Publications by authors named "Kiri A Sandler"

14 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Local Failure and Survival After Definitive Radiotherapy for Aggressive Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient-level Meta-analysis of Six Randomized Trials.

Eur Urol 2020 02 10;77(2):201-208. Epub 2019 Nov 10.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Background: The importance of local failure (LF) after treatment of high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) with definitive radiotherapy (RT) remains unknown.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical implications of LF after definitive RT.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Individual patient data meta-analysis of 992 patients (593 Gleason grade group [GG] 4 and 399 GG 5) enrolled in six randomized clinical trials.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), and distant metastasis (DM)-free survival (DMFS) and LF as a time-dependent covariate. Markov proportional hazard models were developed to evaluate the impact of specific transitions between disease states on these endpoints.

Results And Limitations: Median follow-up was 6.4 yr overall and 7.2 yr for surviving patients. LF was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.70 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.37-2.10]), PCSS (3.10 [95% CI 2.33-4.12]), and DMFS (HR 1.92 [95% CI 1.54-2.39]), p < 0.001 for all). Patients who had not transitioned to the LF state had a significantly lower hazard of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who transitioned to the LF state (HR 0.13 [95% CI 0.04-0.41], p < 0.001). Additionally, patients who transitioned to the LF state had a greater hazard of DM or death (HR 2.46 [95% CI 1.22-4.93], p = 0.01) than those who did not.

Conclusions: LF is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS, and DMFS in high-grade localized PCa and a subset of DM events that are anteceded by LF events. LF events warrant consideration for intervention, potentially suggesting a rationale for upfront treatment intensification. However, whether these findings apply to all men or just those without significant comorbidity remains to be determined.

Patient Summary: Men who experience a local recurrence of high-grade prostate cancer after receiving upfront radiation therapy are at significantly increased risks of developing metastases and dying of prostate cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.008DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7008470PMC
February 2020

Prostate-only Versus Whole-pelvis Radiation with or Without a Brachytherapy Boost for Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.

Eur Urol 2020 01 13;77(1):3-10. Epub 2019 Apr 13.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Veteran Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Background: The role of elective whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) remains controversial. Few studies have investigated it in Gleason grade group (GG) 5 prostate cancer (PCa), known to have a high risk of nodal metastases.

Objective: To assess the impact of WPRT on patients with GG 5 PCa treated with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT).

Design, Setting, And Participants: We identified 1170 patients with biopsy-proven GG 5 PCa from 11 centers in the United States and one in Norway treated between 2000 and 2013 (734 with EBRT and 436 with EBRT+BT).

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were compared using Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score adjustment.

Results And Limitations: A total of 299 EBRT patients (41%) and 320 EBRT+BT patients (73%) received WPRT. The adjusted 5-yr bRFS rates with WPRT in the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 66% and 88%, respectively. Without WPRT, these rates for the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 58% and 78%, respectively. The median follow-up was 5.6yr. WPRT was associated with improved bRFS among patients treated with EBRT+BT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.9, p=0.02), but no evidence for improvement was found in those treated with EBRT (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.2, p=0.4). WPRT was not significantly associated with improved DMFS or PCSS in the EBRT group (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.7, p=0.8 for DMFS and HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p=0.1 for PCSS), or in the EBRT+BT group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.4, p=0.2 for DMFS and HR 0.5 95% CI 0.2-1.2, p=0.1 for PCSS).

Conclusions: WPRT was not associated with improved PCSS or DMFS in patients with GG 5 PCa who received either EBRT or EBRT+BT. However, WPRT was associated with a significant improvement in bRFS among patients receiving EBRT+BT. Strategies to optimize WPRT, potentially with the use of advanced imaging techniques to identify occult nodal disease, are warranted.

Patient Summary: When men with a high Gleason grade prostate cancer receive radiation with external radiation and brachytherapy, the addition of radiation to the pelvis results in a longer duration of prostate-specific antigen control. However, we did not find a difference in their survival from prostate cancer or in their survival without metastatic disease. We also did not find a benefit for radiation to the pelvis in men who received radiation without brachytherapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.03.022DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7521828PMC
January 2020

Is moderate hypofractionation accepted as a new standard of care in north america for prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy? Survey of genitourinary expert radiation oncologists.

Int Braz J Urol 2019 Mar-Apr;45(2):273-287

Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, U.S.A.

Introduction: Several recent randomized clinical trials have evaluated hypofractionated regimens against conventionally fractionated EBRT and shown similar effectiveness with conflicting toxicity results. The current view regarding hypofractionation compared to conventional EBRT among North American genitourinary experts for management of prostate cancer has not been investigated.

Materials And Methods: A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision - making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to opinions regarding the default EBRT dose and fractionation for a hypothetical example of a favorable intermediate - risk prostate cancer (Gleason 3 + 4). Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher's exact test.

Results: Forty - two respondents (48%) completed the survey. We excluded from analysis two respondents who selected radical hypofractionation with 5 - 12 fractions as a preferred treatment modality. Among the 40 analyzed respondents, 23 (57.5%) recommend conventional fractionation and 17 (42.5%) recommended moderate hypofractionation. No demographic factors were found to be associated with preference for a fractionation regimen. Support for brachytherapy as a first choice treatment modality for low - risk prostate cancer was borderline significantly associated with support for moderate hypofractionated EBRT treatment modality (p = 0.089).

Conclusions: There is an almost equal split among North American GU expert radiation oncologists regarding the appropriateness to consider moderately hypofractionated EBRT as a new standard of care in management of patients with prostate cancer. Physicians who embrace brachytherapy may be more inclined to support moderate hypofractionated regimen for EBRT. It is unclear whether reports with longer followups will impact this balance, or whether national care and reimbursement policies will drive the clinical decisions. In the day and age of patient - centered care delivery, patients should receive an objective recommendation based on available clinical evidence. The stark division among GU experts may influence the design of future clinical trials utilizing EBRT for patients with prostate cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0275DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6541148PMC
July 2019

Dramatic polarization in genitourinary expert opinions regarding the clinical utility of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in prostate cancer.

Int Braz J Urol 2019 Jan-Feb;45(1):23-31

Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

Objectives: To ascertain the opinions of North American genitourinary (GU) experts regarding inclusion of technologies such as prostate - specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and C - 11 choline positron emission tomography (PET) into routine practice.

Materials And Methods: A survey was distributed to North American GU experts. Questions pertained to the role of PSMA and C - 11 PET in PCa management. Participants were categorized as "supporters" or "opponents" of incorporation of novel imaging techniques. Opinions were correlated with practice patterns.

Results: Response rate was 54% and we analyzed 42 radiation oncologist respondents. 17 participants (40%) have been in practice for > 20 years and 38 (90%) practice at an academic center. 24 (57%) were supporters of PSMA and 29 (69%) were supporters of C - 11. Supporters were more likely to treat pelvic nodes (88% vs. 56%, p < 01) and trended to be more likely to treat patients with moderate or extreme hypofractionation (58% vs. 28%, p = 065). Supporters trended to be more likely to offer brachytherapy boost (55% vs. 23%, p = 09), favor initial observation and early salvage over adjuvant radiation (77% vs. 55%, p = 09), and to consider themselves expert brachytherapists (69% vs. 39%, p = 09).

Conclusions: There is a polarization among GU radiation oncology experts regarding novel imaging techniques. A correlation emerged between support of novel imaging and adoption of treatment approaches that are clinically superior or less expensive. Pre - existing biases among GU experts on national treatment - decision panels and leaders of cooperative group studies may affect the design of future studies and influence the adoption of these technologies in clinical practice.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0208DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442122PMC
June 2019

Adjuvant vs. salvage radiation therapy in men with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy: Survey of North American genitourinary expert radiation oncologists.

Can Urol Assoc J 2019 May 15;13(5):E132-E134. Epub 2018 Oct 15.

Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, United States.

Introduction: The management of patients with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy (RP) is controversial. Level 1 evidence demonstrates that adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) improves survival compared to no treatment; however, it may overtreat up to 30% of patients, as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using salvage RT on observation arms failed to reveal a survival advantage of adjuvant RT. We, therefore, sought to determine the current view of adjuvant vs. salvage RT among North American genitourinary (GU) radiation oncology experts.

Methods: A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision-making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to opinions regarding adjuvant vs. salvage RT for this patient population. Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher's exact test.

Results: Forty-two of 88 radiation oncologists completed the survey; 23 (54.8%) recommended adjuvant RT and 19 (45.2%) recommended salvage RT. Recommendation of active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease was a significant predictor of salvage RT recommendation (p=0.034), and monthly patient volume approached significance for recommendation of adjuvant over salvage RT; those seeing <15 patients/month trended towards recommending adjuvant over salvage RT (p=0.062). No other demographic factors approached significance.

Conclusions: There is dramatic polarization among North American GU experts regarding optimal management of patients with high-risk features after RP. Ongoing RCTs will determine whether adjuvant RT improves survival over salvage RT. Until then, the almost 50/50 division seen from this analysis should encourage practicing clinicians to discuss the ambiguity with their patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5470DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520058PMC
May 2019

Association of Gleason Grade With Androgen Deprivation Therapy Duration and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-analysis.

JAMA Oncol 2019 01;5(1):91-96

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.

Importance: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy (RT). Whether this benefit differs between patients with Gleason grade group (GG) 4 (formerly Gleason score 8) and GG 5 (formerly Gleason score 9-10) disease remains unknown.

Objective: To determine whether the effectiveness of ADT duration varies between patients with GG 4 vs GG 5 PCa.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Traditional and network individual patient data meta-analyses of 992 patients (593 GG 4 and 399 GG 5) who were enrolled in 6 randomized clinical trials were carried out.

Main Outcomes And Measures: Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to obtain hazard ratio (HR) estimates of ADT duration effects on overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). Cause-specific competing risk models were used to estimate HRs for cancer-specific survival (CSS). The interaction of ADT with GS was incorporated into the multivariable models. Traditional and network meta-analysis frameworks were used to compare outcomes of patients treated with RT alone, short-term ADT (STADT), long-term ADT (LTADT), and lifelong ADT.

Results: Five hundred ninety-three male patients (mean age, 70 years; range, 43-88 years) with GG 4 and 399 with GG 5 were identified. Median follow-up was 6.4 years. Among GG 4 patients, LTADT and STADT improved OS over RT alone (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.70 and HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.93, respectively; P = .03 for both), whereas lifelong ADT did not (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.54-1.30; P = .44). Among GG 5 patients, lifelong ADT improved OS (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.76; P = .04), whereas neither LTADT nor STADT did (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.45-1.44 and HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.69-1.87; P = .45 and P = .64, respectively). Among all patients, and among those receiving STADT, GG 5 patients had inferior OS compared with GG 4 patients (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.47 and HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05-1.88, respectively; P = .02). There was no significant OS difference between GG 5 and GG 4 patients receiving LTADT or lifelong ADT (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.89-1.65 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.53-1.37; P = .23 and P = .52, respectively).

Conclusions And Relevance: These data suggest that prolonged durations of ADT improve survival outcomes in both GG 4 disease and GG 5 disease, albeit with different optimal durations. Strategies to maintain the efficacy of ADT while minimizing its duration (potentially with enhanced potency agents) should be investigated.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3732DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6440243PMC
January 2019

Content Validity of Anatomic Site-Specific Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) Item Sets for Assessment of Acute Symptomatic Toxicities in Radiation Oncology.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018 09 5;102(1):44-52. Epub 2018 Jun 5.

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address:

Purpose: To improve assessment of symptomatic toxicity in cancer clinical trials and complement clinician-based toxicity reporting, the US National Cancer Institute developed a measurement system called the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). The objective of this study was to examine the content validity of PRO-CTCAE in patients undergoing radiation therapy and to establish anatomic site-specific item sets for implementation in cancer research.

Methods And Materials: Patients receiving radiation to the brain, head and neck, breast, thorax, abdomen, or pelvis were recruited during the final week of radiation. Participants described side effects qualitatively and completed anatomic site-specific checklists indicating the presence or absence of symptomatic toxicities drawn from the PRO-CTCAE library. Items endorsed by ≥20% of participants were selected for inclusion. Symptomatic toxicities described qualitatively were content analyzed and summarized. Symptomatic toxicities not reflected in the PRO-CTCAE item library were tabulated.

Results: We conducted 389 interviews of patients receiving radiation to the brain (n = 46), head and neck (n = 69), breast (n = 134), thorax (n = 30), abdomen (n = 27), female pelvis (n = 36), or male pelvis (n = 47). Median age was 62 years; 62% were female. The 53 solicited PRO-CTCAE symptoms reflected all reported radiation-induced toxicities with the exception of phlegm/mucus production and mouth/throat pain with swallowing in patients receiving head and neck radiation, eye dryness/irritation in patients undergoing brain radiation, and obstructive urinary symptoms in men receiving pelvic radiation. The PRO-CTCAE items "skin burns" and "pain" require greater specificity to adequately reflect toxicities experienced during radiation.

Conclusions: PRO-CTCAE demonstrates strong content validity as a measure of symptomatic toxicities in patients receiving radiation. These results provide empirical support for the definition of site-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets to assess the symptomatic toxicities of radiation therapy. The site-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets developed herein are currently being deployed in our department via an electronic platform to capture treatment-related toxicity.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.04.048DOI Listing
September 2018

Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Gleason Score 10 Prostate Adenocarcinoma: Results From a Multi-institutional Consortium Study.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018 07 5;101(4):883-888. Epub 2018 Apr 5.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Veteran Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.

Purpose: Gleason score (GS) 10 disease is the most aggressive form of clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa). The long-term clinical outcomes and overall prognosis of patients presenting with GS 10 PCa are largely unknown because of its rarity.

Methods And Materials: The study included 112 patients with biopsy-determined GS 10 PCa who received treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP, n = 26), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT, n = 48), or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-BT, n = 38) between 2000 and 2013. Propensity scores were included as covariates for comparative analysis. Overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method with inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for confounding.

Results: The median follow-up period was 4.9 years overall (3.9 years for RP, 4.8 years for EBRT, and 5.7 years for EBRT-BT). Significantly more EBRT patients than EBRT-BT patients received upfront androgen deprivation therapy (98% vs 79%, P < .01 by χ test), though the durations were similar (median, 24 months vs 22.5 months). Of the RP patients, 34% received postoperative EBRT, and 35% received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. The propensity score-adjusted 5-year overall survival rate was 80% for the RP group, 73% for the EBRT group, and 83% for the EBRT-BT group. The corresponding adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific survival rates were 87%, 75%, and 94%, respectively. The EBRT-BT group trended toward superior DMFS when compared with the RP group (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval 0.1-1.06; P = .06) and had superior DMFS when compared with the EBRT group (hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval 0.1-0.99; P = .048).

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest series ever reported on the clinical outcomes of patients with biopsy-determined GS 10 PCa. These data provide useful prognostic benchmark information for physicians and patients. Aggressive therapy with curative intent is warranted, as >50% of patients remain free of systemic disease 5 years after treatment.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.03.060DOI Listing
July 2018

A Prospective Phase 2 Study Evaluating Safety and Efficacy of Combining Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Heat-based Ablation for Centrally Located Lung Tumors.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018 07 21;101(3):564-573. Epub 2018 Mar 21.

Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address:

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and heat-based ablation (HBA) are both potentially safe and effective treatments for primary and metastatic lung tumors. Both are suboptimal for centrally located tumors, with SBRT having a higher risk of significant toxicity and HBA having lower efficacy. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of combination SBRT-HBA to determine whether combined treatment can result in superior outcomes to each treatment alone.

Methods And Materials: Patients with 1 or 2 primary or metastatic lung tumors ≤ 5 cm in size were enrolled in a prospective phase 2 trial and treated with SBRT in 3 fractions followed by HBA. Tumors < 1 cm from the central bronchial tree received a total of 36 Gy, and tumors 1 to 2 cm away received 42 Gy. HBA was delivered within 10 days after SBRT. The primary endpoints were local control, toxicity, and degree of decline in lung function. The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival.

Results: We treated 16 patients with 17 tumors. The median follow-up time was 26 months. Fifteen tumors were evaluable for local control. The 1- and 2-year actuarial local control rates were 93% and 81%, respectively. Three patients had grade ≥ 3 toxicity: bronchial stenosis, pain, and pulmonary hemorrhage. The percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second and functional vital capacity decreased by 8% and 8.5%, respectively, at 3 months after treatment (P < .001 for both).

Conclusions: Combining SBRT and HBA for centrally located lung tumors offers reasonable local control and toxicity despite the anatomic challenges of this location. HBA may be a reasonable supplement to SBRT when trachea and bronchus, large vessel, or esophageal constraints cannot be met with full-dose SBRT and a biologically effective dose < 100 Gy is delivered because of an ultra-central location or large tumor size.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.03.011DOI Listing
July 2018

Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, or External Beam Radiotherapy With Brachytherapy Boost and Disease Progression and Mortality in Patients With Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer.

JAMA 2018 03;319(9):896-905

Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Importance: The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown.

Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013.

Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy.

Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes.

Results: Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.68] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.71]). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 [95% CI, 0.17-0.43] for RP and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19-0.47] for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96] for RP and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84] for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67-1.26], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.80-1.44], and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.85-2.11]).

Conclusions And Relevance: Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.0587DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5885899PMC
March 2018

Dramatically Polarized Opinion on the Role of Brachytherapy Boost in Management of High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Survey of North American Genitourinary Expert Radiation Oncologists.

Clin Genitourin Cancer 2018 06 2;16(3):e543-e545. Epub 2018 Feb 2.

Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. Electronic address:

Introduction: Three randomized clinical trials have established brachytherapy (BT) boost in combination with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as superior to definitive EBRT and ADT alone in terms of biochemical control (but not overall survival) at the expense of increased toxicity in men with high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa). The current view regarding these 2 treatment algorithms among North American genitourinary (GU) experts is not known.

Methods: A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision-making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to opinions regarding BT as monotherapy for low-risk PCa and BT boost for HR PCa. Responders were asked to self-identify as BT experts versus non-experts. Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using the Fisher exact test.

Results: Forty-two radiation oncologists completed the survey, of whom 23 (55%) recommend EBRT and ADT alone and 19 (45%) recommend addition of BT boost. Twenty-five participants (60%) identified themselves as BT experts. Nearly 90% of those recommending BT boost were BT experts versus approximately 10% of non-BT experts (P < .001). Responders who recommended BT monotherapy as first-choice treatment for low-risk PCa were more likely to recommend BT boost for HR PCa (P < .0001).

Conclusions: There is a dramatic polarization in opinions regarding incorporation of BT boost into EBRT + ADT therapy for patients with HR PCa among North American GU radiation oncology experts, who serve on decision-making committees and influence the national treatment guidelines and future clinical trials. Those who identify themselves as BT experts are significantly more likely to recommend BT boost. These findings are likely to influence the national guidelines and implementation of BT boost in current and future North American PCa clinical studies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.01.001DOI Listing
June 2018

Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Opinions of North American Genitourinary Oncology Expert Radiation Oncologists.

Clin Genitourin Cancer 2018 04 7;16(2):e323-e325. Epub 2017 Nov 7.

Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. Electronic address:

Introduction: The ProtecT trial has provided level 1 evidence supporting active surveillance for prostate cancer patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk disease. The effect of these findings on the opinions of North American genitourinary (GU) experts regarding the role of active surveillance for these patients has not been previously examined.

Materials And Methods: A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision-making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to appropriateness of active surveillance in patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk (Gleason 3+4) disease. Opinions regarding active surveillance were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher exact test.

Results: Forty-two radiation oncologists completed the survey. Forty percent had been in practice for more than 20 years; 90% practice at an academic center. Forty-five percent see ≥ 20 patients per month in consultation. More than 95% (40 of 42) recommended active surveillance for Gleason 6 disease, whereas only 17% recommended active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease. There were no demographic differences between supporters or opponents regarding active surveillance with regard to monthly patient volume, practice type, likelihood of self-identifying as an expert brachytherapist, belief in advanced imaging techniques, or preferred default external beam radiation therapy dose/fractionation for either low-risk or intermediate-risk disease. However, there was a trend toward greater support of active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease among experts having practiced < 10 years versus ≥ 10 years (P = .085).

Conclusion: Active surveillance is almost universally supported by North American GU expert radiation oncologists for low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is very weak support for this strategy in Gleason 3+4 disease despite the ProtecT trial providing level 1 evidentiary support in both risk groups. There were no significant differences between experts supporting versus opposing active surveillance for either low-risk or intermediate-risk disease. These preferences might affect the design of future clinical studies, influencing the adoption of active surveillance in North American clinical practice.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.10.021DOI Listing
April 2018

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for locally advanced extrahepatic and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Adv Radiat Oncol 2016 Oct-Dec;1(4):237-243. Epub 2016 Oct 29.

Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.

Objectives: We report single-institution clinical efficacy and safety outcomes for patients with unresectable locally advanced cholangiocarcinoma who were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and a subset of patients who received neoadjuvant SBRT and chemotherapy as part of an orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) protocol.

Methods And Materials: From October 2008 to June 2015, 31 consecutive patients with unresectable extrahepatic (n = 25) or intrahepatic (n = 6) cholangiocarcinoma were treated with SBRT and retrospectively analyzed. Four patients underwent liver transplantation, and 1 underwent resection. SBRT was delivered in 5 fractions with a median dose of 40 Gy. Toxicity was scored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0. Overall survival (OS), time to progression, and local control were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: The median follow-up time was 11.5 months. The 1- and 2-year OS rates were 59% and 33%, respectively, with a median survival of 15.7 months. The 1- and 2-year freedom from progression was 67% and 34%, respectively. Median time to progression was 16.8 months. Nine patients had local failure. The actuarial 1- and 2-year local control rates were 78% and 47%, respectively. Among patients who also had OLT, the median OS was 31.3 months. Twenty-four patients (77%) experienced some form of acute grade 1-2 toxicity, most commonly fatigue or pain. Five patients (16%) experienced grade ≥3 toxicity.

Conclusions: SBRT is a promising option for patients with unresectable or recurrent cholangiocarcinoma either as a component of neoadjuvant therapy prior to OLT or as part of definitive therapy for patients who are unresectable and not eligible for transplantation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2016.10.008DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514222PMC
October 2016

Treatment trends for patients with brain metastases: Does practice reflect the data?

Cancer 2017 Jun 8;123(12):2274-2282. Epub 2017 Feb 8.

Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.

Background: Published guidelines regarding the optimal treatment strategies for brain metastases focus on patients with ≤3 lesions. As delivery techniques for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) improve, radiation oncologists are increasingly using it for patients with >3 metastases. In the current study, the authors sought to characterize practice patterns among practitioners to identify areas of controversy.

Methods: A survey of practicing radiation oncologists was distributed via e-mail. Responses were collected from April 1 to May 5, 2016. Survey data were analyzed.

Results: A total of 711 currently practicing radiation oncologists responded, for a response rate of 12.5%. Specialists in central nervous system tumors (CNS specialists) were more likely to treat higher numbers of patients with brain metastases with SRS. There was a significant difference in the optimal "cutoff number" used when deciding how many lesions to treat with SRS versus whole-brain radiotherapy. Cutoff numbers were significantly higher for high-volume CNS specialists (≥10 patients/month) than for either low-volume CNS specialists (5-9 patients/month) or high-volume, non-CNS specialists (8.1 vs 5.6 and 5.1, respectively; P<.001). A majority of respondents (56%) identified patients with 4 to 6 brain metastases as being the most challenging patients to treat.

Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, there appears to be no consensus regarding the optimal treatment strategy among patients with >3 brain metastases, and practice patterns are heterogeneous. Radiation oncologists, especially high-volume CNS specialists, are treating significantly more brain metastases with SRS than what currently is recommended by published consensus guidelines. Providers struggle with patients with a moderate intracranial disease burden. Further prospective studies are needed to support these practice patterns and guide decision making. Cancer 2017;123:2274-2282. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30607DOI Listing
June 2017
-->