1
|
Carpenter DJ, Salama JK, Lee WR, Boyer MJ. Radiation technique and outcomes following moderately hypofractionated treatment of low risk prostate cancer: a secondary analysis of RTOG 0415. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024; 27:95-102. [PMID: 36849728 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00653-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2022] [Revised: 06/29/2022] [Accepted: 01/31/2023] [Indexed: 03/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND While moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) for prostate cancer (PC) is commonly delivered by intensity modulated radiation therapy, IMRT has not been prospectively compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in this context. We conducted a secondary analysis of the phase III RTOG 0415 trial comparing survival and toxicity outcomes for low-risk PC following MHRT with IMRT versus 3D-CRT. METHODS RTOG 0415 was a phase III, non-inferiority trial randomizing low-risk PC patients to either MHRT or conventionally fractionated radiation with stratification by RT technique. A secondary analysis for differences in overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence free survival (BRFS), or toxicity by EPIC scores and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was performed. RESULTS 1079 patients received the allocated intervention with a median follow up of 5.8 years. 79.1% of patients were treated with IMRT and radiation technique was balanced between arms. Across all patients, RT technique was not associated with significant differences in BRFS, OS, or rates of acute and late toxicities. For patients completing MHRT, there was a difference in the late GU toxicity distribution between 3D-CRT and IMRT but no difference in late grade 2 or greater GU or GI toxicity. Stratifying patients by RT technique and fractionation, no significant differences were observed in the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in EPIC urinary and bowel scores following RT. CONCLUSIONS RT technique did not impact clinical outcomes following MHRT for low-risk PC. Despite different late GU toxicity distributions in patients treated with MHRT by IMRT or 3D-CRT, there was no difference in late Grade 2 or greater GU or GI toxicity or patient reported toxicity. Increases in late GU and GI toxicity following MHRT compared to CFRT, as demonstrated in the initial publication of RTOG 0415, do not appear related to a 3D-CRT treatment technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David J Carpenter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Joseph K Salama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Radiation Oncology Clinical Service, Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Matthew J Boyer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
- Radiation Oncology Clinical Service, Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Fecteau RE, Koontz BF, Hoffman KE, Halabi S, Howard LE, Anand M, George DJ, Zhang T, Berry WR, Lee WR, Harrison MR, Corn PG, Armstrong AJ. Updated 5-year results for short course abiraterone acetate and LHRH agonist for unfavorable intermediate and favorable high-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024:10.1038/s41391-024-00811-5. [PMID: 38388778 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00811-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2024] [Revised: 02/06/2024] [Accepted: 02/13/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024]
Abstract
Combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) improves outcomes for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Treatment intensification with abiraterone acetate/prednisone (AAP) provides additional benefit for high-risk disease. We previously reported 3-year outcomes of a single-arm prospective multicenter trial (AbiRT trial) of 33 patients with unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) and favorable high risk (FHR) prostate cancer undergoing short course, combination therapy with ADT, AAP, and RT. Here we report the final analysis demonstrating a high rate of testosterone recovery (97%) and excellent biochemical progression-free survival (97%) at 5 years. These data support comparative prospective studies of shorter, more potent ADT courses in favorable high-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan E Fecteau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Bridget F Koontz
- East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Genitourinary Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Susan Halabi
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Lauren E Howard
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Monika Anand
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Daniel J George
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Tian Zhang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - William R Berry
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Michael R Harrison
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Paul G Corn
- Department of Genitourinary Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Andrew J Armstrong
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lee WR, Dignam JJ, Amin M, Bruner DW, Low D, Swanson GP, Shah AB, D'Souza DP, Michalski JM, Dayes I, Seaward SA, Hall WA, Nguyen PL, Pisansky TM, Faria SL, Chen Y, Rodgers J, Sandler HM. Long-Term Follow-Up Analysis of NRG Oncology RTOG 0415: A Randomized Phase III Non-Inferiority Study Comparing Two Fractionation Schedules in Patients with Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:S3-S4. [PMID: 37784471 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.209] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) To assess whether the efficacy of a hypofractionated (H) schedule is no worse than a conventional (C) schedule in men with low-risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS/METHODS Accrual began April 2006 and ended in December 2009. 1115 men with favorable-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to a conventional (C) schedule (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to a hypofractionated (H) schedule (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). The trial was designed to establish with 90% power and alpha = 0.05 that (H) results in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) that is not lower than (C) by more than 7% (hazard ratio (HR) < 1.52). Protocol specified secondary endpoints evaluated for noninferiority include: biochemical recurrence (BR), local progression, disease-specific survival, and overall survival. RESULTS One thousand ninety-two protocol eligible men were analyzed: 542 to C and 550 to H. Median follow-up is 12.75 years. Baseline characteristics were not different according to treatment arm. The estimated 12-year DFS is 56.1% (95% CI 51.5, 60.5) in the C arm and 61.8% (57.2, 66.0) in the H arm. The DFS hazard ratio (H/C) is 0.85 (0.71-1.03), confirming non-inferiority (p<0.001). Twelve-year cumulative incidence of biochemical recurrence (BR) was 17.0% (CI 13.8, 20.5) in the C-RT and 9.9% (CI 7.5, 12.6) in the H-RT arm; (HR = 0.56, (0.40-0.78) suggesting improved efficacy with H. Additional pre-specified secondary endpoints were non-inferior Late Grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity is 3.2% (C) vs. 4.4% (H), Relative risk (RR) for H vs. C 1.39 (CI 0.75, 2.55) Late Grade ≥ 3 GU toxicity is 3.4% (C) vs. 4.2% (H), RR = 1.26 (CI 0.69, 2.30). CONCLUSION In men with favorable-risk prostate cancer, long-term disease-free survival is non-inferior with 70 Gy in 28 fractions compared to 73.8 Gy in 41 fractions. The risk of BR is reduced with moderate hypofractionation. No differences in late Grade ≥3 GI/GU toxicity were observed between the arms. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W R Lee
- Duke University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham, NC
| | - J J Dignam
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - M Amin
- University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN
| | | | - D Low
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | | | - A B Shah
- York Cancer Center, York, PA, United States
| | - D P D'Souza
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - J M Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - I Dayes
- Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - W A Hall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
| | - P L Nguyen
- Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - T M Pisansky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - S L Faria
- McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Y Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
| | - J Rodgers
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - H M Sandler
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Acklin-Wehnert S, Carpenter D, Natesan D, Floyd RW, Waters L, Song H, Lee WR, Salama J, Boyer M. Toxicity and Outcomes of Moderately Hypofractionated Radiation for Prostate Cancer With Seminal Vesicle Involvement. Adv Radiat Oncol 2023; 8:101252. [PMID: 37408675 PMCID: PMC10318209 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2023] [Accepted: 04/11/2023] [Indexed: 07/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the toxicity and outcomes following treatment of prostate cancer with seminal vesicle involvement (SVI) evident on magnetic resonance imaging or clinical examination with moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (MHRT). Methods and Materials Forty-one patients treated with MHRT to the prostate and 1 or both seminal vesicles from 2013 to 2021 at a single institution were identified and propensity score matched to 82 patients treated during the same period with prescription dose given to the prostate alone. Dosimetry of the planning target volume, bladder, and rectum were compared. Urinary and bowel toxicity were scored by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Clinical outcomes including freedom from biochemical recurrence, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were assessed. Results Of the 41 patients identified with SVI, 26.8% had SVI by clinical examination and 95.1% had high-risk prostate cancer. Compared with the cohort without SVI, treatment plans to include SVI had a larger planning target volume (152.2 vs 109.9 cc; P < .001), maximum point dose (107.9% vs 105.8%; P < .001), and volume receiving 100% of the prescription dose (143.1 vs 95.9 cc; P < .001). No difference in bladder dosimetric variables between cohorts was observed, but there was an increase in the rectal maximum point dose (103.9% vs 102.8%; P = .030) and rectal volume receiving 100% of the prescription dose (1.8 vs 1.2 cc; P = .016). Despite these differences, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade 2+ urinary (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.39-1.35; P = .31) or bowel (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.04-3.03; P = .34) toxicity. Freedom from biochemical recurrence (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.16-1.38; P = .17), prostate cancer-specific survival (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.04-2.49; P = .31), and overall survival (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.10-1.16; P = .09) also did not differ with or without SVI, respectively. Conclusions Treatment of SVI to prescription dose with MHRT for localized prostate cancer does not increase bowel or urinary toxicity. Similar clinical outcomes were also observed with or without SVI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Scarlett Acklin-Wehnert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - David Carpenter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Divya Natesan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - R. Warren Floyd
- Department of Internal Medicine, Wellstar Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Georgia
| | - Laura Waters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Haijun Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - W. Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Joseph Salama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Matthew Boyer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bates JE, Amdur RJ, Lee WR. The Radiation Oncology Match in 2023: Suggestion of a Nadir. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:289-290. [PMID: 37391236 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.03.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2023] [Revised: 03/28/2023] [Accepted: 03/28/2023] [Indexed: 07/02/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- James E Bates
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
| | - Robert J Amdur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bai J, Pugh SL, Eldridge R, Yeager KA, Zhang Q, Lee WR, Shah AB, Dayes IS, D'Souza DP, Michalski JM, Efstathiou JA, Longo JM, Pisansky TM, Maier JM, Faria SL, Desai AB, Seaward SA, Sandler HM, Cooley ME, Bruner DW. Neighborhood Deprivation and Rurality Associated With Patient-Reported Outcomes and Survival in Men With Prostate Cancer in NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 116:39-49. [PMID: 36736921 PMCID: PMC10106367 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.01.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Revised: 01/18/2023] [Accepted: 01/20/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Rurality and neighborhood deprivation can contribute to poor patient-reported outcomes, which have not been systematically evaluated in patients with specific cancers in national trials. Our objective was to examine the effect of rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic and environmental deprivation on patient-reported outcomes and survival in men with prostate cancer in NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. METHODS AND MATERIALS Data from men with prostate cancer in trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 were analyzed; 1,092 men were randomized to receive conventional radiation therapy or hypofractionated radiation therapy. Rurality was categorized as urban or rural. Neighborhood deprivation was assessed using the area deprivation index and air pollution indicators (nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers) via patient ZIP codes. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured cancer-specific quality of life. The Hopkins symptom checklist measured anxiety and depression. EuroQoL-5 Dimension assessed general health. RESULTS We analyzed 751 patients in trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. At baseline, patients from the most deprived neighborhoods had worse bowel (P = .011), worse sexual (P = .042), and worse hormonal (P = .015) scores; patients from the most deprived areas had worse self-care (P = .04) and more pain (P = .047); and patients from rural areas had worse urinary (P = .03) and sexual (P = .003) scores versus patients from urban areas. Longitudinal analyses showed that the 25% most deprived areas (P = .004) and rural areas (P = .002) were associated with worse EuroQoL-5 Dimension visual analog scale score. Patients from urban areas (hazard ratio, 1.81; P = .033) and the 75% less-deprived neighborhoods (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .053) showed relative decrease in risk of recurrence or death (disease-free survival). CONCLUSIONS Patients with prostate cancer from the most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas had low quality of life at baseline, poor general health longitudinally, and worse disease-free survival. Interventions should screen populations from deprived neighborhoods and rural areas to improve patient access to supportive care services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinbing Bai
- Emory University Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Atlanta, Georgia.
| | - Stephanie L Pugh
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Ronald Eldridge
- Emory University Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Katherine A Yeager
- Emory University Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Qi Zhang
- Department of Geography, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Amit B Shah
- WellSpan York Cancer Center, York, Pennsylvania
| | - Ian S Dayes
- McMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Science, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - David P D'Souza
- School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario Schulich, London, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | - John M Longo
- Zablocki VAMC and the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | | | - Jordan M Maier
- Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Sergio L Faria
- Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Mary E Cooley
- Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Deborah W Bruner
- Emory University Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Fecteau R, Lee WR. The importance of body composition in patients with prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy. Cancer 2023; 129:668-670. [PMID: 36579471 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34594] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan Fecteau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wang EC, Lee WR, Armstrong AJ. Second generation anti-androgens and androgen deprivation therapy with radiation therapy in the definitive management of high-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2023; 26:30-40. [PMID: 36203051 PMCID: PMC10033329 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00598-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2022] [Revised: 09/15/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evolving data suggest that men with high-risk localized prostate cancer may benefit from more potent androgen receptor inhibition in the context of curative intent radiotherapy. Recently updated American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) evidence-based guidelines and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines have updated recommendations for the consideration of adding second generation anti-androgens to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men receiving radiation therapy (RT) for noncastrate locally advanced high and very high risk nonmetastatic or node positive prostate cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS We conducted a comprehensive review of existing published and abstract presented evidence behind RT with ADT for the definitive management of high-risk prostate cancer, particularly focused on the current phase II and III trial evidence for the addition of second generation anti-androgens to ADT in definitive RT treatment of high-risk prostate cancer and specifically focused on the recent STAMPEDE trial results with abiraterone acetate. We review the biological mechanisms in which second generation anti-androgens may help mitigate ADT resistance and provide radiosensitization through inhibition of DNA repair. Finally, we discuss ongoing clinical trials of potent androgen receptor (AR) inhibitors with ADT in this non-metastatic high-risk radiotherapy setting that may inform on future treatment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS Recent data suggest an overall survival benefit as well as increased probabilities of disease free and metastasis free survival in men with high and very high-risk localized, node positive, and oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer with abiraterone acetate and prednisone and support the use of potent AR inhibitors in this setting after informed decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edina C Wang
- Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Andrew J Armstrong
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Hall WA, Karrison TG, Rosenthal SA, Amin MB, Gomella LG, Purdy JA, Sartor AO, Michalski JM, Garzotto MG, Bergom C, Jani AB, Lawton CAF, Simko JP, Moore JK, Gore EM, Lee WR, Nguyen PL, Danielson BL, Sandler HM, Feng FY. The Influence of the Pretreatment Immune State on Response to Radiation Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Validation Study From NRG/RTOG 0521. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:266-274. [PMID: 35675855 PMCID: PMC9444930 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.05.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2021] [Revised: 05/25/2022] [Accepted: 05/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The immunoinflammatory state has been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after radiation therapy (RT). We conducted an a priori designed validation study using serum specimens from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0521. It was hypothesized the pretreatment inflammatory state would correlate with clinical outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients on RTOG 0521 had serum banked for biomarker validation. This study was designed to validate previous findings showing an association between elevations in C-reactive protein (CRP) and shorter biochemical disease free survival (bDFS). CRP levels were measured in pretreatment samples. An exploratory panel of related cytokines was also measured including: monocyte chemotactic protein-1, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interferon-γ, interleukin (IL)-1b, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, IL-13, IL-17A, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor. The primary endpoint examined was bDFS. Additional exploratory endpoints included overall survival, distant metastases, and toxicity events attributed to RT. RESULTS Two hundred and two patients in RTOG/NRG 0521 had serum samples available. Median age was 66 years (48-83), and 90% of patients were White. There was not an association between CRP and bDFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.07 per 1 log increase in CRP; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.38; P = .60). In the exploratory, unplanned analysis, pretreatment IL-10 was significantly associated with worse bDFS (adjusted HR, 1.61 per log increase; P = .0027) and distant metastases (HR, 1.55 per log increase; P = .028). The association of IL-10 with bDFS was maintained on a multiplicity adjustment. The exploratory analyses of pretreatment levels of interferon-γ, IL-1b, IL-2, IL-13, IL-23 were negatively associated with grade 2 or higher pollakiuria (adjusted odds ratio, 0.64, 0.65, 0.71, 0.72, and 0.74, respectively, all P < .05), and IL-6 was negatively associated with grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.62; P = .027). CONCLUSIONS Pretreatment CRP was not associated with a poorer bDFS after RT. In a hypothesis- generating analysis, higher baseline levels of IL-10 were associated with lower rates of bDFS. These findings require additional prospective evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William A Hall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
| | | | - Seth A Rosenthal
- Radiation Oncology Center, Sutter Cancer Centers Radiation Oncology Services
| | - Mahul B Amin
- Department of Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center
| | | | | | - A Oliver Sartor
- Medicine and Urology Departments, Tulane University Health Sciences Center
| | - Jeff M Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | - Carmen Bergom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine
| | - Ashesh B Jani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University Hospital/Winship Cancer Institute
| | - Colleen A F Lawton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | - Jeffry P Simko
- Department of Pathology, UC San Francisco Medical Center
| | | | - Elizabeth M Gore
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Department of Radiation Oncology, Zablocki Veterans Administration Medical Center
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | | | | | - Felix Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UC San Francisco Medical Center
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Carpenter DJ, Natesan D, Floyd RW, Oyekunle T, Niedzwiecki D, Waters L, Godfrey D, Moravan MJ, Bitting RL, Gingrich JR, Lee WR, Salama JK. Impact of Race on Outcomes of High-Risk Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in an Equal Access Setting. Fed Pract 2022; 39:S35-S41. [PMID: 36426110 PMCID: PMC9662313 DOI: 10.12788/fp.0305] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer; however, limited MHRT data address high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) and/or African American patients. We report clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles for individuals with HRPC treated in an equal access system. METHODS We identified patients with HRPC treated with MHRT at a US Department of Veterans Affairs referral center. Exclusion criteria included < 12 months follow-up and elective nodal irradiation. MHRT included 70 Gy over 28 fractions or 60 Gy over 20 fractions. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Clinical endpoints, including biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes, acute toxicity, and late toxicity-free survival were compared between African American and White patients with logistic regression and log-rank testing. RESULTS Between November 2008 and August 2018, 143 patients with HRPC were treated with MHRT and followed for a median of 38.5 months; 82 (57%) were African American and 61 were White patients. Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was provided for 138 (97%) patients for a median duration of 24 months. No significant differences between African American and White patients were observed for 5-year OS (73% [95% CI, 58%-83%] vs 77% [95% CI, 60%-97%]; P = .55), PCSS (90% [95% CI, 79%-95%] vs 87% [95 % CI, 70%-95%]; P = .57), DMFS (91% [95% CI, 80%-96%] vs 81% [95% CI, 62%-91%]; P = .55), or BRFS (83% [95% CI, 70%-91%] vs 71% [95% CI, 53%-82%]; P = .57), respectively. Rates of acute grade 3+ GU and GI were low overall (4% and 1%, respectively). Late toxicities were similarly favorable with no significant differences by race. CONCLUSIONS Individuals with HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access setting demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes that did not differ by race, alongside acceptable rates of acute and late toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Divya Natesan
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - R Warren Floyd
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Taofik Oyekunle
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
| | | | - Laura Waters
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
| | - Devon Godfrey
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
| | | | - Rhonda L Bitting
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
- Duke Cancer Institute, Center for Prostate & Urologic Cancers, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Jeffrey R Gingrich
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
- Duke Cancer Institute, Center for Prostate & Urologic Cancers, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - W Robert Lee
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Joseph K Salama
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Khairnar R, DeMora L, Sandler HM, Lee WR, Villalonga-Olives E, Mullins CD, Palumbo FB, Bruner DW, Shaya FT, Bentzen SM, Shah AB, Malone S, Michalski JM, Dayes IS, Seaward SA, Albert M, Currey AD, Pisansky TM, Chen Y, Horwitz EM, DeNittis AS, Feng F, Mishra MV. Methodological Comparison of Mapping the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite to EuroQoL-5D-3L Using Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data: Secondary Analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2022; 6:e2100188. [PMID: 35776901 DOI: 10.1200/cci.21.00188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data. METHODS This methodological assessment used data from a randomized controlled noninferiority trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer, conducted by NRG Oncology (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773), which examined the efficacy of conventional schedule versus hypofractionated radiation therapy (three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy/IMRT). Health-related quality-of-life data were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ-5D) at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postintervention. Mapping algorithms were estimated using ordinary least squares regression models through five-fold cross-validation in baseline cross-sectional data and combined longitudinal data from all assessment periods; random effects specifications were also estimated in longitudinal data. Predictive performance was compared using root mean square error. Longitudinal predictive ability of models obtained using baseline data was examined using mean absolute differences in the reported and predicted utilities. RESULTS A total of 267 (and 199) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ-5D and EPIC domain (and subdomain) data at baseline and at all subsequent assessments. Ordinary least squares models using combined data showed better predictive ability (lowest root mean square error) in the validation phase for algorithms with EPIC domain/subdomain data alone, whereas models using baseline data outperformed other specifications in the validation phase when patient covariates were also modeled. The mean absolute differences were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared with EPIC domain data and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased. CONCLUSION Overall, mapping algorithms obtained using baseline cross-sectional data showed the best predictive performance. Furthermore, these models demonstrated satisfactory longitudinal predictive ability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rahul Khairnar
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD
| | - Lyudmila DeMora
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Howard M Sandler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC
| | - Ester Villalonga-Olives
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD
| | - Francis B Palumbo
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD
| | | | - Fadia T Shaya
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD
| | - Soren M Bentzen
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Amit B Shah
- WellSpan Health-York Cancer Center, York, PA
| | - Shawn Malone
- Ottawa Hospital and Cancer Center, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeff M Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St Louis, MO
| | - Ian S Dayes
- Juravinski Cancer Center at Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | - Adam D Currey
- Zablocki VAMC and the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
| | - Thomas M Pisansky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
| | - Yuhchyau Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
| | - Eric M Horwitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | - Felix Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Mark V Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Carpenter DJ, Salama JK, Lee WR, Boyer MJ. Radiation technique and outcomes following moderately hypofractionated treatment of low risk prostate cancer: A secondary analysis of the NRG oncology RTOG 0415 randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2022.40.6_suppl.243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
243 Background: While intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is commonly used to deliver moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) for prostate cancer (PC), IMRT has not been prospectively compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in the context of MHRT. This secondary analysis of the phase III RTOG 0415 trial compares survival outcomes and toxicity across RT technique between IMRT and 3D-CRT for low-risk PC. Methods: The phase III, non-inferiority trial RTOG 0415 randomized patients with low risk PC to either MHRT (70Gy at 2.5Gy/fraction) or conventionally fractionated radiation (CFRT; 73.8Gy at 1.8Gy/fraction) with stratification by RT technique. A secondary analysis for differences in overall (OS), biochemical recurrence free survival (BRFS), or toxicity by EPIC scores and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was performed. For patient and tumor characteristics, continuous data were compared with Wilcoxon rank sum test and categorical data with Chi-squared test, as appropriate. Rates of BRFS and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 1079 patients received the allocated intervention with a median follow up of 5.8 years. RT technique was balanced between treatment arms, with 79.1% of patients receiving IMRT. RT protocol compliance was > 95% for both IMRT and 3D-CRT. There were no significant differences in BRFS between patients treated with 3D-CRT versus IMRT for all patients (p = 0.33), those randomized to CFRT (p = 0.78), or those randomized to MHRT (p = 0.24). Overall survival did not differ by RT technique as well. For all patients, there was no difference in acute and late GI and GU toxicity rates across RT technique. For patients treated with MHRT, late grade 2 GU toxicity was more common with IMRT than 3D-CRT (31.3% vs 23.4%; p = 0.004). On logistic regression analysis, only poor baseline urinary function, defined as an EPIC score of 90 or below, correlated with acute (p < 0.001) or late (p < 0.001) GU toxicity. Baseline bowel function did not correlate to GI toxicity. Conclusions: RT technique did not impact survival outcomes or toxicity rates following MHRT for low risk PC. Higher rates of late CTCAE grade 2+ GU and GI toxicity observed within the RTOG 0415 MHRT arm were not disproportionally observed following 3D-CRT than IMRT. These data highlight the need for careful consideration of target delineation and normal tissue constraints in the selection and delivery of appropriate RT technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Matthew J Boyer
- Durham VA Health Care System, Radiation Oncology Service, Durham, NC
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Ma TM, Romero T, Nickols NG, Rettig MB, Garraway IP, Roach M, Michalski JM, Pisansky TM, Lee WR, Jones CU, Rosenthal SA, Wang C, Hartman H, Nguyen PL, Feng FY, Boutros PC, Saigal C, Chamie K, Jackson WC, Morgan TM, Mehra R, Salami SS, Vince R, Schaeffer EM, Mahal BA, Dess RT, Steinberg ML, Elashoff D, Sandler HM, Spratt DE, Kishan AU. Comparison of Response to Definitive Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer in Black and White Men: A Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2139769. [PMID: 34964855 PMCID: PMC8717118 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.39769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Black men have a 2-fold increased risk of dying from prostate cancer compared with White men. However, race-specific differences in response to initial treatment remain unknown. OBJECTIVE To compare overall and treatment-specific outcomes of Black and White men with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy (RT). DATA SOURCES A systematic search was performed of relevant published randomized clinical trials conducted by the NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2010. This meta-analysis was performed from July 1, 2019, to July 1, 2021. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials of definitive RT for patients with localized prostate cancer comprising a substantial number of Black men (self-identified race) enrolled that reported on treatment-specific and overall outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Individual patient data were obtained from 7 NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group randomized clinical trials evaluating definitive RT with or without short- or long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Unadjusted Fine-Gray competing risk models, with death as a competing risk, were developed to evaluate the cumulative incidences of end points. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate differences in all-cause mortality and the composite outcome of distant metastasis (DM) or death. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) of biochemical recurrence (BCR), DM, and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). RESULTS A total of 8814 patients (1630 [18.5%] Black and 7184 [81.5%] White) were included; mean (SD) age was 69.1 (6.8) years. Median follow-up was 10.6 (IQR, 8.0-17.8) years for surviving patients. At enrollment, Black men were more likely to have high-risk disease features. However, even without adjustment, Black men were less likely to experience BCR (sHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91), DM (sHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91), or PCSM (sHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97). No significant differences in all-cause mortality were identified (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92-1.07). Upon adjustment, Black race remained significantly associated with improved BCR (adjusted sHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88; P < .001), DM (adjusted sHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.87; P = .002), and PCSM (adjusted sHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.93; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that Black men enrolled in randomized clinical trials present with more aggressive disease but have better BCR, DM, and PCSM with definitive RT compared with White men, suggesting that other determinants of outcome, such as access to care, are important factors of achieving racial equity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ting Martin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
| | | | - Nicholas G. Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
| | - Matthew B. Rettig
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
| | - Isla P. Garraway
- Department of Urology, UCLA
- Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA
- Division of Urology, Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
| | - Mack Roach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco
| | - Jeff M. Michalski
- Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | | | - W. Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | | | - Seth A. Rosenthal
- Sutter Medical Group and Sutter Cancer Centers, Roseville, California
| | - Chenyang Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Holly Hartman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Paul L. Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Felix Y. Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco
| | - Paul C. Boutros
- Department of Urology, UCLA
- Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA
- Department of Human Genetics, UCLA
| | | | | | | | - Todd M. Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Rohit Mehra
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | | | - Randy Vince
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Edward M. Schaeffer
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Brandon A. Mahal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Robert T. Dess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | | | | | - Howard M. Sandler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - Daniel E. Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Amar U. Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
- Department of Urology, UCLA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Garriga M, Feng FY, Lee WR, Hong JC. Early salvage versus adjuvant therapy for treatment of prostate cancer following prostatectomy. BMJ Evid Based Med 2021; 26:e8. [PMID: 33361287 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111592] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Meera Garriga
- School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Felix Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Julian C Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
- Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Bates JE, Amdur RJ, Lee WR. Unfilled Positions in the 2021 Radiation Oncology Match. Pract Radiat Oncol 2021; 11:323-324. [PMID: 33975051 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2021.03.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2021] [Accepted: 03/24/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- James E Bates
- Department of Radiation Oncology,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
| | - Robert J Amdur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Khairnar R, Pugh SL, Sandler HM, Lee WR, Villalonga Olives E, Mullins CD, Palumbo FB, Bruner DW, Shaya FT, Bentzen SM, Shah AB, Malone SC, Michalski JM, Dayes IS, Seaward SA, Albert M, Currey AD, Pisansky TM, Chen Y, Horwitz EM, DeNittis AS, Feng FY, Mishra MV. Mapping expanded prostate cancer index composite to EQ5D utilities to inform economic evaluations in prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0249123. [PMID: 33852571 PMCID: PMC8046237 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2020] [Accepted: 03/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) is the most commonly used patient reported outcome (PRO) tool in prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials, but health utilities associated with the different health states assessed with this tool are unknown, limiting our ability to perform cost-utility analyses. This study aimed to map EPIC tool to EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ5D) to generate EQ5D health utilities. METHODS AND MATERIALS This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial, conducted between 04/2006 and 12/2009 at cancer centers across the United States, Canada, and Switzerland. Eligible patients included men >18 years with a known diagnosis of low-risk PC. Patient HRQoL data were collected using EPIC and health utilities were obtained using EQ5D. Data were divided into an estimation sample (n = 765, 70%) and a validation sample (n = 327, 30%). The mapping algorithms that capture the relationship between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and two-part models. Five-fold cross-validation (in-sample) was used to compare the predictive performance of the estimated models. Final models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE). RESULTS A total of 565 patients in the estimation sample had complete information on both EPIC and EQ5D questionnaires at baseline. Mean observed EQ5D utility was 0.90±0.13 (range: 0.28-1) with 55% of patients in full health. OLS models outperformed their counterpart Tobit and two-part models for all pre-determined model specifications. The best model fit was: "EQ5D utility = 0.248541 + 0.000748*(Urinary Function) + 0.001134*(Urinary Bother) + 0.000968*(Hormonal Function) + 0.004404*(Hormonal Bother)- 0.376487*(Zubrod) + 0.003562*(Urinary Function*Zubrod)"; RMSE was 0.10462. CONCLUSIONS This is the first study to identify a comprehensive set of mapping algorithms to generate EQ5D utilities from EPIC domain/ sub-domain scores. The study results will help estimate quality-adjusted life-years in PC economic evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rahul Khairnar
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, United States of America
| | - Stephanie L. Pugh
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
| | - Howard M. Sandler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| | - W. Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - Ester Villalonga Olives
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, United States of America
| | - C. Daniel Mullins
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, United States of America
| | - Francis B. Palumbo
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, United States of America
| | - Deborah W. Bruner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America
| | - Fadia T. Shaya
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, United States of America
| | - Soren M. Bentzen
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America
| | - Amit B. Shah
- WellSpan Health-York Cancer Center, York, PA, United States of America
| | | | - Jeff M. Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - Ian S. Dayes
- Juravinski Cancer Center at Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Samantha A. Seaward
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, United States of America
| | - Michele Albert
- Saint Anne’s Hospital, Fall River, MA, United States of America
| | - Adam D. Currey
- Zablocki VAMC and the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States of America
| | - Thomas M. Pisansky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - Yuhchyau Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America
| | - Eric M. Horwitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
| | - Albert S. DeNittis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Main Line Health, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
| | - Felix Y. Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America
| | - Mark V. Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Khairnar RR, Sandler HM, Lee WR, Villalonga Olives E, Mullins CD, Bruner D, Shah A, Malone S, Michalski J, Dayes IS, Seaward SA, Albert M, Currey AD, Pisansky TM, Chen Y, Horwitz EM, DeNittis AS, Demora L, Feng FY, Mishra MV. Longitudinal predictive ability of mapping algorithms: Secondary analysis of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.6_suppl.60] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
60 Background: Mapping algorithms informing economic evaluations are often derived using baseline data from clinical trials. It is unclear if these algorithms can predict health utilities accurately in post-intervention data. Thus, this study examines the longitudinal predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived from baseline trial data and explores the factors associated with prediction errors. Methods: This methodological study utilized data from an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), conducted by NRG Oncology (NCT00331773). In addition to patient demographic and clinical data, this study utilized PRO data collected at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months post-intervention. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire measures health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and has four domains (urinary, sexual, hormonal, and bowel) and two subdomains per domain (function and bother); EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ5D) captures health utilities. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were used to map EPIC scores to EQ5D utilities in the baseline data through 5-fold cross-validation. Predictive performance was tested in the post-intervention data; predicted and reported utilities were compared using t-tests, and the absolute prediction error was modeled using fixed effects, as a function of baseline demographic and clinical covariates, as well as observed and predicted EQ5D utilities. Results: A total of 267 (199) patients had complete EQ5D and EPIC domain (or subdomain) data at baseline and all subsequent assessments. In the EPIC domain sample, mean ± standard deviation observed EQ5D utility was 0.90±0.13 at baseline, 0.92±0.11 at 6 months, 0.90±0.13 at 12 months and 0.89±0.14 at 24 months. Mean absolute differences (MDs) between reported and predicted were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared to EPIC domain data, and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased. The mapping functions over-predicted utilities for patients in perfect health while the prediction errors were increasingly negative for lower reported EQ5D scores. According to the fixed effects model for EPIC domain data, lower observed and predicted baseline EQ5D scores, and time of assessment were significant predictors of the absolute prediction error; for EPIC subdomain data, lower observed and predicted baseline EQ5D scores, hormonal bother and function, and bowel function significantly predicted the absolute prediction error. Conclusions: This study is the first to demonstrate the longitudinal validity of EPIC questionnaire, and builds upon existing research on longitudinal validity of mapping functions. The low MDs in prediction errors in post-intervention data indicate that the mapping functions are sensitive to treatment effect, thereby increasing confidence in their use in economic evaluations in PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Deborah Bruner
- Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | | | - Shawn Malone
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | - Adam D. Currey
- Medical College of Wisconsin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Milwaukee, WI
| | | | - Yuhchyau Chen
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
| | | | | | | | - Felix Y Feng
- University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA
| | - Mark V. Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Shah A, Polascik TJ, George DJ, Anderson J, Hyslop T, Ellis AM, Armstrong AJ, Ferrandino M, Preminger GM, Gupta RT, Lee WR, Barrett NJ, Ragsdale J, Mills C, Check DK, Aminsharifi A, Schulman A, Sze C, Tsivian E, Tay KJ, Patierno S, Oeffinger KC, Shah K. Implementation and Impact of a Risk-Stratified Prostate Cancer Screening Algorithm as a Clinical Decision Support Tool in a Primary Care Network. J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36:92-99. [PMID: 32875501 PMCID: PMC7858708 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06124-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2019] [Accepted: 08/07/2020] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementation methods of risk-stratified cancer screening guidance throughout a health care system remains understudied. OBJECTIVE Conduct a preliminary analysis of the implementation of a risk-stratified prostate cancer screening algorithm in a single health care system. DESIGN Comparison of men seen pre-implementation (2/1/2016-2/1/2017) vs. post-implementation (2/2/2017-2/21/2018). PARTICIPANTS Men, aged 40-75 years, without a history of prostate cancer, who were seen by a primary care provider. INTERVENTIONS The algorithm was integrated into two components in the electronic health record (EHR): in Health Maintenance as a personalized screening reminder and in tailored messages to providers that accompanied prostate-specific antigen (PSA) results. MAIN MEASURES Primary outcomes: percent of men who met screening algorithm criteria; percent of men with a PSA result. Logistic repeated measures mixed models were used to test for differences in the proportion of individuals that met screening criteria in the pre- and post-implementation periods with age, race, family history, and PSA level included as covariates. KEY RESULTS During the pre- and post-implementation periods, 49,053 and 49,980 men, respectively, were seen across 26 clinics (20.6% African American). The proportion of men who met screening algorithm criteria increased from 49.3% (pre-implementation) to 68.0% (post-implementation) (p < 0.001); this increase was observed across all races, age groups, and primary care clinics. Importantly, the percent of men who had a PSA did not change: 55.3% pre-implementation, 55.0% post-implementation. The adjusted odds of meeting algorithm-based screening was 6.5-times higher in the post-implementation period than in the pre-implementation period (95% confidence interval, 5.97 to 7.05). CONCLUSIONS In this preliminary analysis, following implementation of an EHR-based algorithm, we observed a rapid change in practice with an increase in screening in higher-risk groups balanced with a decrease in screening in low-risk groups. Future efforts will evaluate costs and downstream outcomes of this strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Ariel Schulman
- Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.,Maimonides Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Christina Sze
- Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.,Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Kae Jack Tay
- Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.,SingHealth, Duke-NUS, Singapore, Singapore
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Lee WR. Gratitude Is the Attitude: Acknowledgments After 10 Years With Practical Radiation Oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2021; 11:1-2. [PMID: 33390241 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.09.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- W Robert Lee
- Professor of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Spratt DE, Malone S, Roy S, Grimes S, Eapen L, Morgan SC, Malone J, Craig J, Dess RT, Jackson WC, Hartman HE, Kishan AU, Mehra R, Kaffenberger S, Morgan TM, Reichert ZR, Alumkal JJ, Michalski J, Lee WR, Pisansky TM, Feng FY, Shipley W, Sandler HM, Schipper MJ, Roach M, Sun Y, Lawton CAF. Prostate Radiotherapy With Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) Improves Metastasis-Free Survival Compared to Neoadjuvant ADT: An Individual Patient Meta-Analysis. J Clin Oncol 2020; 39:136-144. [PMID: 33275486 DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.02438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE There remains a lack of clarity regarding the influence of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) on outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). Herein, we evaluate the optimal sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT in localized PCa. METHODS MEDLINE (1966-2018), Embase (1982-2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings (1990-2018) were searched to identify randomized trials evaluating the sequencing, but not duration, of ADT with RT. Two randomized phase III trials were identified, and individual patient data were obtained: Ottawa 0101 and NRG Oncology's Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. Ottawa 0101 randomly assigned patients to neoadjuvant or concurrent versus concurrent or adjuvant short-term ADT. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413, a 2 × 2 factorial trial, included a random assignment of neoadjuvant or concurrent versus adjuvant short-term ADT. The neoadjuvant or concurrent ADT arms of both trials were combined into the neoadjuvant group, and the arms receiving adjuvant ADT were combined into the adjuvant group. The primary end point of this meta-analysis was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS The median follow-up was 14.9 years. Overall, 1,065 patients were included (531 neoadjuvant and 534 adjuvant). PFS was significantly improved in the adjuvant group (15-year PFS, 29% v 36%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.25 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.47], P = .01). Biochemical failure (subdistribution HR [sHR], 1.37 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68], P = .002), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.95], P = .04), and metastasis-free survival (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.37], P = .050) were all significantly improved in the adjuvant group. There were no differences in late grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal (2% v 3%, P = .33) or genitourinary toxicity (5% v 5%, P = .76) between groups. CONCLUSION The sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT has significant association with long-term PFS and MFS in localized PCa. Our findings favor use of an adjuvant over a neoadjuvant approach, without any increase in long-term toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Shawn Malone
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Soumyajit Roy
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,New York Medical College, New York, NY
| | - Scott Grimes
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Libni Eapen
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Scott C Morgan
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Julia Malone
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Julia Craig
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robert T Dess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - William C Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Holly E Hartman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI.,Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Amar U Kishan
- University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Rohit Mehra
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Todd M Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Joshi J Alumkal
- Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Mathew J Schipper
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Yilun Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Koontz BF, Hoffman KE, Halabi S, Healy P, Anand M, George DJ, Harrison MR, Zhang T, Berry WR, Corn PG, Lee WR, Armstrong AJ. Combination of Radiation Therapy and Short-Term Androgen Blockade With Abiraterone Acetate Plus Prednisone for Men With High- and Intermediate-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:1271-1278. [PMID: 33259932 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.11.059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2020] [Revised: 10/21/2020] [Accepted: 11/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care in combination with radiation therapy (RT) in high-risk prostate cancer (PC), despite substantial toxicity from the resulting hypogonadism. We hypothesized that a combination of more potent but shorter-term androgen inhibition in men with intermediate- or high-risk localized PC would synergize with definitive RT to provide short-term testosterone recovery and improve disease control. METHODS AND MATERIALS This prospective phase 2 single-arm trial enrolled men with low-volume unfavorable intermediate or high-risk localized PC. Treatment included 6 months of ADT concurrent with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) once daily and RT to prostate and seminal vesicles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of men with an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 12-months; secondary objectives included biochemical progression-free survival (PFS), testosterone recovery, toxicity, and sexual and hormonal quality of life. RESULTS We enrolled 37 men between January 2014 and August 2016, 45% of whom were high risk. All patients had T1-2 disease and PSA < 20 ng/mL. Median follow-up is 37 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.7-39.1). Treatment noted 32% grade 3 toxicities related to AAP, predominantly hypertension, with no toxicities ≥G4. The rate of undetectable PSA at 12 months was 55% (95% CI, 36%-72%). With 46 months of median follow-up, 2 of 37 patients developed PSA progression (36-month PFS = 96%; 95% CI, 76%-99%), and 81% of patients recovered testosterone with a median time to recovery of 9.2 months. Hormonal or sexual function declined at 6 months with subsequent improvement by 24 months. CONCLUSIONS The combination of RT and 6 months of ADT and AAP demonstrated acceptable toxicity and a high rate of testosterone recovery with restoration of quality of life and excellent disease control in men with low-volume, intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer. Prospective comparative studies are justified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bridget F Koontz
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Susan Halabi
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Patrick Healy
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Monika Anand
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Daniel J George
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Michael R Harrison
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Tian Zhang
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - William R Berry
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Paul G Corn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - W Robert Lee
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Andrew J Armstrong
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Deville C, Lee WR. Reconciling outcomes for Black men with prostate cancer within and outside the Veterans Health Administration. Cancer 2020; 127:342-344. [PMID: 33036061 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2020] [Revised: 08/30/2020] [Accepted: 09/04/2020] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Curtiland Deville
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Bates JE, Amdur RJ, Lee WR. Unfilled Positions in the 2020 Radiation Oncology Residency Match: No Longer an Isolated Event. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 10:e307-e308. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.04.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2020] [Accepted: 04/09/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
|
24
|
Spratt DE, Malone S, Roy S, Grimes S, Eapen L, Morgan SC, Malone J, Craig J, Dess RT, Jackson W, Schipper MJ, Michalski JM, Lee WR, Pisansky TM, Feng FY, Shipley WU, Sandler HM, Roach M, Sun Y, Lawton CA. Short-term adjuvant versus neoadjuvant hormone therapy in localized prostate cancer: A pooled individual patient analysis of two phase III trials. J Clin Oncol 2020. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.5584] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
5584 Background: The timing of systemic therapy in relation to radiotherapy (RT) is important in most malignancies. In contrast, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has largely been investigated in relation to its duration rather than its sequencing with RT. Herein, we conduct the first combined individual patient analysis of two phase III randomized trials to determine the optimal timing of ADT with RT in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Individual patient data was obtained from the Malone et al trial (JCO 2019), which randomized patients to receive neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant ADT for 6 months with prostate only RT. This was combined with the prostate only RT arms of RTOG 9413 that randomized patients to 4 months of neoadjuvant/concurrent or adjuvant ADT. The neoadjuvant/concurrent arms of both trials were combined into the “neoadjuvant” group, and the concurrent/adjuvant (Malone) and adjuvant arm (RTOG 9413) were combined in the “adjuvant” group. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Cumulative incidence of distant metastasis (DM), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) and biochemical failure (BF) were calculated using the Fine-Gray method with non-PCa deaths as competing events. Late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity are also reported. Results: The median follow-up was 14.9 years (yrs) and 1065 patients were included (n=531 neoadjuvant, 534 adjuvant). Groups were well balanced for all baseline characteristics. Adjuvant ADT was superior to neoadjuvant ADT in terms of BF (15yr: 33% vs 43%, HR: 1.37 (95%CI: 1.12-1.68), p=0.002), DM (15yr: 12% vs 18%, HR: 1.40 (95%CI: 1.00-1.95), p=0.04), and PFS (15yr: 36% vs 29%, HR: 1.25 (95%CI: 1.07-1.47), p=0.01). Adjuvant ADT yielded lower PCSM (15yr: 15% vs 20%, HR: 1.29 (95%CI: 0.95-1.75), p=0.10), but did not reach statistical significance. This approached statistical significance in high risk PCa (HR 1.39 (95%CI 1.00-1.93), p=0.053). OS was not significantly different between arms (15yr: 39% vs 34%, HR: 1.11 (95%CI: 0.95-1.30), p=0.20). There was no significant difference in either late grade ≥3 GI (p=0.21) or GU (p=0.98) toxicity. Conclusions: We demonstrate for the first time that sequencing of ADT with RT significantly impacts long-term oncologic outcomes in localized PCa, favoring an adjuvant rather than neoadjuvant approach, without increasing late toxicity. This data has important implications to ongoing and future clinical trial design. Clinical trial information: NCT00769548 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Shawn Malone
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Soumyajit Roy
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Scott Grimes
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Libni Eapen
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | | | - Julia Craig
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | | | - Matthew J Schipper
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Jeff M. Michalski
- Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | | | | | - Felix Y Feng
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA
| | | | | | - Mack Roach
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Yilun Sun
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Jacobs CD, Trotter J, Palta M, Moravan MJ, Wu Y, Willett CG, Lee WR, Czito BG. Multi-Institutional Analysis of Synchronous Prostate and Rectosigmoid Cancers. Front Oncol 2020; 10:345. [PMID: 32266135 PMCID: PMC7105852 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00345] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2019] [Accepted: 02/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: To perform a multi-institutional analysis of patients with synchronous prostate and rectosigmoid cancers. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of Duke University and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center records was performed for men with both prostate and rectosigmoid adenocarcinomas from 1988 to 2017. Synchronous presentation was defined as symptoms, diagnosis, or treatment of both cancers within 12 months of each other. The primary study endpoint was overall survival. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression was performed. Results: Among 31,883 men with prostate cancer, 330 (1%) also had rectosigmoid cancer and 54 (16%) of these were synchronous. Prostate cancer was more commonly the initial diagnosis (59%). Fifteen (28%) underwent prostatectomy or radiotherapy before an established diagnosis of rectosigmoid cancer. Stage I, II–III, or IV rectosigmoid cancer was present in 26, 57, and 17% of men, respectively. At a median follow-up of 43 months, there were 18 deaths due rectosigmoid cancer and two deaths due to prostate cancer. Crude late grade ≥3 toxicities include nine (17%) gastrointestinal and six (11%) genitourinary. Two anastomotic leaks following low anterior resection occurred in men who received a neoadjuvant radiotherapy prostate dose of 70.6–76.4 Gy. Rectosigmoid cancer stages II–III (HR 4.3, p = 0.02) and IV (HR 16, p < 0.01) as well as stage IV prostate cancer (HR 31, p < 0.01) were associated with overall survival on multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Synchronous rectosigmoid cancer is a greater contributor to mortality than prostate cancer. Men aged ≥45 with localized prostate cancer should undergo colorectal cancer screening prior to treatment to evaluate for synchronous rectosigmoid cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Corbin D Jacobs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Jacob Trotter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Manisha Palta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Michael J Moravan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Yuan Wu
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Christopher G Willett
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Brian G Czito
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Lee WR. What Can Journals Do to Increase the Reliability of Scientific Research? Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 10:139-140. [PMID: 32238327 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.03.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Kishan AU, Romero T, Rettig M, Garraway I, Roach M, Pisansky TM, Michalski JM, Lee WR, Jones CU, Rosenthal SA, Feng FY, Boutros PC, Nickols NG, Mahal BAV, Dess RT, Tran PT, Steinberg ML, Elashoff D, Sandler HM, Spratt DE. Association of black race with improved outcomes following definitive radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: A meta-analysis of eight randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2020. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2020.38.6_suppl.327] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
327 Background: Though Black men with prostate cancer are more likely to have aggressive disease features than White men, race-specific differences in initial treatment responses in localized disease remains unknown. Methods: Individual patient data were obtained for 9259 patients (including 1674 [18.1%] Black men and 7585 [81.9%] White men) enrolled on eight randomized controlled trials evaluating definitive radiotherapy (RT) ± short-term or long-term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT and LTADT). The primary endpoints were biochemical recurrence (BCR), distant metastasis (DM), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Fine-Gray subdistribution HR (sHR) models were developed to evaluate the cumulative incidences of all endpoints after stratification by National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk grouping. A meta-analysis was done to estimate pair-wise comparisons of treatments within and between Black and White men, after adjusting for age, Gleason score, clinical T stage, and initial PSA. Results: Black men were more likely to have NCCN high-risk disease at enrollment (656/1674 [39.2%] vs 2506/7585 [33%], p<0.001). However, within the high-risk stratum Black men had lower 10-year rates of BCR (46.1% vs. 50.4%, p=0.02), DM (14% vs. 21.6%, p<0.001), and PCSM (4.9% vs. 9.8%, p<0.001). After adjusting for age and disease characteristics, Black men with high-risk prostate receiving RT+STADT had lower rates of BCR (sHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.86, p<0.001), DM (sHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.84, p=0.001) and PCSM (sHR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.95, p=0.04). There were no differences in BCR, DM, or PCSM among men receiving RT+LTADT. The interaction between race and the impact of adding STADT to RT alone on BCR was statistically significant (p=0.003). Conclusions: Black men enrolled on randomized trials with long-term follow-up have higher risk disease at enrollment, but have better BCR, DM, and PCSM outcomes with RT-based therapy compared with White men, particularly with the addition of STADT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tahmineh Romero
- Department of Medicine Statistics Core, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Matthew Rettig
- UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Isla Garraway
- David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Mack Roach
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | | | - Jeff M. Michalski
- Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | | | - Christopher U. Jones
- Sutter General Hospital Accruals-Radiological Associates of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA
| | | | - Felix Y Feng
- UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Khairnar RR, DeMora L, Sandler HM, Lee WR, Villalonga Olives E, Mullins CD, Bruner D, Shah A, Malone S, Michalski J, Dayes I, Seaward SA, Albert M, Currey AD, Pisansky TM, Chen Y, Horwitz EM, DeNittis AS, Feng FY, Mishra MV. A methodological comparison of mapping algorithms to obtain health utilities derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data: Secondary analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415. J Clin Oncol 2020. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2020.38.6_suppl.55] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
55 Background: To compare the predictive ability of health utility mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data specific to the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). Methods: This mapping study utilized data from an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer conducted by NRG Oncology (NCT00331773). Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected using EPIC, and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D (EQ5D) at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months post-intervention. Data were split into an estimation sample (70%) and a validation sample (30%). Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were estimated using baseline cross-sectional data as well as pooled data from all assessment periods. Random effects (RE) specifications that explicitly model the longitudinal nature of the data were also estimated. Candidate models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE). Results: A total of 196 (147) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ5D and EPIC domain (subdomain) data at all time points. OLS models using combined data outperformed the counter-part RE models as well as OLS models using baseline data in the five-fold cross-validation. Addition of covariates to the models resulted in improved predictive ability. In the external validation, when only EPIC domain/ subdomain data are available, the OLS model using combined data predicted EQ5D utilities better than the counterpart RE model and OLS model using baseline data (RMSE=0.121108 & 0.111345). OLS model using baseline data outperformed other model types for algorithms with EPIC domains and demographics (RMSE=0.121757), while RE models outperformed the other two model types for algorithms with EPIC subdomains and demographic data, (0.112782) and for algorithms with EPIC domains/ subdomains, demographics, and clinical covariates (RMSE=0.123589 & 0.163093). Conclusions: While algorithms using pooled data outperformed other model types in internal validation, RE models showed better predictive ability in external validation for algorithms with covariates. Clinical trial information: NCT00331773.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Deborah Bruner
- Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | | | - Shawn Malone
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | - Ian Dayes
- McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | | | - Adam D. Currey
- Medical College of Wisconsin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Milwaukee, WI
| | | | - Yuhchyau Chen
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
| | | | | | - Felix Y Feng
- UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA
| | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Lee WR. Grateful Recognition of PRO Reviewer Apprentices and Reviewers of the Year. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 10:141. [PMID: 32139334 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- W Robert Lee
- Editor-in-Chief, Practical Radiation Oncology, Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710.
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Bekelman JE, Lee WR. Six Questions to Ask Before We Shorten Radiation Treatments for Intact Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 97:718-721. [PMID: 28244406 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.11.038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2016] [Accepted: 11/21/2016] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Justin E Bekelman
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Lee WR, Amdur RJ. A Call for Change in the ABR Initial Certification Examination in Radiation Oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104:17-20. [PMID: 30967225 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.12.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2018] [Revised: 12/18/2018] [Accepted: 12/20/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- W Robert Lee
- Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
| | - Robert J Amdur
- Radiation Oncology, University of Florida School of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Tegbaru D, Braverman L, Zietman AL, Yom SS, Lee WR, Miller RC, Jackson IL, McNutt T, Dekker A. ASTRO Journals' Data Sharing Policy and Recommended Best Practices. Adv Radiat Oncol 2019; 4:551-558. [PMID: 31673648 PMCID: PMC6817515 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2019.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2019] [Revised: 07/19/2019] [Accepted: 08/12/2019] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are important characteristics in scientific publishing. Although many researchers embrace these characteristics, data sharing has yet to become common practice. Nevertheless, data sharing is becoming an increasingly important topic among societies, publishers, researchers, patient advocates, and funders, especially as it pertains to data from clinical trials. In response, ASTRO developed a data policy and guide to best practices for authors submitting to its journals. ASTRO's data sharing policy is that authors should indicate, in data availability statements, if the data are being shared and if so, how the data may be accessed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawit Tegbaru
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | - Lisa Braverman
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | | | - Sue S. Yom
- University of California, San Francisco, California
| | | | | | | | - Todd McNutt
- Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Andre Dekker
- Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Lee WR. Proton‐beam therapy after radical prostatectomy: Continued DVH idolatry? Cancer 2019; 125:4136-4138. [DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32456] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2019] [Revised: 07/11/2019] [Accepted: 07/16/2019] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- W. Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology Duke University Durham North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Bates JE, Amdur RJ, Lee WR. The High Number of Unfilled Positions in the 2019 Radiation Oncology Residency Match: Temporary Variation or Indicator of Important Change? Pract Radiat Oncol 2019; 9:300-302. [PMID: 31100471 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2019] [Accepted: 05/06/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- James E Bates
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
| | - Robert J Amdur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Bruner DW, Pugh SL, Lee WR, Hall WA, Dignam JJ, Low D, Swanson GP, Shah AB, Malone S, Michalski JM, Dayes IS, Seaward SA, Nguyen PL, Pisansky TM, Chen Y, Sandler HM, Movsas B. Quality of Life in Patients With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With Hypofractionated vs Conventional Radiotherapy: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2019; 5:664-670. [PMID: 30763425 PMCID: PMC6459051 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) would be more convenient for men with low-risk prostate cancer and cost less than conventional radiotherapy (CRT) as long as HRT is noninferior to CRT in terms of survival and quality of life (QOL) is not found to be worse. OBJECTIVE To assess differences in QOL between men with low-risk prostate cancer who are treated with HRT vs CRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, men with low-risk prostate cancer were enrolled from sites within the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network in the United States, Canada, and Switzerland. INTERVENTIONS Random assignment to CRT (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to HRT (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Quality of life was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite questionnaire measuring bowel, urinary, sexual, and hormonal domains; the 25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist measuring anxiety and depression; and the EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire measuring global QOL. All data were collected at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 60 months. Change scores were compared between treatment arms using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A significance level of .0125 to adjust for multiple comparisons was used for an overall 2-sided type 1 error of .05. Clinical significance was determined for the Expanded Prostate Index Composite change scores by an effect size of 0.5. RESULTS Of 1092 patients analyzable for the primary end point, 962 (mean [SD] age, 66.6 [7.4] years) consented to the QOL component. No statistically significant differences with regard to baseline characteristics nor any of the QOL baseline domains were measured between arms. There were no differences in change score between arms with respect to any of the Expanded Prostate Index Composite questionnaire domain scores except at 12 months when the HRT arm had a larger decline than the CRT arm in the bowel domain (mean score, -7.5 vs -3.7, respectively; P<.001), but it did not reach clinical significance (effect size = 0.29). There were no differences between arms at any time point for the Hopkins Symptom Checklist nor EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Treatment with HRT is noninferior to CRT in men with low-risk prostate cancer in terms of disease-free survival and, as shown in the present study, in prostate cancer-specific (eg, bowel, bladder, sexual) and general QOL, as well as in anxiety and depression. This study provides evidence to affirm that HRT is a practice standard for men with low-risk prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stephanie L Pugh
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - W Robert Lee
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | | | - James J Dignam
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.,University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Daniel Low
- Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | - Gregory P Swanson
- University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio
| | - Amit B Shah
- WellSpan York Cancer Center, York, Pennsylvania
| | - Shawn Malone
- London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Ian S Dayes
- Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Lee WR, Amdur R, Daly ME, Das P, Evans S, Michalski J, Pawlicki T, Tegbaru D. Appreciation of 2018 Peer Reviewers for Practical Radiation Oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.02.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
37
|
Thor M, Deasy JO, Paulus R, Robert Lee W, Amin MB, Bruner DW, Low DA, Shah AB, Malone SC, Michalski JM, Dayes IS, Seaward SA, Gore EM, Albert M, Pisansky TM, Faria SL, Chen Y, Koontz BF, Swanson GP, Pugh SL, Sandler HM. Tolerance doses for late adverse events after hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer on trial NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415. Radiother Oncol 2019; 135:19-24. [PMID: 31015166 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.02.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2019] [Revised: 02/13/2019] [Accepted: 02/17/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE Hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) regimens for prostate cancer are emerging, but tolerance doses for late adverse events are scarce. The purpose of this study is to define dose-volume predictors for late gastrointestinal and genitourinary (GI and GU) toxicities after HRT in the multi-center NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415 low-risk prostate cancer trial (N = 521). MATERIAL/METHODS Treatment in the studied HRT arm was delivered as 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction with 3D-CRT/IMRT (N = 108/413). At a median follow-up of 5.9 years, the crude late ≥Grade 2 GI and GU toxicities were 19% and 29%, respectively. For modeling, the complete HRT cohort was randomly split into training and validation (70% and 30%; preserved toxicity rates). Within training, dose-response modeling was based on dose-volume cut-points (EQD2Gy; bladder/rectum: α/β = 6 Gy/3Gy), age, acute ≥Grade 2 toxicity, and treatment technique using univariate and multivariate logistic regression on bootstrapping (UVA and MVA). Candidate predictors were determined at p ≤ 0.05, and the selected MVA models were explored on validation where model generalizability was judged if the area under the receiver-operating curve in validation (AUCvalidation) was within AUCtraining ± SD with p ≤ 0.05, and with an Hosmer-Lemeshow p-value (pHL) > 0.05. RESULTS Three candidate predictors were suggested for late GI toxicity: the minimum dose to the hottest 5% rectal volume (D5%[Gy]), the absolute rectal volume <35 Gy, and acute GI toxicity (AUC = 0.59-0.63; p = 0.02-0.04). The two generalizable MVA models, i.e., D5%[Gy] with or without acute GI toxicity (AUCvalidation = 0.64, 0.65; p = 0.01, 0.03; pHL = 0.45-0.56), suggest that reducing late GI toxicity from 20% to 10% would require reducing D5%[Gy] from ≤65 Gy to ≤62 Gy (logistic function argument: 17+(0.24D5%[Gy])). Acute GU toxicity showed only a trend to predict late GU toxicity (AUCtraining = 0.57; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION Late GI toxicity, following moderate HRT for low-risk prostate cancer, increases with higher doses to small rectal volumes. This work provides quantitative evidence that limiting small rectal dose 'hotspots' in clinical practice of such HRT regimens is likely to further reduce the associated rates of GI toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Thor
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States.
| | | | | | | | - Mahul B Amin
- University of Tennessee Health Science Center, United States
| | | | | | - Amit B Shah
- WellSpan Health-York Cancer Center (current) -Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (accrual), United States
| | | | | | | | - Samantha A Seaward
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California (current) University of California San Francisco (accruals), United States
| | - Elizabeth M Gore
- Medical College of Wisconsin and Zablocki Veterans Administration Medical Center, United States
| | - Michele Albert
- Saint Anne's Hospital (current) Massachusetts General Hospital (accruals), United States
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Stephanie L Pugh
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Spiegel DY, Hong JC, Oyekunle T, Waters L, Lee WR, Salama JK, Koontz BF. A Nomogram for Testosterone Recovery After Combined Androgen Deprivation and Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 103:834-842. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2018] [Revised: 10/08/2018] [Accepted: 11/02/2018] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
39
|
Armstrong AJ, Bitting RL, Healy P, George DJ, Kim S, Mayer TM, Winters C, Riggan C, Rasmussen J, Wilder R, Anand M, Stein MN, Frizzell B, Harrison MR, Zhang T, Lee WR, Wu Y, Koontz BF. Phase II trial enzalutamide and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with salvage radiation in men with high-risk PSA recurrent prostate cancer (PC): The STREAM trial. J Clin Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2019.37.7_suppl.29] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
29 Background: Salvage external beam radiotherapy (RT) and hormonal therapy improves survival over RT alone in men with non-metastatic hormone naïve PC and PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). We investigated the safety/efficacy of enzalutamide with salvage RT and ADT in this setting. Methods: This was a 3 center prospective phase 2 single arm clinical trial in the Dept of Defense Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium. Eligibility: Gleason 7-10 PC and PSA recurrence within 4 years (yrs) of RP, PSA 0.2-4.0, no prior hormonal therapy, and no metastases on CT/Bone Scan imaging. Men received 6 months (mos) of ADT with 160 mg/d enzalutamide and 66 Gy RT to the prostate bed. Primary endpoint was 2 yr PFS with testosterone (T) recovery to >100 ng/dl. Secondary objectives included PSA nadir, 3 yr PFS, safety and patient reported quality-of-life over time. This trial was designed with 84% power to detect a 20% improvement in 2 yr PFS vs historic data and a 1-sided alpha of 0.05. Results: We enrolled 38 men (90% white, 8% black, 2% Asian); 37 (97%) completed therapy and were evaluable with T recovery at 2 yrs. Median age was 64 yrs; 47% Gleason 8-10, 79% T3/T4 disease, 21% had resected N+ PC; median PSA was 0.4 (0.19-4.19). Median follow-up is 29.5 mo. Treatment was well tolerated with 11 patients (29%) experiencing G3 toxicities (including 4 HTN, 2 urinary retention, 2 CV events); no G4-5 or unexpected toxicities were observed. T recovery occurred in 35 (95%) at 12 mos. The primary endpoint of 2 yr PFS was 65% (95% CI: 47%-78% vs. historic controls with 51% 2 yr PFS rate) among the 37 patients with T recovery. PSA remained at undetectable levels in 69% at 2 yrs. The 3 yr PFS was 53% (95% CI: 36%, 68%). QOL data over time suggest short term reductions in urinary and sexual function with recovery by 12-24 mo in most men. Conclusions: Salvage enzalutamide and ADT for 6 months with RT following RP for men with PSA recurrent high risk PC is safe, and demonstrates encouraging efficacy at 2 and 3 years. Most men have testosterone recovery at 1 year. These data warrant prospective controlled phase 3 trials to assess the impact of potent AR inhibition in this curative intent setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02057939.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J. Armstrong
- Duke Cancer Institute and the Duke Prostate and Urologic Cancer Center, Durham, NC
| | - Rhonda L. Bitting
- Internal Medicine, Section on Hematology and Oncology, Winston Salem, NC
| | | | | | - Sung Kim
- Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Tina M. Mayer
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Tian Zhang
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
| | | | - Yuan Wu
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC
| | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Jacobs C, Trotter J, Palta M, Wu Y, Willett C, Lee WR, Czito BG. Multi-institutional analysis of synchronous prostate and rectosigmoid cancers. J Clin Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2019.37.7_suppl.33] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
33 Background: Synchronous prostate cancer (PC) and rectosigmoid (RS) cancer (RSC) is a challenging clinical situation. Methods: A retrospective review of Duke University and Durham VA charts was performed for men with adenocarcinomas of the prostate and RS colon from 1988-2017. Synchronous presentation was defined as symptoms, diagnosis (dx), or treatment (tx) of PC/RSC within 12 months. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), calculated from latest dx date. Univariate and multivariate (MVA) Cox regression was performed using STATA 15.1. Results: Among 31,883 men with PC identified, 330 (1%) also had RSC. 54 (16%) were considered synchronous (median age 67, IQR 62-72). PC was more commonly the first dx (59%), and 15 (28%) underwent prostatectomy (n=13) or radiotherapy (RT, n=2) before a dx of synchronous RSC. 26%, 57%, and 17% had stage I, II-III, and IV RSC, respectively. Prostatectomy, LAR, APR, and combined surgery for both PC/RSC was performed in 17 (31%), 24 (44%), 10 (19%), and 2 (4%) men, respectively. 35 (65%) received RT with median RS dose of 50.4 Gy (IQR 50.4-54 Gy) and prostate boost to 66 Gy (IQR 61-72 Gy). 34 (63%) received 5-FU based chemotherapy, 23 (43%) received ADT, and 9 (17%) received no PC-specific tx. After a median follow up of 43 (IQR 21-93) months, there were 34 deaths: 18 (53%) due to RSC, 2 (6%) due to PC, 3 (9%) due to grade 5 toxicity, 7 (21%) due to another malignancy, and 4 (12%) due to unknown cause without recurrence. Grade 5 toxicities resulted from sequential hepatectomy/LAR, combined prostatectomy/APR, and myocardial infarction while on ADT. Crude late grade ≥3 toxicities include 9 (17%) GI and 6 (11%) GU. Two anastomotic leaks <2.3 years after LAR occurred in men who received neoadjuvant prostate RT boost of 70.6-76.4 Gy. Stages II-III (HR 4.3, p=0.02) and IV (HR 16, p<0.01) for RSC but only stage IV (HR 31, p<0.01) for PC were significantly associated with OS on MVA. Among 30 men with stage II-III RSC and non-metastatic PC, 5-FU based chemotherapy (HR 0.34, p=0.04) but no PC-specific tx was significantly associated with OS on MVA. Conclusions: Synchronous RSC is a greater contributor to mortality than PC. Men aged ≥50 with localized PC should undergo colorectal cancer screening prior to tx to evaluate for synchronous RSC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Yuan Wu
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Lee WR. Comments on: High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy as monotherapy in one fraction of 20.5 Gy for the treatment of localize prostate cancer: toxicity and 6-years biochemical results. Brachytherapy 2019; 18:426. [PMID: 30797697 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2019.01.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2018] [Accepted: 01/23/2019] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- W Robert Lee
- Professor of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Rosdahl JA, Rudd M, Benjamin R, Wiener JS, Sloane R, Brown A, Robert Lee W, Turner D, Qin R, Atwater AR. Effect of the Adoption of a Comprehensive Electronic Health Record on Graduate Medical Education: Perceptions of Faculty and Trainees. South Med J 2019; 111:476-483. [PMID: 30075473 DOI: 10.14423/smj.0000000000000847] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Health systems are adopting electronic health records (EHRs). There are few studies on the effects of EHR implementation on graduate medical education. The authors sought to longitudinally assess perceptions of the impact of EHRs on graduate medical education during implementation and 2 years after implementation. METHODS A survey was distributed to faculty and trainees during the first year (2013) of adoption of the EHR system. A follow-up survey was distributed 2 years later (2015). The χ2 test was used to compare the quantitative responses, and factor analysis was conducted to identify correlations between items. Free text responses were analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS The initial survey (in 2013) included 290 faculty and 106 trainees; the follow-up survey (in 2015) included 353 faculty and 226 trainees. In 2013, respondents had a positive impression of EHRs. During the implementation phase, participants believed that face-to-face teaching was negatively affected (P = 0.001). Faculty believed EHRs had a negative effect on trainees' ability to take a history/conduct physical examinations (P = 0.002) and to formulate a differential diagnosis/plan independently (P = 0.003). In 2015, faculty opinions of the impact of the EHR remained unchanged; trainee responses were more positive than in 2013 in some areas. Qualitative analysis showed that the most frequent strategies to enhance the educational process were the development of EHR skills and improved chart access and note assistance. CONCLUSIONS Respondents remain positive about the EHR 2 years after implementation. Faculty remain concerned about its effect on the educational process, whereas residents appear more positive regarding the potential for EHRs to enhance their education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jullia A Rosdahl
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, Radiation Oncology, and Dermatology, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
| | - Mariah Rudd
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, Radiation Oncology, and Dermatology, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
| | - Robert Benjamin
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, Radiation Oncology, and Dermatology, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
| | - John S Wiener
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, Radiation Oncology, and Dermatology, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
| | - Richard Sloane
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, Radiation Oncology, and Dermatology, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
| | - Audrey Brown
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, Radiation Oncology, and Dermatology, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
| | - W Robert Lee
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, Radiation Oncology, and Dermatology, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
| | - David Turner
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, Radiation Oncology, and Dermatology, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
| | - Rosie Qin
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, Radiation Oncology, and Dermatology, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
| | - Amber Reck Atwater
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, Radiation Oncology, and Dermatology, Duke Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Robert Lee W. In recognition of the 2017 PRO reviewer apprentices. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.05.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
44
|
Ramey SJ, Agrawal S, Abramowitz MC, Moghanaki D, Pisansky TM, Efstathiou JA, Michalski JM, Spratt DE, Hearn JW, Koontz BF, Liauw SL, Pollack A, Anscher MS, Den RB, Stephans KL, Zietman AL, Lee WR, Stephenson AJ, Tendulkar RD. Multi-institutional Evaluation of Elective Nodal Irradiation and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy with Postprostatectomy Salvage Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2018; 74:99-106. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.10.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2017] [Accepted: 10/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
45
|
Abstract
The biologic effects of changing the daily radiation dose (fractionation) have been studied for more than a century. The fractionation question in the treatment of prostate cancer came into stark relief in 1999 with the publication of a provocative report suggesting that hypofractionated regimens could maintain the therapeutic ratio with logistic and financial advantages. In the last two decades medical evidence, weak and strong, has accumulated on the efficacy and toxicity of hypofractionated regimens in the radiotherapeutic treatment of prostate cancer. This brief review will focus on the results of randomized trials that compare moderate hypofractionation (HF) to conventional fractionation (CF). Extreme HF is covered in a separate review within this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Bridget F Koontz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Tandberg DJ, Oyekunle T, Lee WR, Wu Y, Salama JK, Koontz BF. Postoperative Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Conventional Versus Hypofractionated Radiation Regimens. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 101:396-405. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2017] [Revised: 01/18/2018] [Accepted: 02/01/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
47
|
Hwang WL, Tendulkar RD, Niemierko A, Agrawal S, Stephans KL, Spratt DE, Hearn JW, Koontz BF, Lee WR, Michalski JM, Pisansky TM, Liauw SL, Abramowitz MC, Pollack A, Moghanaki D, Anscher MS, Den RB, Zietman AL, Stephenson AJ, Efstathiou JA. Comparison Between Adjuvant and Early-Salvage Postprostatectomy Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer With Adverse Pathological Features. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4:e175230. [PMID: 29372236 PMCID: PMC5885162 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5230] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2017] [Accepted: 11/16/2017] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
Importance Prostate cancer with adverse pathological features (ie, pT3 and/or positive margins) after prostatectomy may be managed with adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or surveillance followed by early-salvage radiotherapy (ESRT) for biochemical recurrence. The optimal timing of postoperative radiotherapy is unclear. Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of postoperative ART and ESRT administered to patients with prostate cancer with adverse pathological features. Design, Setting, and Participants This multi-institutional, propensity score-matched cohort study involved 1566 consecutive patients who underwent postprostatectomy ART or ESRT at 10 US academic medical centers between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 2013. Propensity score 1-to-1 matching was used to account for covariates potentially associated with treatment selection. Data were collected from January 1 to September 30, 2016. Data analysis was conducted from October 1, 2016, to October 21, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures Freedom from postirradiation biochemical failure, freedom from distant metastases, and overall survival. All outcomes were measured from date of surgery to address lead-time bias. Results Of 1566 patients, 1195 with prostate-specific antigen levels of 0.1 to 0.5 ng/mL received ESRT and 371 patients with prostate-specific antigen levels lower than 0.1 ng/mL received ART. The median age (interquartile range) was 60 (55-65) years. After propensity score matching, the median (interquartile range) follow-up after surgery was similar between the ESRT and ART groups (73.3 [44.9-106.6] months vs 65.8 [40-107] months; P = .22). Adjuvant RT, compared with ESRT, was associated with higher freedom from biochemical failure (12-year actuarial rates: 69% [95% CI, 60%-76%] vs 43% [95% CI, 35%-51%]; effect size, 26%), freedom from distant metastases (95% [95% CI, 90%-97%] vs 85% [95% CI, 76%-90%]; effect size, 10%), and overall survival (91% [95% CI, 84%-95%] vs 79% [95% CI, 69%-86%]; effect size, 12%). Adjuvant RT, lower Gleason score and T stage, nodal irradiation, and postoperative androgen deprivation therapy were favorable prognostic features on multivariate analysis for biochemical failure. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the decreased risk of biochemical failure associated with ART remained significant unless more than 56% of patients in the ART group were cured by surgery alone. This threshold is greater than the estimated 12-year freedom from biochemical failure rate of 33% to 52% after radical prostatectomy alone, as determined by a contemporary dynamic nomogram. Conclusions and Relevance Adjuvant RT, compared with ESRT, was associated with reduced biochemical recurrence, distant metastases, and death for high-risk patients, pending prospective validation. These findings suggest that a greater proportion of patients with prostate cancer who have adverse pathological features may benefit from postprostatectomy ART rather than surveillance followed by ESRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William L. Hwang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Rahul D. Tendulkar
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Andrzej Niemierko
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Shree Agrawal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Kevin L. Stephans
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Daniel E. Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Jason W. Hearn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Bridget F. Koontz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - W. Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Jeff M. Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
| | | | - Stanley L. Liauw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | | | - Alan Pollack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
| | - Drew Moghanaki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Mitchell S. Anscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond
| | - Robert B. Den
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Anthony L. Zietman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Andrew J. Stephenson
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Jason A. Efstathiou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Koontz BF, Hoffman KE, Healy P, George DJ, Harrison MR, Zhang T, Lee WR, Berry WR, Pugh TJ, Corn PG, Bratt L, Shobe K, Thornburg B, Allen DM, Brummer K, Tojong B, Hobbs B, Halabi S, Armstrong AJ. Phase II trial of 6 months ADT/abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) and definitive radiotherapy (AbiRT) for men with intermediate to high risk localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.36.6_suppl.11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
11 Background: Combined external beam radiotherapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival over RT alone for high risk prostate cancer (PC). Long-term ADT use, currently recommended for high risk PC, also increases toxicity. Recent data suggests synergistic efficacy with the addition of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) to RT/ADT. Potent androgen blockade may provide biochemical control with short-term ADT course in men with aggressive but localized PC. Methods: This was a two center prospective phase 2 single arm clinical trial within the Department of Defense PCCTC (NCT01717053). Eligibility included 2+ intermediate or 1 high NCCN risk factors and no metastatic disease. Men received 6 months of ADT concurrently with 1000mg AA/5mg P daily and 78 Gy RT to prostate/SV. Primary endpoint was PSA < 0.1 ng/ml at 1 year. Secondary objectives included BPFS, PSA nadir, testosterone recovery, toxicity, and patient-reported QOL. Results: We enrolled 37 men (82% white, 18% black) with intermediate to high risk localized PC; 33 completed course of treatment (4 patients halted early for personal preference (N = 2), planned prostatectomy, or renal artery stenosis). Median age was 66 years; 46% Gleason 8-10, 40% Gleason 4+3 = 7, 62% T1c. Median follow-up is 23 months. Regimen was well tolerated with 12 (32%) G3 toxicities (10 hypertension, 2 hyperglycemia, 1 hypokalemia); no G4-5 or unexpected toxicities were observed. At 12 months from enrollment, PSA remained at undetectable levels in 52% of men. Testosterone recovery to normal lab value occurred in 12 (62%) at 12 months. In those patients, 20 (95%) and 21 (100%) remained with PSA under 0.5 and 1.0 ng/ml, respectively. No patient has failed by Phoenix definition to date. 1 year EPIC QOL had median summary scores above 90 for incontinence, urinary, bowel, hormonal, and satisfaction. Sexual summary score fell from median of 46 at baseline to 26 at 1 year. Conclusions: In men with high risk intermediate or limited high risk PC, utilizing short-term ADT/AAP with definitive RT shows 1) high rate of testosterone recovery and good quality of life and 2) excellent PSA control at 1 and 2 years. Clinical trial information: NCT01717053.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Tian Zhang
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Beth Tojong
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Raleigh, NC
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Hwang WL, Tendulkar RD, Niemierko A, Agrawal S, Stephans KL, Spratt DE, Hearn JW, Koontz BF, Lee WR, Michalski JM, Pisansky TM, Liauw SL, Abramowitz M, Pollack A, Moghanaki D, Anscher M, Den RB, Zietman AL, Stephenson AJ, Efstathiou JA. Optimal timing of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy for prostate cancer with high-risk pathologic features: A multi-institutional analysis. J Clin Oncol 2018. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.36.6_suppl.24] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
24 Background: The use of radical prostatectomy (RP) as initial treatment of high-risk/locally-advanced prostate cancer is increasing but patients (pts) with adverse pathologic features such as positive surgical margins or T3 disease have up to 70% recurrence risk. These high-risk pts may be managed with adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or early salvage radiotherapy (ESRT). The optimal timing of post-operative radiotherapy is unclear. Methods: Individual data from 1566 consecutive pts with pT2N0M0/R1 or pT3N0M0/R0-1 disease who underwent post-prostatectomy ART or ESRT (1987-2013) at 10 academic centers were pooled. Post-irradiation freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from distant metastases (FFDM), prostate-cancer specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS) were compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariate competing-risks regression (MVA) analyses. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to account for covariates potentially associated with treatment allocation. All outcomes were measured from the date of surgery to address lead time bias. Results: After PS-matching, median follow-up after surgery was 66 vs. 73 months for the ART and ESRT groups, respectively, and baseline characteristics were well-matched. ART was associated with higher FFBF (12-yr: 69% vs. 43%; log-rank P < 0.0001), FFDM (12-yr: 95% vs. 85%; log-rank P = 0.03), PCSS (12-yr: 99% vs. 94%; log-rank P = 0.048), and OS (12-yr: 91% vs. 79%; log-rank P = 0.01). ART, lower Gleason score, lower T-stage, nodal irradiation, and postoperative androgen deprivation therapy were favorable prognostic features on MVA for BF. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the decreased risk of BF associated with ART remained significant unless more than 56% of ART pts were cured by surgery alone. This threshold is greater than the estimated 12-yr FFBF of 46% after RP alone as determined by a contemporary nomogram. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this represents the largest multi-institutional study to date comparing ART to ESRT. ART was associated with reduced biochemical recurrence, distant metastases, and death compared to ESRT for high-risk pts, pending prospective validation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Shree Agrawal
- Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Jeff M. Michalski
- Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | | | | | | | - Alan Pollack
- University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
| | | | | | - Robert Benjamin Den
- Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Dorth JA, Lee WR, Chino J, Abouassaly R, Ellis RJ, Myers ER. Cost-Effectiveness of Primary Radiation Therapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- to High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 100:383-390. [PMID: 29353655 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.10.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2017] [Revised: 10/05/2017] [Accepted: 10/12/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare, using a cost-effectiveness analysis, the quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and cost between the 2 treatment options for intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: (1) radiation (RT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or (2) radical prostatectomy (RP) followed by adjuvant RT for patients with risk factors. METHODS AND MATERIALS Our Markov model allowed patients to transition between health states with yearly probabilities of developing cancer recurrence and/or toxicity. Probabilities were assigned according to favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, or high-risk prostate cancer groups. The primary analysis examined outcomes for patients aged 65 years, whereas secondary analyses explored the effects of younger age, elevated baseline cardiovascular risk, and the use of salvage therapy. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS Across all primary and secondary analyses, and using a wide-range of assumptions, RT + ADT was the preferred treatment strategy for men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. The QALE was higher after RT + ADT by 0.5 to 1.14 quality-adjusted life years, compared with RP. Radiation plus ADT was cost-effective in all situations, falling beneath a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Among all risk groups, a greater proportion of patients undergoing RP experienced single or multiple treatment toxicities. CONCLUSIONS Radiation plus ADT may result in improved QALE compared with RP for intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. Although biochemical failure is similar between treatment groups, there is a higher rate of developing multiple toxicities among patients treated with upfront RP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer A Dorth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Junzo Chino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Robert Abouassaly
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Rodney J Ellis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Evan R Myers
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|