1
|
Gao Y, Yoon S, Ma TM, Yang Y, Sheng K, Low DA, Ballas L, Steinberg ML, Kishan AU, Cao M. Intra-fractional geometric and dose/volume metric variations of magnetic resonance imaging-guided stereotactic radiotherapy of prostate bed after radical prostatectomy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 30:100573. [PMID: 38585371 PMCID: PMC10997948 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100573] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2023] [Revised: 03/22/2024] [Accepted: 03/22/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-guided Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment to prostate bed after radical prostatectomy has garnered growing interests. The aim of this study is to evaluate intra-fractional anatomic and dose/volume metric variations for patients receiving this treatment. Materials and methods Nineteen patients who received 30-34 Gy in 5 fractions on a 0.35T MR-Linac were included. Pre- and post-treatment MRIs were acquired for each fraction (total of 75 fractions). The Clinical Target Volume (CTV), bladder, rectum, and rectal wall were contoured on all images. Volumetric changes, Hausdorff distance, Mean Distance to Agreement (MDA), and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for each structure were calculated. Median value and Interquartile range (IQR) were recorded. Changes in target coverage and Organ at Risk (OAR) constraints were compared and evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum tests at a significant level of 0.05. Results Bladder had the largest volumetric changes, with a median volume increase of 48.9 % (IQR 28.9-76.8 %) and a median MDA of 5.1 mm (IQR 3.4-7.1 mm). Intra-fractional CTV volume remained stable with a median volume change of 1.2 % (0.0-4.8 %). DSC was 0.97 (IQR 0.94-0.99). For the dose/volume metrics, there were no statistically significant changes observed except for an increase in bladder hotspot and a decrease of bladder V32.5 Gy and mean dose. The CTV V95% changed from 99.9 % (IQR 98.8-100 %) to 99.6 % (IQR 93.9-100 %). Conclusion Despite intra-fractional variations of OARs, CTV coverage remained stable during MRI-guided SBRT treatments for the prostate bed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Stephanie Yoon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Ting Martin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Yingli Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, China
| | - Ke Sheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Daniel A. Low
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Leslie Ballas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Michael L. Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Minsong Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ortiz Rueda B, Endo Y, Tsilimigras DI, Araujo Lima H, Munir MM, Woldesenbet S, Dillhoff M, Ejaz A, Cloyd J, Pawlik TM. Impact of Medicaid expansion on the multimodal treatment of biliary tract cancer. J Surg Oncol 2024; 129:233-243. [PMID: 37795657 DOI: 10.1002/jso.27478] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2023] [Revised: 09/16/2023] [Accepted: 09/23/2023] [Indexed: 10/06/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The impact of Medicaid expansion (ME) on the treatment of patients with cancer remains controversial, especially individuals requiring complex multidisciplinary care. We sought to evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion (ME) on receipt of multimodal care, including surgical resection, for Stage I-III biliary tract cancer (BTC). METHODS Patients diagnosed with BTC between 40 and 65 years of age were identified from the National Cancer Database and divided into pre- (2008-2012) and post- (2015-2018) ME cohorts. Difference-in-difference (DID) analysis was used to determine the impact of ME on the utilization of surgery and multimodal chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy treatment for BTC. RESULTS Among 12,415 patients with BTC (extrahepatic, n = 5622, 45.3%; intrahepatic, n = 4352, 35.1%; gallbladder, n = 1944, 15.7%; overlapping, n = 497, 4.0%), 5835 (47.0%) and 6580 (53.0%) patients were diagnosed before versus after ME, respectively. Overall utilization of surgery (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.26) and multimodality therapy (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.27) increased in states that adopted ME. Utilization of surgery among uninsured/Medicaid patients in ME states increased relative to patients living in non-ME states (∆+10.1%, p = 0.01). Similarly, the use of multimodal treatment increased among uninsured/Medicaid patients living in ME versus non-ME states (∆+6.4%, p = 0.04); in contrast, there were no difference among patients with other insurance statuses (overall: ∆+1.5%, private: ∆-2.0%, other: ∆+3.9%, all p > 0.5). Uninsured/Medicaid patients with BTC who lived in a ME state had a lower risk of long-term death in the post-ME era (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Implementation of ME positively impacted survival among patients who underwent surgical and multimodal treatment for Stage I-III BTC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Belisario Ortiz Rueda
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Yutaka Endo
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Diamantis I Tsilimigras
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Henrique Araujo Lima
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
- Department of Surgery, Federal University of Minas Gerais School of Medicine, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
| | - Muhammad Musaab Munir
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Selamawit Woldesenbet
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Mary Dillhoff
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Aslam Ejaz
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Jordan Cloyd
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Timothy M Pawlik
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ma TM, Ballas LK, Wilhalme H, Sachdeva A, Chong N, Sharma S, Yang T, Basehart V, Reiter RE, Saigal C, Chamie K, Litwin MS, Rettig MB, Nickols NG, Yoon SM, Smith L, Gao Y, Steinberg ML, Cao M, Kishan AU. Quality-of-Life Outcomes and Toxicity Profile Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation: The SCIMITAR Multicenter Phase 2 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:142-152. [PMID: 36007724 PMCID: PMC11386273 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.08.041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2022] [Revised: 07/26/2022] [Accepted: 08/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Postoperative radiation therapy (RT) is an underused standard-of-care intervention for patients with prostate cancer and recurrence/adverse pathologic features after radical prostatectomy. Although stereotactic body RT (SBRT) is a well-studied and convenient option for definitive treatment, data on the postprostatectomy setting are extremely limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate short-term physician-scored genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities and patient-reported outcomes after postprostatectomy SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS The SCIMITAR trial was a phase 2, dual-center, open-label, single-arm trial that enrolled patients with postoperative prostate-specific antigen >0.03 ng/mL or adverse pathologic features. Coprimary endpoints were 4-year biochemical recurrence-free survival, physician-scored acute and late GU and GI toxicities by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03) scale, and patient-reported quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes, as represented by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index-26 and the International Prostate Symptom Score. Patients received SBRT 30 to 34 Gy/5 fractions to the prostate bed ± bed boost ± pelvic nodes with computed tomography (CTgRT) or magnetic resonance imaging guidance (MRgRT) in a nonrandomized fashion. Physician-scored toxicities and patient-reported QOL outcomes were collected at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months of follow-up. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of toxicities and QOL outcomes. RESULTS One hundred participants were enrolled (CTgRT, n = 69; MRgRT, n = 31). The median follow-up was 29.5 months (CTgRT: 33.3 months, MRgRT: 22.6 months). The median (range) prostate bed dose was 32 (30-34) Gy. Acute and late grade 2 GU toxicities were both 9% while acute and late grade 2 GI toxicities were 5% and 0%, respectively. Three patients had grade 3 toxicity (n = 1 GU, n = 2 GI). No patient receiving MRgRT had grade 3 GU or grade ≥2 GI toxicity. Compared with CTgRT, MRgRT was associated with a 30.5% (95% confidence interval, 11.6%-49.5%) reduction in any-grade acute GI toxicity (P = .006). MRgRT was independently associated with improved any-grade GI toxicity and improved bowel QOL. CONCLUSIONS Postprostatectomy SBRT was well tolerated at short-term follow-up. MRgRT may decrease GI toxicity. Longer toxicity and/or efficacy follow-up and randomized studies are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ting Martin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Leslie K Ballas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - Holly Wilhalme
- Department of Medicine Statistics Core, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research
| | - Ankush Sachdeva
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Natalie Chong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Sahil Sharma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Tiffany Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Vincent Basehart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | | | | | | | - Mark S Litwin
- Department of Urology; Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health; School of Nursing
| | - Matthew B Rettig
- Department of Urology; Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Nicholas G Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Stephanie M Yoon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Lauren Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Yu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Minsong Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California; Department of Urology.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Narrative Review of the Post-Operative Management of Prostate Cancer Patients: Is It Really the End of Adjuvant Radiotherapy? Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14030719. [PMID: 35158986 PMCID: PMC8833528 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14030719] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2022] [Revised: 01/26/2022] [Accepted: 01/28/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Among patients with prostate cancer who have been operated on, a subset harboring high-risk features will present with a biochemical recurrence (BCR). Adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) was proven to significantly reduce the risk of BCR when compared to salvage radiotherapy (SRT) but suffered from several limitations: a lack of patient selection criteria, a higher treatment-related morbidity and an uncertain benefit for long-term clinical endpoints. In the same clinical setting, early SRT (eSRT) appears as non-inferior to aRT with a lower morbidity, replacing aRT as the preferred option. In this review, we insist on the need for multidisciplinary discussions to fully comprehend the individual characteristics of each patient and propose the best treatment strategy for every patient. Abstract Despite three randomized trials indicating a significant reduction in biochemical recurrence (BCR) in high-risk patients, adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) was rarely performed, even in patients harboring high-risk features. aRT is associated with a higher risk of urinary incontinence and is often criticized for the lack of patient selection criteria. With a BCR rate reaching 30–70% in high-risk patients, a consensus between urologists and radiation oncologists was needed, leading to three different randomized trials challenging aRT with early salvage radiotherapy (eSRT). In these three different randomized trials with event-free survival as the primary outcome and a planned meta-analysis, eSRT appeared as non-inferior to aRT, answering, for some, this never-ending question. For many, however, the debate persists; these results raised several questions among urologists and radiation oncologists. BCR is thought to be a surrogate for clinically meaningful endpoints such as overall survival and cancer-specific survival but may be poorly efficient in comparison with metastasis-free survival. Imaging of rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA), post-operative persistent PSA and BCR was revolutionized by the broader use of MRI and nuclear imaging such as PET-PSMA; these imaging modalities were not analyzed in the previous randomized trials. A sub-group of very high-risk patients could possibly benefit from an adjuvant radiotherapy; but their usual risk factors such as high Gleason score or invaded surgical margins mean they are unable to be selected. More precise biomarkers of early BCR or even metastatic-relapse were developed in this setting and could be useful for the patients’ stratification. In this review, we insist on the need for multidisciplinary discussions to fully comprehend the individual characteristics of each patient and propose the best treatment strategy for every patient.
Collapse
|
5
|
Diversifying for Growth or Longing for Yesterday. Pract Radiat Oncol 2021; 12:11-12. [PMID: 34857502 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2021.10.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2021] [Accepted: 10/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|
6
|
|
7
|
Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Chierigo F, Tian Z, Shariat SF, Terrone C, Saad F, Tilki D, Graefen M, Mandel P, Kluth LA, Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI. Non-cancer mortality in elderly prostate cancer patients treated with combination of radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy. Prostate 2021; 81:728-735. [PMID: 34010465 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Revised: 05/01/2021] [Accepted: 05/07/2021] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To test for rates of other cause mortality (OCM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in elderly prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with the combination of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) versus RP alone, since elderly PCa patients may be over-treated. METHODS Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2016), cumulative incidence plots, after propensity score matching for cT-stage, cN-stage, prostate specific antigen, age and biopsy Gleason score, and multivariable competing risks regression models (socioeconomic status, pathological Gleason score) addressed OCM and CSM in patients (70-79, 70-74, and 75-79 years) treated with RP and EBRT versus RP alone. RESULTS Of 18,126 eligible patients aged 70-79 years, 2520 (13.9%) underwent RP and EBRT versus 15,606 (86.1%) RP alone. After propensity score matching, 10-year OCM rates were respectively 27.9 versus 20.3% for RP and EBRT versus RP alone (p < .001), which resulted in a multivariable HR of 1.4 (p < .001). Moreover, 10-year CSM rates were respectively 13.4 versus 5.5% for RP and EBRT versus RP alone. In subgroup analyses separately addressing 70-74 year old and 75-79 years old PCa patients, 10-year OCM rates were 22.8 versus 16.2% and 39.5 versus 24.0% for respectively RP and EBRT versus RP alone patients (all p < .001). CONCLUSION Elderly patients treated with RP and EBRT exhibited worrisome rates of OCM. These higher than expected OCM rates question the need for combination therapy (RP and EBRT) in elderly PCa patients and indicate the need for better patient selection, when combination therapy is contemplated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Christoph Würnschimmel
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Francesco Chierigo
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prag, Czech Republic
- Department of Urology, Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
- Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Derya Tilki
- Department of Urology, Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Department of Urology, Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|