Search

Purpose: To validate the association between body composition and mortality in men treated with radiation for localized prostate cancer (PCa). Secondarily, to integrate body composition as a factor to classify patients by risk of all‐cause mortality. Materials and Methods: Participants of NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9406 and NRG/RTOG 0126 with archived computed tomography were included. Muscle mass and muscle density were estimated by measuring the area and attenuation of the psoas muscles on a single slice at L4–L5. Bone density was estimated by measuring the attenuation of the vertebral body at mid‐L5. Survival analyses, including Cox proportional hazards models, assessed the relationship between body composition and mortality. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to create a classification tree to classify participants by risk of death. Results: Data from 2066 men were included in this study. In the final multivariable model, psoas area, comorbidity score, baseline prostate serum antigen, and age were significantly associated with survival. The RPA yielded a classification tree with four prognostic groups determined by age, comorbidity, and psoas area. Notably, the classification among older (≥70 years) men into prognostic groups was determined by psoas area. Conclusions: This study strongly supports that body composition is related to mortality in men with localized PCa. The inclusion of psoas area in the RPA classification tree suggests that body composition provides additive information to age and comorbidity status for mortality prediction, particularly among older men. More research is needed to determine the clinical impact of body composition on prognostic models in men with PCa. This study strongly supports that body composition is related to mortality in men with localized prostate cancer. The inclusion of psoas area in the recursive partitioning analysis classification tree suggests that body composition provides additive information to age and comorbidity status for mortality prediction, particularly among older men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Economic analyses of new technologies, such as proton-beam radiotherapy (PBT), are a public health priority. To date, no systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of PBT has been performed.Methods: Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, abstracts from American Society for Radiation Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were conducted (2000-2015) along with abstracts from the Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group of North America for both years of existence (2014-2015). Eighteen original investigations were analyzed.Results: The cost-effectiveness for prostate cancer-the single most common diagnosis currently treated with PBT-was suboptimal. PBT was the most cost-effective option for several pediatric brain tumors. PBT costs for breast cancer were increased but were favorable for appropriately selected patients with left-sided cancers at high risk of cardiac toxicity and compared with brachytherapy for accelerated partial breast irradiation. For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the greatest cost-effectiveness benefits using PBT were observed for locoregionally advanced-but not early stage-tumors. PBT offered superior cost-effectiveness in selected head/neck cancer patients at higher risk of acute mucosal toxicities. Similar cost-effectiveness was observed for PBT, enucleation, and plaque brachytherapy in patients with uveal melanoma.Conclusions: With greatly limited amounts of data, PBT offers promising cost-effectiveness for pediatric brain tumors, well-selected breast cancers, locoregionally advanced NSCLC, and high-risk head/neck cancers. Heretofore, it has not been demonstrated that PBT is cost-effective for prostate cancer or early stage NSCLC. Careful patient selection is absolutely critical to assess cost-effectiveness. Together with increasing PBT availability, clinical trial evidence, and ongoing major technological improvements, cost-effectiveness data and conclusions from this analysis could change rapidly. Cancer 2016;122:1483-501. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most frequent primary brain tumor in adults. Temozolomide was rapidly incorporated into first-line treatment following the publication of the pivotal European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-National Cancer Institute of Canada phase 3 trial in 2005. However, in the trial, enrollment was limited to younger patients with good performance status. Therefore, this study performed a population-based survival analysis of patients with newly diagnosed GBM covering the period before and after the introduction of temozolomide. METHODS: Survival statistics and clinical and demographic variables were extracted from the Survival, Epidemiology and End Results Database for patients diagnosed with GBM from 2001 to 2007. Mean regional income for each patient was also collected. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and proportional hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 13,003 adult patients diagnosed with a GBM were identified. Prognostic variables included age <70 years, use of radiation, gross total resection, and residence in a high-income district ( P < .001). Between 2001 and 2007, the median survival time increased from 7 to 9 months for the entire population. The 1-year survival increased from 29% to 39%. Prognosis of patients aged 70 or more years did not improve over this time. Over the study period, the absolute disparity in 1-year survival between low- and high-income districts increased from 6.6% to 10.1%. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a stepwise improvement in the overall survival of patients with GBM between 2001 and 2007. This improvement has been confined to patients <70 years of age and has been most prominent among patients living in high-income districts. Cancer 2012. © 2011 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response from the author of the article "Improving prognosis of glioblastoma in the 21st century: Who has benefited most?" published in a previous issue of the periodical is presented.