–9.6 years), 7-year BCFFS was 76.2% for the MHF group and 46.2% for the EHF group (p = 0.005). The 7-year BCFFS of the MHF and EHF groups were 90.5 and 57.1% in the low-risk group (p = 0.154); 83.5 and 42.9% in the intermediate risk group (p = 0.018); and 41.7 and 40.0% in the high risk group (p = 0.786), respectively. Biochemical failure tended to be a late event with a median time to occurrence of 5 years. Acute GU toxicities were more common in the MHF than the EHF group (85 vs. 57%, p = 0.009), but late GI and GU toxicities did not differ between groups.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the efficacy of EHF is potentially inferior to that of MHF and that further studies are warranted, therefore, to confirm these findings.

Trial registration

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01709253; registered October 18, 2012; retrospectively registered).

The long-lasting relationship of distress on radiation oncology-specific clinical outcomes

Purpose

The diagnosis and treatment of cancer can have significant mental health ramifications. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network currently recommends using a distress screening tool to screen patients for distress and facilitate referrals to social service resources. Its association with radiation oncology–specific clinical outcomes has remained relatively unexplored.

Methods and materials

With institutional review board approval, National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress scores were collected for patients presenting to our institution for external beam radiation therapy during a 1-year period from 2015 to 2016. The association between distress scores (and associated problem list items and process-related outcomes) and radiation oncology–related outcomes, including inpatient admissions during treatment, missed treatment appointments, duration of time between consultation and treatment, and weight loss during treatment, was considered.

Results

A total of 61 patients who received either definitive (49 patients) or palliative (12 patients) treatment at our institution and completed a screening questionnaire were included in this analysis. There was a significant association between an elevated distress score (7+) and having an admission during treatment (36% vs 11%; P = .04). Among the patients treated with definitive intent, missing at least 1 appointment (71% vs 26%; P = .03) and having an admission during treatment (57% vs 10%; P = .009) were significantly associated with our institutional definition of elevated distress. We found no correlation between distress score and weight loss during treatment or a prolonged time between initial consult and treatment start.

Conclusions

High rates of distress are common for patients preparing to receive radiation therapy. These levels may affect treatment compliance and increase rates of hospital admissions. There remains equipoise in the best method to address distress in the oncology patient population. These results may raise awareness of the consequences of distress among radiation oncology patients. Specific interventions to improve distress need further study, but we suggest a more proactive approach by radiation oncologists in addressing distress.

Phase 1-2 Study of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Including Regional Lymph Node Irradiation in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer (SATURN): Early Toxicity and Quality of Life

PURPOSE

Five-fraction stereotactic ablative radiation therapy appears to be gaining popularity in treatment of prostate cancer, but it has not been extensively tested in the context of pelvic radiation. The objective of this prospective prostate and pelvic SABR study is to report the acute toxicity, late toxicity, and quality of life (QoL) after study completion.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A phase 1/2 study was conducted for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Radiation therapy was planned to deliver 25 Gy to pelvis and seminal vesicles (SV) and a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) of up to 40 Gy to the prostate in 5 fractions, weekly, over 29 days. Androgen deprivation therapy was used for 12 to 18 months. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 was used to assess worst acute and late toxicities. QoL data was captured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire (EPIC).

RESULTS

Thirty patients completed the planned treatment with a median follow-up of 25.7 months (range, 18.5-30.7 months). The following "worst" acute and late toxicities were observed: grade 2 genitourinary toxicity, 46.7% and 52%, respectively; grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity, 3.3% and 32%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher toxicities were noted. Mean (95% confidence interval) EPIC urinary QoL scores were 86.6 (81.9-91.3), 87.1 (81.4-92.6), and 87.9 (80.1-95.7) at baseline, 3 months and 24 months; bowel scores were 94.1 (91.3-97.0), 93.2 (89.1-97.2), and 92.4 (87.7- 97.1), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This gantry-based novel fractionation schedule incorporating pelvic radiation for high-risk prostate cancer in combination with androgen deprivation therapy is feasible and well tolerated.

Clinical estimation of α/β values for prostate cancer from isoeffective phase III randomized trials with moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

The α/β values for prostate cancer (PCa) are usually assumed to be low (1.0-1.8 Gy). This study estimated the α/β values of PCa from phase III randomized trials of conventional (CRT) versus hypofractionated (HRT) external beam radiotherapy (RT), reported as isoeffective in terms of their 5-year biochemical (BF) or biochemical and/or clinical failure (BCF) rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The α/β for each trial was estimated from the equivalent biological effective doses using the linear-quadratic model for each of their HRT and CRT schedules. The cumulative outcomes of these trials were evaluated by meta-analysis for odds ratio (OR), risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD).

RESULTS

Eight trials from seven studies, randomized 6993 patients between CRT (n = 2941) and HRT (n = 4052). RT treatment varied between the two treatment groups in terms of dose/fraction, total dose, overall treatment time and %patients on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Differences in OR, RR, and RD for both BF and BCF were nonsignificant. The computed α/β ranged from 1.3 to 11.1 Gy (4.9 ± 3.9 Gy; 95% CI: 1.6-8.2). On multivariate regression, %ADT was the sole determinant of computed α/β (model R²: 0.98, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically estimated α/β for PCa from isoeffective randomized trials using known variables in the linear-quadratic expression ranged between 1.3 and 11.1 Gy. The estimated α/β values were inversely related to %ADT usage, which should be considered when planning future RT dose-fractionation schedules.

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer

Prostate is the most common non-cutaneous cancer diagnosed among men in North America. Fortunately most prostate cancers are screen detected and non-metastatic on diagnosis. Treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer include surgery ± postoperative radiation or radiation ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Brachytherapy ± external beam radiation treatment (EBRT) appears to have superior long-term disease control over EBRT alone likely because of higher biologic effective dose delivered. Stereotactic ablative body radiation (SABR) is a novel, non-invasive, high-precision EBRT technique that allows safe delivery of biologic doses similar to brachytherapy with similar or lower side effects [measured using toxicity or quality of life (QOL) scales]. Efficacy for SABR appears to be similar to brachytherapy including positive biopsy rates 2-3 years post treatment, biochemical failure (BF) rates out to 10-year and incidence of metastases. SABR dose escalation reduces biopsy positivity and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadirs but increases genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity-no effect on BF has been realized yet. The overall treatment time (OTT) varies in many protocols. Phase 2 randomized data shows that QOL is better in the acute setting with a weekly course of treatment compared to an every other day treatment regimen with no difference in late setting. Follow-up data are immature and likely underpowered to determine efficacy differences. SABR is cheaper and uses less resource than any other radiation technique. Given the healthcare resource challenges (including financial resources), SABR would be a welcomed addition if studies show non-inferiority to other radiation techniques. For patients with de novo or metastatic disease on relapse, there is much enthusiasm regarding the use of SABR in the setting of oligometastatic prostate cancer. SABR appears to be feasible to deliver, well tolerated and may delay the next line of therapy. However, until adequately powered randomized studies confirm a benefit, such an approach cannot be considered standard of care treatment at this time. Enrollment of eligible prostate cancer patients onto SABR clinical trials should be encouraged.

The evolution of practical radiobiological modelling

A summary of the key aspects of radiobiological modelling is provided, based on the theoretical and practical concepts of the linear quadratic model, which gradually replaced other numerical approaches. The closely related biological effective dose concept is useful in many clinical applications. Biological effective dose formulations in conventional photon-based radiotherapy continue to be developed, and can be extended to the now increasingly used proton and ion-beam therapy, to very low or high dose ranges, the dose rate effect, hypoxia and repopulation. Such established and new research developments will be of interest to clinicians, physicists and biologists to better understand the processes underlying radiotherapy and assist their collaborative efforts to make radiotherapy safer and more effective.

Once-weekly versus every-other-day stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer (PATRIOT): A phase 2 randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) regimens differ in time, dose, and fractionation. We completed a multicentre, randomized phase II study to investigate the impact of overall treatment time on quality of life (QOL).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Men with low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to 40 Gy in 5 fractions delivered once per week (QW) vs. every other day (EOD). QOL was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. The primary endpoint was the proportion with a minimum clinically important change (MCIC) in bowel QOL during the acute (≤12 week) period, and analysis was by intention-to-treat. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01423474.

RESULTS

152 men from 3 centres were randomized with median follow-up of 47 months. Patients treated QW had superior acute bowel QOL with 47/69 (68%) reporting a MCIC compared to 63/70 (90%) treated EOD (p = 0.002). Fewer patients treated QW reported moderate-severe problems with bowel QOL during the acute period compared with EOD (14/70 [20%] vs. 40/70 [57%], p < 0.001). Acute urinary QOL was also better in the QW arm, with 52/67 (78%) vs 65/69 (94%) experiencing a MCIC (p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in late urinary or bowel QOL at 2 years or last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Prostate SBRT delivered QW improved acute bowel and urinary QOL compared to EOD. Patients should be counselled regarding the potential for reduced short-term toxicity and improved QOL with QW prostate SBRT.

Effects of interruptions of external beam radiation therapy on outcomes in patients with prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate if interruptions of external beam radiation therapy impact outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We included men with localized PCa treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of escalated dose (≥74 Gy in 1.8 or 2 Gy fractions) between 1992 and 2013 at an NCI-designated cancer centre. Men receiving androgen deprivation therapy were excluded. The non-treatment day ratio (NTDR) was defined as the number of non-treatment days divided by the total elapsed days of therapy. NTDR was analysed for each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group.

RESULTS

There were 1728 men included (839 low-risk, 776 intermediate-risk and 113 high-risk), with a median follow up of 53.5 months (range 12-185.8). The median NTDR was 31% (range 23-71%), translating to approximately 2 breaks (each break represents a missed treatment that will be made up) for 8 weeks of RT with 5 treatments per week. The 75 percentile of NTDR was 33%, translating to approximately 4 breaks, which was used as the cutoff for analysis. There were no significant differences in freedom from biochemical failure, freedom from distant metastasis, cancer specific survival, or overall survival for men with NTDR ≥33% compared to NTDR<33% for each risk group. Multivariable analyses including NTDR, age, race, Gleason score, T stage, and PSA were performed using the proportional hazards regression procedure. NTDR≥33% was not significantly associated with increased hazard ratio for outcomes in each risk group compared to NTDR<33%.

CONCLUSION

Unintentional treatment breaks during dose escalated external beam radiation therapy for PCa did not cause a significant difference in outcomes, although duration of follow up limits the strength of this conclusion.

[Hypofractionated irradiation of prostate cancer: What is the radiobiological understanding in 2017?]

For prostate cancer, hypofractionation has been based since 1999 on radiobiological data, which calculated a very low alpha/beta ratio (1.2 to 1.5Gy). This suggested that a better local control could be obtained, without any toxicity increase. Consequently, two types of hypofractionated schemes were proposed: "moderate" hypofractionation, with fractions of 2.5 to 4Gy, and "extreme" hypofractionation, utilizing stereotactic techniques, with fractions of 7 to 10Gy. For moderate hypofractionation, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been used to calculate the equivalent doses of the new protocols. The available trials have often shown a "non-inferiority", but no advantage, while the equivalent doses calculated for the hypofractionated arms were sometimes very superior to the doses of the conventional arms. This finding could suggest either an alpha/beta ratio lower than previously calculated, or a negative impact of other radiobiological parameters, which had not been taken into account. For "extreme" hypofractionation, the use of the LQ model is discussed for high dose fractions. Moreover, a number of radiobiological questions are still pending. The reduced overall irradiation time could be either a positive point (better local control) or a negative one (reduced reoxygenation). The prolonged duration of the fractions could lead to a decrease of efficacy (because allowing for reparation of sublethal lesions). Finally, the impact of the large fractions on the microenvironment and/or immunity remains discussed. The reported series appear to show encouraging short to mid-term results, but the results of randomized trials are still awaited. Today, it seems reasonable to only propose those extreme hypofractionated schemes to well-selected patients, treating small volumes with high-level stereotactic techniques.

Improved outcomes with dose escalation in localized prostate cancer treated with precision image-guided radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Dose-escalated radiotherapy (DE) improves outcomes in localized prostate cancer (PCa). The impact of DE in the context of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) remains unknown. Herein, we determined outcomes of three sequential cohorts treated with progressive DE-IGRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed data from 1998 to 2012. Patients treated with radical radiotherapy were included, with three sequential institutional schedules: (A) 75.6Gy, (B) 79.8Gy, (C) 78Gy, with 1.8, 1.9 and 2Gy/fraction, respectively. IGRT consisted of fiducial markers and daily EPID (A, B) or CBCT (C).

RESULTS

961 patients were included, with median follow-up of 6.1y. 30.5%, 32.6% and 36.9% were treated in A, B and C, respectively. Risk category distribution was 179 (18.6%) low-, 653 (67.9%) intermediate- and 129 (13.5%) high-risk. PSA, T-category, androgen deprivation use and risk distribution were similar among groups. BCR (biochemical recurrence) was different (p<0.001) between A, B and C with 5-year rates of 23%, 17% and 9%, respectively (HR 2.68 [95% CI 1.87-3.85] and 1.92 [95% CI 1.33-2.78] for A and B compared to C, respectively). Findings were most significant in the intermediate-risk category. Metastasis, cause-specific-death and toxicities were not different between cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest continuous BCR improvement with progressive DE-IGRT. Prospective validation considering further DE with IGRT seems warranted.

An appraisal of analytical tools used in predicting clinical outcomes following radiation therapy treatment of men with prostate cancer: a systematic review

Background

Prostate cancer can be treated with several different modalities, including radiation treatment. Various prognostic tools have been developed to aid decision making by providing estimates of the probability of different outcomes. Such tools have been demonstrated to have better prognostic accuracy than clinical judgment alone.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken to identify papers relating to the prediction of clinical outcomes (biochemical failure, metastasis, survival) in patients with prostate cancer who received radiation treatment, with the particular aim of identifying whether published tools are adequately developed, validated, and provide accurate predictions. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from July 2007. Title and abstract screening, full text review, and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers. A review protocol was published in advance of commencing literature searches.

Results

The search strategy resulted in 165 potential articles, of which 72 were selected for full text review and 47 ultimately included. These papers described 66 models which were newly developed and 31 which were external validations of already published predictive tools. The included studies represented a total of 60,457 patients, recruited between 1984 and 2009. Sixty five percent of models were not externally validated, 57% did not report accuracy and 31% included variables which are not readily accessible in existing datasets. Most models (72, 74%) related to external beam radiation therapy with the remainder relating to brachytherapy (alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy).

Conclusions

A large number of prognostic models (97) have been described in the recent literature, representing a rapid increase since previous reviews (17 papers, 1966–2007). Most models described were not validated and a third utilised variables which are not readily accessible in existing data collections. Where validation had occurred, it was often limited to data taken from single institutes in the US. While validated and accurate models are available to predict prostate cancer specific mortality following external beam radiation therapy, there is a scarcity of such tools relating to brachytherapy. This review provides an accessible catalogue of predictive tools for current use and which should be prioritised for future validation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-017-0786-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Better compliance with hypofractionation vs. conventional fractionation in adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy : Results of a single, institutional, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to identify factors significantly associated with the occurrence of unintended treatment interruptions in adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated with postoperative radiotherapy of the breast or chest wall between March 2014 and August 2016 were evaluated. The radiotherapy regimens and techniques applied were either conventional fractionation (CF; 28 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy or 25 fractions of 2.0 Gy) or hypofractionation (HF; 15 daily fractions of 2.67 Gy) with inverse planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or three-dimensional planned conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with noncompliance. Noncompliance was defined as the missing of at least one scheduled radiotherapy fraction.

RESULTS

In all, 19 of 140 (13.6%) patients treated with HF and 39 of 146 (26.7%) treated with CF experienced treatment interruptions. Of 23 factors tested, the fractionation regimen emerged as the only independent significant prognostic factor for noncompliance on multivariate analysis (CF; p = 0.007; odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-4.2). No statistically significant differences concerning the reasons for treatment interruptions could be detected between patients treated with CF or HF.

CONCLUSION

HF is significantly associated with a better patient compliance with the prescribed radiotherapy schedule compared with CF. The data suggest that this finding is basically related to the shorter overall treatment time of HF.

Decision support systems for personalized and participative radiation oncology

A paradigm shift from current population based medicine to personalized and participative medicine is underway. This transition is being supported by the development of clinical decision support systems based on prediction models of treatment outcome. In radiation oncology, these models 'learn' using advanced and innovative information technologies (ideally in a distributed fashion - please watch the animation: http://youtu.be/ZDJFOxpwqEA) from all available/appropriate medical data (clinical, treatment, imaging, biological/genetic, etc.) to achieve the highest possible accuracy with respect to prediction of tumor response and normal tissue toxicity. In this position paper, we deliver an overview of the factors that are associated with outcome in radiation oncology and discuss the methodology behind the development of accurate prediction models, which is a multi-faceted process. Subsequent to initial development/validation and clinical introduction, decision support systems should be constantly re-evaluated (through quality assurance procedures) in different patient datasets in order to refine and re-optimize the models, ensuring the continuous utility of the models. In the reasonably near future, decision support systems will be fully integrated within the clinic, with data and knowledge being shared in a standardized, dynamic, and potentially global manner enabling truly personalized and participative medicine.

Rectal Toxicity After Extremely Hypofractionated Radiotherapy Using a Non-Isocentric Robotic Radiosurgery System for Early Stage Prostate Cancer

Background

The aim of the study was to evaluate toxicity after extremely hypofractionated radiotherapy (EHF-RT) using a non-isocentric robotic radiosurgery system for early stage prostate cancer.

Methods

Eligibility criteria of this feasibility study were 50 - 84 years old, and low-risk to intermediate-risk disease. The prescribed dose to the iso-dose line of 95% of planning target volume was 35 Gy in five fractions over 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of ≥ grade 2 acute toxicity which indicated symptoms requiring medications.

Results

We enrolled 20 patients from December 2012 to August 2014, and the median follow-up time was 30 months (range: 18 - 36). Sixteen patients had a short overall treatment time (OTT) of EHF-RT (9 - 10 days), and four patients had a long OTT (11 - 12 days) because of national holidays and patient’s preference. The incidences of ≥ grade 2 acute toxicity in all sites, that in the rectum, and that in the genitourinary system, were 30%, 20%, and 10%, respectively. No patient developed severe acute toxicity (≥ grade 3). Among 16 patients with a short OTT of EHF-RT, four patients developed grade 2 acute rectal toxicity. Rectum-V_{28 Gy} (rectal volume receiving ≥ 28 Gy) of 3.8 mL or higher had a tendency to increase grade 2 acute rectal toxicity (P = 0.058). One patient developed grade 3 late rectal toxicity and no patient developed severe late genitourinary toxicity.

Conclusion

The incidences of ≥ grade 2 acute toxicity in all sites and that in the rectum after EHF-RT of 35 Gy in five fractions were 30% and 20%, respectively. High rectum-V_{28 Gy} was associated with grade 2 acute rectal toxicity after EHF-RT for early prostate cancer.

Management of interruptions to fractionated radiotherapy treatments: Four and a half years of experience

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The study objective was to report our four-and-a half years experience (March 1 2011-August 15 2015) of a program to manage interruptions in fractionated radiotherapy treatments.

METHODS

A program was developed, based on a specific database, to manage treatment interruptions. Benefits of the program were analyzed in reference to previously published data. Analysis was also performed of two measures to reduce OTT prolongation and improve treatment outcomes: working on public holidays and conducting treatment unit maintenance on Saturdays.

RESULTS

The study included 2352 patients. Patients with head and neck cancer obtained the greatest benefit from the program, with a mean increase in TCP of 3.5% and a benefit of at least 4% in 45.6% of them. In prostate cancer patients, the likelihood of biochemical failure was reduced by a mean of 2.0% and was reduced by at least 4% in 19.7% of them. Application of the two proposed measures would have improved the TCP by a mean of 5.4% in head and neck cancer patients. The impact of the compensations program and proposed measures is lesser in the remaining cancer types studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a compensation program has a significant impact on patients with head and neck or prostate cancer but OTT prolongation remains excessive in many treatments. The introduction of fractions on public holidays would assist in the meeting of recommendations for these patients.

A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6–15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5–7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3–4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

Impact of waiting time after surgery and overall time of postoperative radiochemotherapy on treatment outcome in glioblastoma multiforme

Background

A time factor of radiooncological treatment has been demonstrated for several tumours, most prominently for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and lung cancer. In glioblastoma multiforme studies of the impact of postoperative waiting times before initiation of radio- or radiochemotherapy were inconclusive. Moreover analysis of the impact of overall treatment time of radiochemotherapy as well as overall duration of local treatment from surgery to the end of radiochemotherapy is lacking to date.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we included 369 consecutive patients treated at our institution between 2001 and 2014. Inclusion criteria were histologically proven glioblastoma multiforme, age ≥ 18 years, ECOG performance status 0–2 before radiotherapy, radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy with 33 × 1.8 Gy to 59.4 Gy or with 30 × 2.0 Gy to 60 Gy. The impact of postoperative waiting time, radiation treatment time and overall duration of local treatment from surgery to the end of radiotherapy on overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival were evaluated under consideration of known prognostic factors by univariate Log-rank tests and multivariate Cox-regression analysis.

Results

The majority of patients had received simultaneous and further adjuvant chemotherapy, mainly with temozolomide. Median survival time and 2-year OS were 18.0 months and 38.9 % after radiochemotherapy compared to 12.7 months and 12.6 % after radiotherapy alone. Median progression-free survival time was 7.5 months and PFS at 2 years was 14.3 % compared to 6.0 months and 3.3 %, respectively. Significant prognostic factors in multivariate analysis were age, resection status and application of simultaneous chemotherapy. No effect of the interval between surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy (median 27, range 11–112 days), radiation treatment time (median 45, range 40–71 days) and of overall time from surgery until the end of radiotherapy (median 54, range 71–154 days) on overall and progression-free survival was evident.

Conclusion

Our data do not indicate a relevant time factor in the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme in a large contemporary single-centre cohort. Although this study was limited by its retrospective nature, its results indicate that short delays of postoperative radiochemotherapy, e.g. for screening of a patient for a clinical trial, may be uncritical.

Effect of Patient Demographic Characteristics and Radiation Timing on PSA Reduction in Patients Treated With Definitive Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to assess how demographic characteristics and temporal factors including time to treatment (TTT) and elapsed time of treatment (ETT) affect prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels during and after radiation treatment for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 1584 patients was conducted on patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2005 and 2013, from which 147 patients were found to have completed definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) monotherapy. Demographic data, TTT (days between diagnosis and EBRT start date), ETT (days between EBRT start and stop date), and Gleason score were collected on these patients and analysis of variance was performed to analyze the relationship of these factors with PSA changes. PSA changes were calculated during treatment as the difference between pre- and posttreatment PSA levels and after treatment as 3-year and overall PSA velocities.

RESULTS

Patients who spoke Haitian Creole (P = .039) and those with a longer ETT (P = .029) had significantly greater PSA decline during treatment, primarily as a result of higher pretreatment PSA levels. Patients with Gleason score 4+3 disease had significantly greater 3-year (P = .033) and overall (P = .019) PSA velocities. Race and/or ethnicity, insurance type, marital status, and age were not associated with any PSA variable.

CONCLUSION

Disparities in prostate cancer are not reflected in PSA dynamics during or after radiation treatment, but are evident in PSA level at presentation. Timeliness of treatment was not found to affect true PSA change due to EBRT in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

Emerging applications of stereotactic body radiotherapy

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been used extensively in patients with lung, liver and spinal tumors, and the treatment outcomes are very favorable. For certain conditions such as medically inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer, liver and lung oligometastases, primary liver cancer and spinal metastases, SBRT is regarded as one of the standard therapies. In the recent years, the use of SBRT has been extended to other disease conditions and sites such as recurrent head and neck cancer, renal cell carcinoma, prostate cancer, adrenal metastasis, pancreatic cancer, gynecological malignancies, spinal cord compression, breast cancer, and stage II-III non-small-cell lung cancer. Preliminary data in the literature show promising results but the follow-up intervals are short for most studies. This paper will provide an overview of these emerging applications.