Search

Purpose: Emerging data suggest that metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) improves outcomes in patients with oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (omCSPC). Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) can detect occult metastatic disease, and PSMA response has been proposed as a biomarker for treatment response. Herein, we identify and validate a PSMA-PET biomarker for metastasis-free survival (MFS) following MDT in omCSPC. Methods and Materials: We performed an international multi-institutional retrospective study of patients with omCSPC, defined as ≤3 lesions, treated with metastasis-directed stereotactic ablative radiation who underwent PSMA-PET/computed tomography (CT) before and after (median, 6.2 months; range, 2.4-10.9 months) treatment. Pre- and post-MDT PSMA-PET/CT maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was measured for all lesions, and PSMA response was defined as the percent change in SUVmax of the least responsive lesion. PSMA response was both evaluated as a continuous variable and dichotomized into PSMA responders, with a complete/partial response (at least a 30% reduction in SUVmax), and PSMA nonresponders, with stable/progressive disease (less than a 30% reduction in SUVmax). PSMA response was correlated with conventional imaging-defined metastasis-free survival (MFS) via Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 131 patients with 261 treated metastases were included in the analysis, with a median follow-up of 29 months (IQR, 18.5-41.3 months). After stereotactic ablative radiation, 70.2% of patients were classified as PSMA responders. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that PSMA response as a continuous variable was associated with a significantly worse MFS (hazard ratio = 1.003; 95% CI, 1.001-1.006; P = .016). Patients classified as PSMA responders were found to have a significantly improved median MFS of 39.9 versus 12 months (P = .001) compared with PSMA nonresponders. Our study is limited as it is a retrospective review of a heterogenous population. Conclusions: After stereotactic ablative radiation, PSMA-PET response appears to be a radiographic biomarker that correlates with MFS in omCSPC. This approach holds promise for guiding clinical management of omCSPC and should be validated in a prospective setting.

PurposeTo report the utilization of radiation therapy in Syrian refugee patients with prostate cancer residing in Turkey.Methods and materialsA multi-institutional retrospective review including 14 cancer centers in Turkey was conducted to include 137 Syrian refugee patients with prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy (RT). Toxicity data was scored using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Noncompliance was defined as a patient missing two or more scheduled RT appointments.ResultsAdvanced disease, defined as stage III or IV, was reported in 64.2% of patients while androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was only administrated to 20% of patients. Conventionally fractionated RT with a median number of 44 fractions was delivered to all patients with curative intent (n = 61) while palliative RT (n = 76) was delivered with a median number of 10 fractions. The acute grade 3–4 toxicity rate for the entire cohort was 16%. Noncompliance rate was 42%.ConclusionMost Syrian refugee prostate cancer patients presented with advanced disease however ADT was seldom used. Despite the low treatment compliance rate, conventional fractionation was used in all patients. Interventions are critically needed to improve screening and increase the use of standard-of-care treatment paradigms, including hypofractionated RT and ADT.

BackgroundPostmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) decreases the risk of locoregional recurrence and increases overall survival rates in patients with high-risk node positive breast cancer. While the number of breast cancer patients treated with proton-based PMRT has increased in recent years, there is limited data on the use of proton therapy in the postmastectomy with reconstruction setting. In this study, we compared acute toxicities and reconstructive complications in patients treated with proton-based and photon-based PMRT.MethodsA retrospective review of our institutional database was performed to identify breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy with implant or autologous reconstruction followed by PMRT from 2015 to 2020. Baseline clinical, disease, and treatment related factors were compared between the photon-based and proton-based PMRT groups. Early toxicity outcomes and reconstructive complications following PMRT were graded by the treating physician.ResultsA total of 11 patients treated with proton-based PMRT and 26 patients treated with photon-based PMRT were included with a median follow-up of 7.4 months (range, 0.7-33 months). Six patients (55%) in the proton group had a history of breast cancer (3 ipsilateral and 3 contralateral) and received previous RT 38 months ago (median, range 7-85). There was no significant difference in mean PMRT (p = 0.064) and boost dose (p = 0.608) between the two groups. Grade 2 skin toxicity was the most common acute toxicity in both groups (55% and 73% in the proton and photon group, respectively) (p = 0.077). Three patients (27%) in the proton group developed grade 3 skin toxicity. No Grade 4 acute toxicity was reported in either group. Reconstructive complications occurred in 4 patients (36%) in the proton group and 8 patients (31%) in photon group (p = 0.946).ConclusionsAcute skin toxicity remains the most frequent adverse event in both proton- and photon-based PMRT. In our study, reconstructive complications were not significantly higher in patients treated with proton- versus photon-based PMRT. Longer follow-up is warranted to assess late toxicities.

Abstract Background Increased risk of a second primary malignancy (SPM) before or after diagnosis of anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) has been reported in a previous single‐institution study. We hypothesize that patients diagnosed with ASCC are at increased risk for developing SPMs before or after the diagnosis of ASCC. The primary objective of this study was to identify the diagnoses of cancer most likely to occur as SPMs before or after ASCC. Methods This work employs the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registry data to conduct a US‐population‐based study of patients diagnosed with ASCC between 1975 and 2016. In patients diagnosed with ASCC, we evaluated the risk of SPMs and the risk of developing ASCC as an SPM after another cancer using standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for all SPMs by calculating the ratio of observed events in the ASCC cohort compared to expected (O/E) events in a matched reference cohort of the general population. Results A total of 7,594 patients with primary ASCC were included. Patients with ASCC were at increased risk of the diagnosis of an SPM (SIR = 1.45), particularly cancers of the lung, vulva, oropharynx, or colon. Patients with ASCC had an increased rate of previous malignancy (SIR = 1.23), especially Kaposi sarcoma or vulvar cancer. Overall elevated incidence of SPMs was unrelated to prior radiation treatment. Radiation treatment was associated with increased risk for SPMs in the female genital system but appeared protective against prostate cancer as SPMs. Conclusions Our findings support increased surveillance and screening for second malignancies in patients with these diagnoses, as patients with ASCC are often either survivors of a prior cancer diagnosis or are at increased risk of developing later malignancies.

Extrauterine leiomyomas can present as benign metastasizing leiomyoma involving lymph nodes, which can be mistaken for metastatic malignancy. We report a case of a 52-year-old female who presented with postmenopausal bleeding and was found to have an endocervical mass. Imaging demonstrated retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy and biopsy of the cervical mass showed adenocarcinoma of either uterine or cervical origin. Patient underwent hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and lymphadenectomy for bulky pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes. Final pathology was consistent with FIGO 2019 stage IB2 adenocarcinoma of the cervix with concurrent and benign metastasizing leiomyomas involving retroperitoneal lymph nodes.

Purpose: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) versus low dose-rate brachytherapy (LDRB) for localized prostate cancer in a multi-institutional phase 2 randomized trial. Methods and Materials: Men with favorable-risk prostate cancer were randomized between monotherapy brachytherapy with either Iodine-125 LDRB to 144 Gy or single-fraction Iridium-192 HDRB to 19 Gy. HRQOL and urinary toxicity were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 scoring and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Independent samples t test and mixed effects modeling were performed for continuous variables. Time to IPSS resolution, defined as return to its baseline score ±5 points, was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimator curves with the log-rank test. A multiple-comparison adjusted P value of ≤.05 was considered significant. Results: LDRB and HDRB were performed in 15 and 16 patients, respectively, for a total of 31 patients. At 3 months, patients treated with LDRB had a higher IPSS score (mean, 15.5 vs 6.0, respectively; P = .003) and lower EPIC urinary irritative score (mean, 69.2 vs 85.3, respectively; P = .037) compared with those who received HDRB. On repeated measures at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, the IPSS (P = .003) and EPIC urinary irritative scores (P = .019) were significantly better in the HDR arm, translating into a lower urinary toxicity profile. There were no significant differences in the EPIC urinary incontinence, sexual, or bowel habit scores between the 2 groups at any measured time point. Time to IPSS resolution was significantly shorter in the HDRB group (mean, 2.0 months) compared with the LDRB group (mean, 6.0 months; P = .028). Conclusions: HDRB monotherapy is a promising modality associated with a lower urinary toxicity profile and higher HRQOL in the first 12 months compared with LDRB.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate whether the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in treatment delays in patients scheduled for or undergoing brachytherapy. Methods and Materials: A retrospective cohort study was conducted across 4 affiliated sites after local institutional review board approval. The eligibility criteria were defined as all patients with cancer whose treatment plan included brachytherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic from February 24, 2020 to June 30, 2020. Treatment delays, cancellations, alterations of fractionation regimens, and treatment paradigm changes were evaluated. Results: A total of 47 patients were eligible for the analysis. Median patient age at the time of treatment was 62 years (interquartile range, 56-70 years). Endometrial, cervical, and prostate cancers were the most common sites included in this analysis. Three patients (6.4%) with cervical cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the course of their treatment. Interruptions of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), cancellations of EBRT, cancellations of brachytherapy, and treatment delays due to COVID occurred in 5 (10.6%), 3 (6.4%), 8 (17%), and 9 (19%) patients, respectively. The mean and median number of days delayed for patients who experienced treatment interruptions were 16.3 days (standard deviation: 13.9 days) and 14 days (interquartile range, 5.75-23.75 days), respectively. For patients with cervical cancer, the mean and median overall treatment times defined as the time from the start of EBRT to the end of brachytherapy were 56 and 49 days, respectively. Conclusions: Despite the challenges the health care system faced during the pandemic, most patients with cancer were safely treated with minor treatment delays and interruptions. Long-term follow up is needed to assess the impact of COVID-19 and treatment interruptions on oncologic outcomes.