Validating a Four-gene Set for H-ARS Severity Prediction in Peripheral Blood Samples of Irradiated Rhesus Macaques

Increased radiological and nuclear threats require preparedness. Our earlier work identified a set of four genes (DDB2, FDXR, POU2AF1 and WNT3), which predicts severity of the hematological acute radiation syndrome (H-ARS) within the first three days postirradiation In this study of 41 Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta, 27 males, 14 females) irradiated with 5.8-7.2 Gy (LD29-50/60), including some treated with gamma-tocotrienol (GT3, a radiation countermeasure) we independently validated these genes as predictors in both sexes and examined them after three days. At the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute/Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, peripheral whole blood (1 ml) of Rhesus macaques was collected into PAXgene® Blood RNA tubes pre-irradiation after 1, 2, 3, 35 and 60 days postirradiation, stored at -80°C for internal experimental analyses. Leftover tubes from these already ongoing studies were kindly provided to Bundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology. RNA was isolated (QIAsymphony), converted into cDNA, and for further gene expression (GE) studies quantitative RT-PCR was performed. Differential gene expression (DGE) was measured relative to the pre-irradiation Rhesus macaques samples. Within the first three days postirradiation, we found similar results to human data: 1. FDXR and DDB2 were up-regulated, FDXR up to 3.5-fold, and DDB2 up to 13.5-fold in the median; 2. POU2AF1 appeared down regulated around tenfold in nearly all Rhesus macaques; 3. Contrary to human data, DDB2 was more up-regulated than FDXR, and the difference of the fold change (FC) ranged between 2.4 and 10, while the median fold changes of WNT3, except days 1 and 35, were close to 1. Nevertheless, 46% of the Rhesus macaques showed down-regulated WNT3 on day one postirradiation, which decreased to 12.2% on day 3 postirradiation. Considering the extended phase, there was a trend towards decreased fold changes at day 35, with median-fold changes ranging from 0.7 for DDB2 to 0.1 for POU2AF1, and on day 60 postirradiation, DGE in surviving animals was close to pre-exposure values for all four genes. In conclusion, the diagnostic significance for radiation-induced H-ARS severity prediction of FDXR, DDB2, and POU2AF1 was confirmed in this Rhesus macaques model. However, DDB2 showed higher GE values than FDXR. As shown in previous studies, the diagnostic significance of WNT3 could not be reproduced in Rhesus macaques; this could be due to the choice of animal model and methodological challenges.

Validating Radiosensitivity with Pre-Exposure Differential Gene Expression in Peripheral Blood Predicting Survival and Non-Survival in a Second Irradiated Rhesus Macaque Cohort

Radiosensitivity differs in humans and possibly in closely related nonhuman primates. The reasons for variation in radiosensitivity are not well known. In an earlier study, we examined gene expression (GE) pre-radiation in peripheral blood among male (n = 62) and female (n = 60) rhesus macaques (n = 122), which did or did not survive (up to 60 days) after whole-body exposure of 7.0 Gy (LD66/60). Eight genes (CHD5, CHI3L1, DYSF, EPX, IGF2BP1, LCN2, MBOAT4, SLC22A4) revealed significant associations with survival. Access to a second rhesus macaque cohort (males = 40, females = 23, total n = 63) irradiated with 5.8-7.2 Gy (LD29-50/60) and some treated with gamma-tocotrienol (GT3, a radiation countermeasure) allowed us to validate these gene expression changes independently. Total RNA was isolated from whole blood samples and examined by quantitative RT-PCR on a 96-well format. cycle threshold (Ct)-values normalized to 18S rRNA were analyzed for their association with survival. Regardless of the species-specific TaqMan assay, similar results were obtained. Two genes (CHD5 and CHI3L1) out of eight revealed a significant association with survival in the second cohort, while only CHD5 (involved in DNA damage response and proliferation control) showed mean gene expression changes in the same direction for both cohorts. No expected association of CHD5 GE with dose, treatment, or sex could be established. Instead, we observed significant associations for those comparisons comprising pre-exposure samples with CHD5 Ct values ≤ 11 (total n = 17). CHD5 Ct values ≤ 11 in these comparisons were mainly associated with increased frequencies (61-100%) of non-survivors, a trend which depending on the sample numbers, reached significance (P = 0.03) in males and, accordingly, in females. This was also reflected by a logistic regression model including all available samples from both cohorts comprising CHD5 measurements (n = 104, odds ratio 1.38, 95% CI 1.07-1.79, P = 0.01). However, this association was driven by males (odds ratio 1.62, 95% CI 1.10-2.38, P = 0.01) and CHD5 Ct values ≤ 11 since removing low CHD5 Ct values from this model, converted to insignificance (P = 0.19). A second male subcohort comprising high CHD5 Ct values ≥ 14.4 in both cohorts (n = 5) appeared associated with survival. Removing these high CHD5 Ct values converted the model borderline significant (P = 0.051). Based on the probability function of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves, 8 (12.3%) and 5 (7.7%) from 65 pre-exposure RNA measurements in males, death and survival could be predicted with a negative and positive predictive value ranging between 85-100%. An associated odds ratio reflected a 62% elevated risk for dying or surviving per unit change (Ct-value) in gene expression, considering the before-mentioned CHD5 thresholds in RNA copy numbers. In conclusion, we identified two subsets of male animals characterized by increased (Ct values ≤ 11) and decreased (Ct values ≥ 14.4) CHD5 GE copy numbers before radiation exposure, which independently of the cohort, radiation exposure or treatment appeared to predict the death or survival in males.

Prostate cancer and elective nodal radiation therapy for cN0 and pN0-a never ending story? : Recommendations from the prostate cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO)

For prostate cancer, the role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) for cN0 or pN0 patients has been under discussion for years. Considering the recent publications of randomized controlled trials, the prostate cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) aimed to discuss and summarize the current literature. Modern trials have been recently published for both treatment-naïve patients (POP-RT trial) and patients after surgery (SPPORT trial). Although there are more reliable data to date, we identified several limitations currently complicating the definitions of general recommendations. For patients with cN0 (conventional or PSMA-PET staging) undergoing definitive radiotherapy, only men with high-risk factors for nodal involvement (e.g., cT3a, GS ≥ 8, PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml) seem to benefit from ENI. For biochemical relapse in the postoperative situation (pN0) and no PSMA imaging, ENI may be added to patients with risk factors according to the SPPORT trial (e.g., GS ≥ 8; PSA > 0.7 ng/ml). If PSMA-PET/CT is negative, ENI may be offered for selected men with high-risk factors as an individual treatment approach.

Feasibility, pitfalls and results of a structured concept-development phase for a randomized controlled phase III trial on radiotherapy in primary prostate cancer patients

Objective

Failure rate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is > 50%, includes safety-problems, underpowered statistics, lack of efficacy, lack of funding or insufficient patient recruitment and is even more pronounced in oncology trials. We present results of a structured concept-development phase (CDP) for a phase III RCT on personalized radiotherapy (RT) in primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients implementing prostate specific membrane antigen targeting positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET).

Materials and methods

The 1 yr process of the CDP contained five main working packages: (i) literature search and scoping review, (ii) involvement of individual patients, patients’ representatives and patients’ self-help groups addressing the patients’ willingness to participate in the preparation process and the conduct of RCTs as well as the patient informed consent (PIC), (iii) involvement of national and international experts and expert panels (iv) a phase II pilot study investigating the safety of implementation of PSMA-PET for focal dose escalation RT and (v) in-silico RT planning studies assessing feasibility of envisaged dose regimens and effects of urethral sparing in focal dose escalation.

Results

(i) Systematic literature searches confirmed the high clinical relevance for more evidence on advanced RT approaches, in particular stereotactic body RT, in high-risk PCa patients. (ii) Involvement of patients, patient representatives and randomly selected males relevantly changed the PIC and initiated a patient empowerment project for training of bladder preparation. (iii) Discussion with national and international experts led to adaptions of inclusion and exclusion criteria. (iv) Fifty patients were treated in the pilot trial and in- and exclusion criteria as well as enrollment calculations were adapted accordingly. Parallel conduction of the pilot trial revealed pitfalls on practicability and broadened the horizon for translational projects. (v) In-silico planning studies confirmed feasibility of envisaged dose prescription. Despite large prostate- and boost-volumes of up to 66% of the prostate, adherence to stringent anorectal dose constraints was feasible. Urethral sparing increased the therapeutic ratio.

Conclusion

The dynamic framework of interdisciplinary working programs in CDPs enhances robustness of RCT protocols and may be associated with decreased failure rates. Structured recommendations are warranted to further define the process of such CDPs in radiation oncology trials.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09434-2.

Integration of radiation oncology teaching in medical studies by German medical faculties due to the new licensing regulations : An overview and recommendations of the consortium academic radiation oncology of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO)

The new Medical Licensing Regulations 2025 (Ärztliche Approbationsordnung, ÄApprO) will soon be passed by the Federal Council (Bundesrat) and will be implemented step by step by the individual faculties in the coming months. The further development of medical studies essentially involves an orientation from fact-based to competence-based learning and focuses on practical, longitudinal and interdisciplinary training. Radiation oncology and radiation therapy are important components of therapeutic oncology and are of great importance for public health, both clinically and epidemiologically, and therefore should be given appropriate attention in medical education. This report is based on a recent survey on the current state of radiation therapy teaching at university hospitals in Germany as well as the contents of the National Competence Based Learning Objectives Catalogue for Medicine 2.0 (Nationaler Kompetenzbasierter Lernzielkatalog Medizin 2.0, NKLM) and the closely related Subject Catalogue (Gegenstandskatalog, GK) of the Institute for Medical and Pharmaceutical Examination Questions (Institut für Medizinische und Pharmazeutische Prüfungsfragen, IMPP). The current recommendations of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Radioonkologie, DEGRO) regarding topics, scope and rationale for the establishment of radiation oncology teaching at the respective faculties are also included.

EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†

BACKGROUND

Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.

DESIGN

A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference.

SETTING

Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.

PARTICIPANTS

The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.

Response Evaluation in Head and Neck Oncology: Definition and Prediction

Curative treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma includes surgery and/or (chemo)radiation, whereas in the palliative setting, chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy represent(s) the standard approach. With regard to quality control, methods for determining treatment response are sorely needed. For surgical therapy, histopathology is the standard quality control. Established criteria for high-risk patients include resection margins of the primary tumor and extracapsular extension of lymph node metastases. After definitive chemoradiation, treatment response is generally evaluated by tomographic imaging combined with endoscopy including re-biopsy of the tumor region. Single-cycle induction chemotherapy may be used to determine the radiosensitivity of tumors, helping to define surgical and nonsurgical treatment options. Innovative approaches with implications for prognosis include the analysis of immune infiltrates, liquid biopsy, molecular characterization (proteomics, genomics), molecular and functional imaging (PET-CT, PET-MRI), as well as advanced imaging data analysis (radio[geno]mics/texture analysis). Human papilloma virus, as a prognostically relevant parameter, is currently being investigated for de-escalation strategies. With regard to the extended personalization of oncologic therapy, markers predicting treatment response are desirable and seem to be important, also from a socioeconomic perspective.

[Radiotherapy in node-positive prostate cancer]

BACKGROUND

There are numerous randomized trials to guide the management of patients with localized (and metastatic) prostate cancer, but only a few (mostly retrospective) studies have specifically addressed node-positive patients. Therefore, there is uncertainty regarding optimal treatment in this situation. Current guidelines recommend long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone or radiotherapy plus long-term ADT as treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

This overview summarizes the existing literature on the use of radiotherapy for node-positive prostate cancer as definitive treatment and as adjuvant or salvage therapy after radical prostatectomy. In this context, we also discuss several PET tracers in the imaging evaluation of patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. As for definitive treatment, retrospective studies suggest that ADT plus radiotherapy improves overall survival compared with ADT alone. These studies also consistently demonstrated that many patients with node-positive prostate cancer can achieve long-term survival - and are likely curable - with aggressive therapy.

RESULTS

The beneficial impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival in patients with pN1 prostate cancer seems to be highly influenced by tumor characteristics. Men with ≤ 2 positive lymph nodes in the presence of intermediate- to high-grade disease, or positive margins, and those with 3 or 4 positive lymph nodes are the ideal candidates for adjuvant radiotherapy (plus long-term ADT) after surgery.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for randomized trials to further examine the potential role of radiotherapy as either definitive or adjuvant treatment, for patients with node-positive prostate cancer.

[Adjuvant vs. salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy]

BACKGROUND

After radical prostatectomy (RP) the pre-RP PSA value, Gleason Score, pT-stage, state of seminal vesicles and state of surgical margins are key indicators for the risk of biochemical or clinical recurrence. Depending on the tumour stage, 50-70% of the high-risk patients suffer biochemical progression. The treatment options in these circumstances are adjuvant radiotherapy (ART, for an undetectable PSA) or salvage radiotherapy (SRT, for persisting PSA or PSA re-rising above detection limits). Data from ongoing randomised trials that compare ART and SRT directly have not yet been published.

METHOD

A search in PubMed for ART and SRT after RP for prostate cancer was undertaken to compare the results of the 2 treatment approaches.

RESULTS

3 randomised phase-III studies have shown a nearly 20% advantage in terms of biochemical progression after ART (60-64 Gy) compared with a wait-and-see strategy. The largest effect was seen in patients with pT3 prostate cancer with positive surgical margins. According to the German S3-guidelines, SRT with at least 66 Gy can be offered to patients with a post-RP persisting PSA or a PSA re-rising above detection limits. 30-70% of these patients re-achieve an undetectable PSA. Thus, there is a second option for curative treatment. Due to the lower total dose, ART seems to be connected with fewer late complications than SRT. SRT, on the other hand, reduces the risk of potential interactions with post-RP complications and of overtreatment. There is a controversial discussion about the inclusion of the pelvic lymph nodes in the treatment volume, the additional application of anti-androgens and the total dose of both ART and SRT.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparison of SRT after PSA progression with ART at a PSA below the detection limits cannot yet be judged conclusively. The indication for ART depends on the associated risk factors. However, regarding freedom from biochemical progression, it is backed up by high level evidence. If SRT is applied for biochemical progression, then it should be initiated early, i. e., at the lowest PSA possible.

The impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on the survival of primary breast cancer patients: a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 8935 subjects

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy (RT) is proven to be an important backbone for adjuvant therapy in randomized, controlled trials, but it is unclear if these effects are provable in a daily routine cohort of breast cancer patients. This study sought to answer the following questions in a daily routine cohort of breast cancer patients: 1. Does guideline-adherent RT improve primary breast cancer patient survival? 2. Is breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by RT equal to a mastectomy (MA) with regard to outcome parameters? 3. Does adjuvant RT compensate for an incomplete tumor resection (R1)?

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we investigated data from 8935 primary breast cancer patients recruited from 17 participating certified breast cancer centers in Germany between 1992 and 2008. Guideline adherence based on internationally validated guidelines.

RESULTS

The patients who received guideline-adherent RT for primary breast cancer were associated with significantly improved survival parameters [recurrence-free survival (RFS): P < 0.001; overall survival (OS): P < 0.001] compared with patients who did not receive guideline-adherent adjuvant RT. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that there were no significant differences in RFS and OS between BCS followed by RT and MA [RFS: P = 0.293; OS: P = 0.104]. Adjuvant RT did not improve the outcome of patients receiving nonguideline-adherent incomplete tumor resection via BCS (R1); these patients showed a significantly impaired RFS [P < 0.001] and OS [P < 0.001] compared with patients who underwent guideline-adherent complete tumor resection via BCS (R0). In addition, non-guideline-adherent RT after MA (overtherapy) did not significantly influence survival [RFS: P = 0.838; OS: P = 0.613].

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms the importance of guideline-adherent adjuvant RT. It shows highly significant associations between RFS or OS and guideline adherent RT. Nevertheless, inadequate (R1-) surgical resection in a daily routine cohort of patients increases the risk of local recurrence and appears not to be compensated by the following RT.

Abstract P5-14-03: The impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival in primary breast caner: What is the role of guideline adherence in radiotherapy – A retrospective multi-center cohort study of 8935

Introduction:

Breast cancer remains the most common malignancy in women in industrialized countries. Over the last decades improved adjuvant therapy strategies were the key for a favorable prognosis in patients. Among these, radiotherapy is one of the important backbones in adjuvant therapy strategies. This study tries to answer the following questions:

1. Does guideline adherent radiotherapy improve survival in primary breast cancer patients?

2. Is breast conserving surgery followed by RT equal to mastectomy in outcome parameters?

3. Is there a difference in survival between patients receiving BCT followed by RT with non guideline conform incomplete tumor resection (R1)? Does adjuvant RT compensate incomplete resection of the tumor?

Material and Methods:

In this German retrospective multi-center cohort study called BRENDA (breast cancer care under evidence based guidelines) we investigate data of 8.935 primary breast cancer patients recruited from 17 participating breast cancer centers in Germany (all certified breast cancer centers by the German Cancer Society). Guideline adherence is established in all adjuvant treatment modalities based on internationally validated guidelines.

Results:

Patients who received guideline adherent RT in primary breast cancer were associated with significantly improved survival parameters [RFS: p &lt; 0.001; HR = 0.28 (95% CI: (0.24 – 0.33)] [OAS: p &lt; 0.001; HR = 0.26 (95% CI: 0.19 – 0.36)] compared to patients who did not receive guideline adherent adjuvant RT. Compared to other adjuvant treatment modalities (surgery/chemotherapy/endocrine therapy) guideline violations concerning radiotherapy and chemotherapy have the most important impact on survival parameters. Furthermore, the results of Fisher et al. and Veronesi et al. were confirmed by demonstrating that BCT followed by RT is equal to mastectomy [RFS: p = 0.293; HR = 1.20 (95% CI:0.85-1.70)] [OAS: p = 0.104; HR = 1.31 (95% CI: 0.95-1.81)]. Adjuvant RT could not improve the outcome in patients with non-guideline conform incomplete tumor resection via BCT (R1) showing a significantly impaired RFS [p&lt;0.001; HR = 2.87 (95% CI: 2.00-4.12)] and OAS [p&lt;0.001; HR = 2.06 (95% CI: 1.43-2.98)] compared to guideline conform complete tumor resection via BCT (R0). Additionally, non guideline adherent RT after mastectomy (only T1/T2) (overtherapy) did not influence survival significantly [RFS: p = 0.838; HR = 1.07 (95% CI: 0.57-1.98)] [OAS: p = 0.613; HR = 1.18 (95% CI: 0.63-2.20)].

Discussion:

Guideline adherent adjuvant RT is associated with an improvement of survival parameters in primary breast cancer. Patients undergoing guideline conform BCT (R0) followed by RT present an equal outcome as patients undergoing mastectomy. However adjuvant RT can not compensate an inadequate tumor resection via BCT and RT overtherapy after mastectomy does not improve survival parameters.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P5-14-03.