1
|
Ludmir EB, Hoffman KE, Jhingran A, Kouzy R, Ip MCP, Sturdevant L, Ning MS, Minsky BD, McAleer MF, Chronowski GM, Arzu IY, Reed VK, Garg AK, Roberts T, Eastwick GA, Olson MR, Selek U, Gabel M, Koong AC, Kupferman ME, Kuban DA. Implementation and Efficacy of a Large-Scale Radiation Oncology Case-Based Peer-Review Quality Program across a Multinational Cancer Network. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:e173-e179. [PMID: 38176466 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.12.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2023] [Revised: 12/05/2023] [Accepted: 12/14/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE With expansion of academic cancer center networks across geographically-dispersed sites, ensuring high-quality delivery of care across all network affiliates is essential. We report on the characteristics and efficacy of a radiation oncology peer-review quality assurance (QA) system implemented across a large-scale multinational cancer network. METHODS AND MATERIALS Since 2014, weekly case-based peer-review QA meetings have been standard for network radiation oncologists with radiation oncology faculty at a major academic center. This radiotherapy (RT) QA program involves pre-treatment peer-review of cases by disease site, with disease-site subspecialized main campus faculty members. This virtual QA platform involves direct review of the proposed RT plan as well as supporting data, including relevant pathology and imaging studies for each patient. Network RT plans were scored as being concordant or nonconcordant based on national guidelines, institutional recommendations, and/or expert judgment when considering individual patient-specific factors for a given case. Data from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2019, were aggregated for analysis. RESULTS Between 2014 and 2019, across 8 network centers, a total of 16,601 RT plans underwent peer-review. The network-based peer-review case volume increased over the study period, from 958 cases in 2014 to 4,487 in 2019. A combined global nonconcordance rate of 4.5% was noted, with the highest nonconcordance rates among head-and-neck cases (11.0%). For centers that joined the network during the study period, we observed a significant decrease in the nonconcordance rate over time (3.1% average annual decrease in nonconcordance, P = 0.01); among centers that joined the network prior to the study period, nonconcordance rates remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS Through a standardized QA platform, network-based multinational peer-review of RT plans can be achieved. Improved concordance rates among newly added network affiliates over time are noted, suggesting a positive impact of network membership on the quality of delivered cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Anuja Jhingran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ramez Kouzy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mee-Chung Puscilla Ip
- Quality Management Programs and Cancer Network, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Laurie Sturdevant
- Quality Management Programs and Cancer Network, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Matthew S Ning
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mary Frances McAleer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Isidora Y Arzu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Valerie Klairisa Reed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Amit K Garg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Presbyterian MD Anderson Radiation Treatment Center, Rio Rancho, New Mexico
| | - Terence Roberts
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, Arizona
| | - Gary A Eastwick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Camden, New Jersey
| | - Michael R Olson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baptist Medical Center, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Ugur Selek
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Treatment Center at American Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Molly Gabel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Summit Medical Group, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael E Kupferman
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Deborah A Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schaverien MV, Singh P, Smith BD, Qiao W, Akay CL, Bloom ES, Chavez-MacGregor M, Chu CK, Clemens MW, Colen JS, Ehlers RA, Hwang RF, Joyner MM, Largo RD, Mericli AF, Mitchell MP, Shuck JW, Tamirisa N, Tripathy D, Villa MT, Woodward WA, Zacharia R, Kuerer HM, Hoffman KE. Premastectomy Radiotherapy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e245217. [PMID: 38578640 PMCID: PMC10998161 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.5217] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2023] [Accepted: 02/08/2024] [Indexed: 04/06/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Premastectomy radiotherapy (PreMRT) is a new treatment sequence to avoid the adverse effects of radiotherapy on the final breast reconstruction while achieving the benefits of immediate breast reconstruction (IMBR). Objective To evaluate outcomes among patients who received PreMRT and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a phase 2 single-center randomized clinical trial conducted between August 3, 2018, and August 2, 2022, evaluating the feasibility and safety of PreMRT and RNI (including internal mammary lymph nodes). Patients with cT0-T3, N0-N3b breast cancer and a recommendation for radiotherapy were eligible. Intervention This trial evaluated outcomes after PreMRT followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated (40.05 Gy/15 fractions) or conventionally fractionated (50 Gy/25 fractions) RNI. Main Outcome and Measures The primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as complete autologous flap loss. Demographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected, and associations between multiple variables and outcomes were evaluated. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results Fifty patients were enrolled. Among 49 evaluable patients, the median age was 48 years (range, 31-72 years), and 46 patients (94%) received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Twenty-five patients received 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the breast and 45 Gy in 25 fractions to regional nodes, and 24 patients received 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions to the breast and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions to regional nodes, including internal mammary lymph nodes. Forty-eight patients underwent mastectomy with IMBR, at a median of 23 days (IQR, 20-28.5 days) after radiotherapy. Forty-one patients had microvascular autologous flap reconstruction, 5 underwent latissimus dorsi pedicled flap reconstruction, and 2 had tissue expander placement. There were no complete autologous flap losses, and 1 patient underwent tissue expander explantation. Eight of 48 patients (17%) had mastectomy skin flap necrosis of the treated breast, of whom 1 underwent reoperation. During follow-up (median, 29.7 months [range, 10.1-65.2 months]), there were no locoregional recurrences or distant metastasis. Conclusions and Relevance This randomized clinical trial found PreMRT and RNI followed by mastectomy and microvascular autologous flap IMBR to be feasible and safe. Based on these results, a larger randomized clinical trial of hypofractionated vs conventionally fractionated PreMRT has been started (NCT05774678). Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02912312.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark V. Schaverien
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Puneet Singh
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Benjamin D. Smith
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Wei Qiao
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Catherine L. Akay
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Elizabeth S. Bloom
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Mariana Chavez-MacGregor
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Carrie K. Chu
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Mark W. Clemens
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Jessica S. Colen
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Richard A. Ehlers
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Rosa F. Hwang
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Melissa M. Joyner
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Rene D. Largo
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Alexander F. Mericli
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Melissa P. Mitchell
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - John W. Shuck
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Nina Tamirisa
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Debasish Tripathy
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Mark T. Villa
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Wendy A. Woodward
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Rensi Zacharia
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Henry M. Kuerer
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fecteau RE, Koontz BF, Hoffman KE, Halabi S, Howard LE, Anand M, George DJ, Zhang T, Berry WR, Lee WR, Harrison MR, Corn PG, Armstrong AJ. Updated 5-year results for short course abiraterone acetate and LHRH agonist for unfavorable intermediate and favorable high-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024:10.1038/s41391-024-00811-5. [PMID: 38388778 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00811-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2024] [Revised: 02/06/2024] [Accepted: 02/13/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024]
Abstract
Combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) improves outcomes for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Treatment intensification with abiraterone acetate/prednisone (AAP) provides additional benefit for high-risk disease. We previously reported 3-year outcomes of a single-arm prospective multicenter trial (AbiRT trial) of 33 patients with unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) and favorable high risk (FHR) prostate cancer undergoing short course, combination therapy with ADT, AAP, and RT. Here we report the final analysis demonstrating a high rate of testosterone recovery (97%) and excellent biochemical progression-free survival (97%) at 5 years. These data support comparative prospective studies of shorter, more potent ADT courses in favorable high-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan E Fecteau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Bridget F Koontz
- East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Genitourinary Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Susan Halabi
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Lauren E Howard
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Monika Anand
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Daniel J George
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Tian Zhang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - William R Berry
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Michael R Harrison
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Paul G Corn
- Department of Genitourinary Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Andrew J Armstrong
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Wallis CJD, Penson DF, Huang LC, Zhao Z, Conwill R, Talwar R, Morgans AK, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, O’Neil BB, Koyama T, Hoffman KE, Barocas DA. Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment. JAMA 2024; 331:302-317. [PMID: 38261043 PMCID: PMC10807259 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.26491] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 12/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2024]
Abstract
Importance Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Christopher J. D. Wallis
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - David F. Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
- Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Nashville
| | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Ralph Conwill
- Office of Patient and Community Education, Patient Advocacy Program, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Ruchika Talwar
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Alicia K. Morgans
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Ann S. Hamilton
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans
| | - Lisa E. Paddock
- Cancer Epidemiology Services, New Jersey Department of Health, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick
- Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Cancer Epidemiology Services, New Jersey Department of Health, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick
- Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Brock B. O’Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Center, Houston
| | - Daniel A. Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Tallman JE, Wallis CJD, Zhao Z, Huang LC, Penson DF, Koyama T, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, O'Neil BB, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Hoffman KE, Barocas DA. Correction to: Prostate volume, baseline urinary function, and their association with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function in men treated for localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2023; 26:809. [PMID: 36890265 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00658-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/10/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob E Tallman
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
| | | | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - David F Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Ann S Hamilton
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Lisa E Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Brock B O'Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Sherrie H Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Sheldon Greenfield
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Daniel A Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Tallman JE, Wallis CJD, Zhao Z, Huang LC, Penson DF, Koyama T, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, O'Neil BB, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Hoffman KE, Barocas DA. Prostate volume, baseline urinary function, and their association with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function in men treated for localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2023; 26:787-794. [PMID: 36482081 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00627-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2022] [Revised: 11/21/2022] [Accepted: 11/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Benign prostatic hyperplasia, lower urinary tract symptoms, and prostate cancer often co-occur. Their effect on urinary function is an important consideration regarding prostate cancer treatment choices. While prostate volume (PV) and urinary symptoms are commonly used in treatment choice decision making, their association with post-treatment urinary function is unknown. We evaluated the associations between PV and baseline urinary function with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function among men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS We identified 1647 patients from CEASAR, a multicenter population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer, for analysis. Primary outcomes were treatment choice and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years. Multivariable analysis was performed, controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS Median baseline PV was 36 mL (IQR 27-48), and baseline urinary irritative/obstructive domain score was 87 (IQR 75-100). There was no observed clinically meaningful association between PV and treatment choice or post-treatment urinary function. Among patients with poor baseline urinary function, treatment with radiation or surgery was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement in urinary function at 6 months which was durable through 5 years (improvement from baseline at 5 years: radiation 20.4 points, surgery 24.5 points). CONCLUSIONS PV was not found to be associated with treatment modality or post-treatment urinary irritative/obstructive function among men treated for localized prostate cancer. Men with poor baseline urinary irritative/obstructive function improve after treatment with surgery or radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob E Tallman
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
| | | | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - David F Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Ann S Hamilton
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Lisa E Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Brock B O'Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Sherrie H Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Sheldon Greenfield
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Daniel A Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sosa AJ, Thames HD, Sanders JW, Choi SL, Nguyen QN, Mok H, Ron Zhu X, Shah S, Mayo LL, Hoffman KE, Tang C, Lee AK, Pugh TJ, Kudchadker R, Frank SJ. Proton therapy for the management of localized prostate cancer: Long-term clinical outcomes at a comprehensive cancer center. Radiother Oncol 2023; 188:109854. [PMID: 37597805 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109854] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2023] [Revised: 08/02/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Proton therapy (PT) has emerged as a standard-of-care treatment option for localized prostate cancer at our comprehensive cancer center. However, there are few large-scale analyses examining the long-term clinical outcomes. Therefore, this article aims to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and toxicity of PT in patients with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Review of 2772 patients treated from May 2006 through January 2020. Disease risk was stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as low [LR, n = 640]; favorable-intermediate [F-IR, n = 850]; unfavorable-intermediate [U-IR, n = 851]; high [HR, n = 315]; or very high [VHR, n = 116]. Biochemical failure and toxicity were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate models. RESULTS The median patient age was 66 years; the median follow-up time was 7.0 years. Pelvic lymph node irradiation was prescribed to 28 patients (1%) (2 [0.2%] U-IR, 11 [3.5%] HR, and 15 [12.9%] VHR). The median dose was 78 Gy in 1.8-2.0 Gy(RBE) fractions. Freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBR) rates at 5 years and 10 years were 98.2% and 96.8% for the LR group; 98.3% and 93.6%, F-IR; 94.2% and 90.2%, U-IR; 94.3% and 85.2%, HR; and 86.1% and 68.5%, VHR. Two patients died of prostate cancer. Overall rates of late grade ≥ 3 GU and GI toxicity were 0.87% and 1.01%. CONCLUSIONS Proton therapy for localized prostate cancer demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes in this large cohort, even among higher-risk groups with historically poor outcomes despite aggressive therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alan J Sosa
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Howard D Thames
- Departments of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeremiah W Sanders
- Departments of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Seungtaek L Choi
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Henry Mok
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - X Ron Zhu
- Departments of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shalin Shah
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lauren L Mayo
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Chad Tang
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Andrew K Lee
- Texas Center for Proton Therapy, Irving, TX, USA
| | | | - Reena Kudchadker
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Steven J Frank
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Phillips R, Proudfoot J, Davicioni E, Spratt DE, Feng FY, Simko J, Den RB, Pollack A, Rosenthal SA, Sartor O, Sweeney C, Attard G, Patel SI, Hall WA, Efstathiou JA, Shah AB, Hoffman KE, Pugh S, Sandler HM, Tran PT. Validation of a Genomic Classifier in the NRG Oncology/RTOG 0521 Phase III Trial of Docetaxel with Androgen Suppression and Radiotherapy for Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:S34-S35. [PMID: 37784480 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Decipher is a prognostic genomic classifier (GC) validated in several prospective NRG Oncology Phase III trials. Herein, we validate the GC in pre-treatment biopsy samples for risk stratification in a cohort of high-risk men treated with definitive radiotherapy and androgen suppression with or without docetaxel chemotherapy. MATERIALS/METHODS As per a pre-specified and approved NCI analysis plan (Navigator #1061), we obtained available formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue from biopsy specimens from the NRG biobank from patients enrolled on the NRG/RTOG 0521 randomized phase III trial. After central review, the highest-grade tumors were profiled on clinical-grade whole-transcriptome arrays (Veracyte, San Diego, CA) and GC scores were obtained. Pre-specified categorical GC scores, adjusted for archival tissue analysis, were used to define higher (>0.46) and lower (≤0.46) risk groups. The primary objective was to validate the independent prognostic ability of GC for metastasis-free survival (MFS) with Cox multivariable analyses (MVA). RESULTS Samples were obtained from 283 consented, evaluable patients with tissue (50% of trial) yielding 183 (65%) GC scores that passed quality metrics, 91 from control and 92 from the interventional arm. Median age was 66 years, median PSA was 19.3 ng/uL (IQR: 8.1-41.4), 81% had clinical stage ≥T2 and 80% had Gleason score ≥8 (47% ≥9). Median GC score was 0.55 (IQR: 0.38-0.78) and overall the arms were balanced for key covariates. With a median follow-up of 9.9 years (IQR: 9.3, 10.7), 67 MFS events including 34 distant metastases (DM) were observed. On MVA, only the GC (per 0.1 unit) was independently associated with MFS (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25) as well as DM (sHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06-1.41), whereas the 4 pre-defined trial risk groups used for stratification (based on Gleason score, T-stage and PSA), randomization and patient age were not. For categorical GC, on MVA, higher-risk GC patients (65%) had worse DM (sHR 2.82, 95% CI 1.1-7.3) compared to those with lower GC. Cumulative incidence of DM at 10-years was 27% for higher GC vs 9% (95% CI 7-18%) for lower GC. No biomarker-by-treatment interaction with GC and the addition of docetaxel was detected. CONCLUSION In pre-treatment biopsy samples from a randomized Phase 3 trial cohort, GC demonstrated its ability to further risk stratify clinically high-risk men demonstrating an independent association of GC score with DM and MFS. High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease state and GC can improve risk stratification to help personalize shared decision-making. NRG-GU009/PREDICT-RT (NCT04513717) aims to determine the optimal therapy based on GC score for high-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Phillips
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | - D E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
| | - F Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | | | - R B Den
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College & Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| | - A Pollack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL
| | - S A Rosenthal
- Sutter Medical Group and Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA
| | - O Sartor
- Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
| | - C Sweeney
- South Australian Immunogenomics Cancer Institute, Adelaide, Australia
| | - G Attard
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - S I Patel
- Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - W A Hall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
| | - J A Efstathiou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard School of Medicine, Boston, MA
| | - A B Shah
- York Cancer Center, York, PA, United States
| | - K E Hoffman
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - S Pugh
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - H M Sandler
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - P T Tran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Marqueen KE, Strom EA, Ning MS, Smith BD, Tereffe W, Hoffman KE, Stauder MC, Perkins GH, Buchholz TA, Li J, McAleer MF, Reddy J, Woodward WA. Phase II Trial of Definitive Therapy for Osseous Oligometastases in Breast Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e136. [PMID: 37784702 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.941] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Phase II data for consolidative local therapy for oligometastatic disease demonstrated improved outcomes for various malignancies. However, a randomized phase II study of oligometastatic breast cancer patients testing predominantly ablative dose radiotherapy (RT) did not demonstrate progression-free survival (PFS) benefit. We conducted a single-arm phase II trial evaluating local therapy as part of the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer patients with limited bone metastases. MATERIALS/METHODS Patients with synchronous (n = 15) and metachronous (n = 15) oligometastatic breast cancer involving ≤3 osseous sites were enrolled from July 2009 to April 2016 and treated to a total of 44 bone metastases. The trial closed early due to slow accrual. Following ≤9 months of systemic therapy, local therapy entailed surgery (n = 3) or RT delivered via conventional fractionation (≥60 Gy, n = 36) or stereotactic technique (27 Gy/3 fractions for spine mets, n = 6). When indicated, RT to the primary was delivered concurrently (n = 15). The primary endpoint was to determine PFS. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), local control (LC) and toxicity. Outcomes were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier and univariate Cox proportional hazards analyses. RESULTS Of the 30 patients included in the trial, 23 (77%) had ER+ or PR+/HER2- disease, 4 (13%) had Her2+ disease, and 3 (10%) were triple negative. Median age was 53, and 20 patients (67%) presented with 1 distant metastasis. A total of 21 patients (70%) experienced disease progression at a median 20.5 months (IQR: 8.2-41.2), including 5 local failures among 44 treated bone metastases (11%). At a median follow-up of 76.7 mon (IQR: 45.4-108.8), the median PFS was 37.8 mon, with 2- and 5-year rates (95% CI) of 60% (45-80%) and 32% (19-55%), respectively. The 2- and 5-year OS rates were 93% (85-100%) and 64% (48-85%), respectively, and the 2- and 5-year LC rates were 91% (80-100%) and 71% (51-98%). For patients who achieved LC, median PFS was 47.7 months (IQR 12.2-73.0). Twenty-one patients (70%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy with or without endocrine therapy for newly diagnosed oligometastatic disease. Nine patients (30%) were still alive with no evidence of disease (NED) at a median 96.9 mon (range: 47.7-158.6). PFS was worse among triple negative patients (p = 0.03), with no difference based on synchronous vs non-synchronous presentation (p = 0.10), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy prior to definitive therapy (p = 0.08) or Her2+ status (p = 0.21). There were no Grade ≥3 adverse events. CONCLUSION Definitive, predominantly conventionally fractionated local therapy was associated with long-term NED status for 30% of patients with oligometastatic breast cancer involving osseous sites, with minimal treatment-associated toxicity. Developing randomized trials for breast cancer subsets may warrant consideration of standard fractionation regimen data and the need for strategies to identify patients who may benefit from definitive local therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K E Marqueen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - E A Strom
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M S Ning
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - B D Smith
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - W Tereffe
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - K E Hoffman
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M C Stauder
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - G H Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - J Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M F McAleer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - J Reddy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - W A Woodward
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Hoffman KE, Smith BD, Singh P, Qiao W, Bloom ES, Chu C, Clemens M, Ehlers R, Rosa H, Joyner MM, Largo R, Mitchell MP, Tamirisa N, Villa M, Woodward WA, Kuerer HM, Schaverien M. Prospective Clinical Trial of Premastectomy Radiotherapy Followed by Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Operable Breast Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e179-e180. [PMID: 37784797 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Radiation delivered prior to mastectomy and autologous breast reconstruction may avoid the adverse effects of radiation on autologous donor tissue while providing the psychologic benefit of immediate reconstruction. We aimed to study the feasibility of premastectomy radiation therapy (PreMRT). MATERIALS/METHODS A total of 50 women enrolled in a prospective trial of preoperative radiation to the breast and regional nodes followed by mastectomy with axillary evaluation and immediate breast reconstruction. The trial was embedded in a randomized trial of hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated regional nodal irradiation (NCT02912312). Eligible women enrolled from 2018-22, had cT0-T3 N0-3 breast cancer, and a pre-operative recommendation for radiation. The primary outcome was frequency of complete free flap loss. Mastectomy skin flap necrosis was assessed by validated SKIN grading score. The Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes Scales evaluated patient satisfaction with cosmetic result. Descriptive statistics and 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS One patient withdrew prior to any treatment and one elected not to have breast reconstruction. Median age of the 48 women completing PreMRT and reconstruction was 48 [range 31-72]. Most had ER-positive HER2-negative (77%), cT3 (54%) or cT2 (38%), cN1 (79%) disease and received 50 Gy in 25 fractions (n = 24) or 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions (n = 23). Four received 10-16 Gy internal mammary or infraclavicular boost. 35% VMAT, 48% matched photon-electron, and 17% partially-wide-tangent technique. Median time to surgery was 23 days [14-85]. Skin reaction delayed surgery for one patient. Most had skin-sparing mastectomy (92%) and axillary lymph node dissection (67%). 12 surgeons performed the reconstructions: 35 deep inferior epigastric perforators; 4 profunda artery perforator; 2 muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous; 1 latissimus dorsi (LD); 2 LD/implant; 2 LD/tissue expander (TE); and 2 subpectoral (SP) TE. There were no complete flap losses. Two patients (4.4%, 95% CI 0.5%-14.8%) with free flaps had partial flap loss with revision surgery. Both patients with SP TEs had infections and unplanned reoperation. The protocol was subsequently amended to not allow SP TE reconstruction. Eight patients had skin flap necrosis: 5 partial and 3 full thickness necrosis; only 1 required operative debridement. Seven had pathologic complete response. At six months 19/31 (61%) reported being "quite a bit" or "very much" satisfied with how they looked in the mirror clothed. There are no recurrences with a median follow up of 33 months [5-119]. CONCLUSION Radiation treatment of the breast and lymph node basins prior to mastectomy with immediate autologous reconstruction is feasible. There were no autologous flap loses and complication rates are similar to reconstruction after radiation series. This promising strategy reduces time to autologous reconstruction and merits further prospective study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K E Hoffman
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - B D Smith
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - P Singh
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - W Qiao
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - E S Bloom
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - C Chu
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M Clemens
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - R Ehlers
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - H Rosa
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M M Joyner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - R Largo
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M P Mitchell
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - N Tamirisa
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M Villa
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - W A Woodward
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - H M Kuerer
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M Schaverien
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Nguyen PL, Kollmeier MA, Rathkopf D, Hoffman KE, Zurita-Saavedra A, Spratt DE, Dess RT, Liauw S, Szmulewitz R, Einstein DJ, Bubley G, Yu JB, An Y, Wong AC, Feng FY, Mckay RR, Rose BS, Shin KY, Kibel A, Taplin MEA. FORMULA-509: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Post-Operative Salvage Radiotherapy (SRT) and 6 Months of GnRH Agonist with Either Bicalutamide or Abiraterone Acetate/Prednisone (AAP) and Apalutamide (Apa) Post-Radical Prostatectomy (RP). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:S81-S82. [PMID: 37784583 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) FORMULA-509 was designed to evaluate whether adding six months of AAP and Apa to a GnRH Agonist could improve outcomes compared to six months of bicalutamide plus GnRH Agonist for patients with unfavorable features receiving SRT for a detectable PSA post-RP. MATERIALS/METHODS FORMULA-509 is an investigator-initiated, multi-center, open-label, randomized trial. Patients had PSA ≥0.1 post-RP and one or more unfavorable features (Gleason 8-10, PSA >0.5, pT3/T4, pN1 or radiographic N1, PSA doubling time <10 months, negative margins, persistent PSA, gross local/regional disease, or Decipher High Risk). All patients received SRT plus 6 months of GnRH agonist and randomization was to concurrent bicalutamide 50 mg or AAP 1000 mg/5 mg + Apa 240 mg QD. Radiation to pelvic nodes was required for pN1 and optional for pN0. The primary endpoint was PSA progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoint was metastasis-free survival (MFS) determined by conventional imaging. The study was powered to detect a HR of 0.50 for PFS and a HR of 0.30 for MFS, each with 80% power and one-sided type I error of 0.05. Stratification was by PSA at study entry (>0.5 vs.≤0.5) and pN0 vs pN1. Analyses within these subgroups were pre-planned and utilized two-sided p-values. RESULTS Three hundred forty-five participants (332 evaluable) from 9 sites were randomized from 11/24/2017 to 3/25/2020 (172 bicalutamide, 173 AAP/Apa). Median follow-up was 34 (6-53) months; 29% were pN1 and 31% had PSA >0.5 ng/mL. The HR for PFS was 0.71 (90% CI 0.49-1.03), stratified one-sided log-rank p = 0.06 (3-year PFS was 68.5% bicalutamide vs 74.9% AAP/Apa). The HR for MFS was 0.57 (90% CI 0.33-1.01), stratified one-sided log rank p = 0.05 (3-year MFS was 87.2% bicalutamide vs 90.6% AAP/Apa). In a pre-planned analysis by stratification factors, AAP/Apa was significantly superior for patients with PSA >0.5 for PFS [HR 0.50, (95% CI 0.27-0.95), p = 0.03 (2-sided); 3-year PFS 46.8% bicalutamide vs. 67.2% AAP/Apa] and for MFS [HR 0.32 (95% CI 0.13-0.84), p = 0.02 (2-sided); 3-year MFS 66.1% bicalutamide vs. 84.3% AAP/Apa.] No statistically significant benefit was detected in pre-planned analyses of stratification subgroups defined by PSA≤0.5, pN0, or pN1. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the agents being studied, with more rash and hypertension in the AAP/Apa arm. CONCLUSION Although this primary analysis did not meet the pre-specified threshold for statistical significance, it does strongly suggest that the addition of AAP/Apa instead of bicalutamide to SRT+6 months of GnRH Agonist may improve PFS and MFS, particularly in the subgroup of patients with PSA>0.5 where a pre-planned subgroup analysis by stratification factors observed a statistically significant benefit for both PFS and MFS. (NCT03141671).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P L Nguyen
- Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - M A Kollmeier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - D Rathkopf
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - K E Hoffman
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - D E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
| | - R T Dess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - S Liauw
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL
| | | | - D J Einstein
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - G Bubley
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - J B Yu
- Saint Francis Radiation Oncology, Hartford, CT
| | - Y An
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - A C Wong
- University of California San Francisco, Department of Radiation Oncology, San Francisco, CA
| | - F Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - R R Mckay
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA
| | - B S Rose
- UCSD Center for Health Equity, Education, and Research, La Jolla, CA
| | - K Y Shin
- Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - A Kibel
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Gandhi A, Xu T, DeSnyder SM, Smith GL, Lin R, Barcenas CH, Stauder MC, Hoffman KE, Strom EA, Ferguson S, Smith BD, Woodward WA, Perkins GH, Mitchell MP, Garner D, Goodman CR, Aldrich M, Travis M, Lilly S, Bedrosian I, Shaitelman SF. Prospective, early longitudinal assessment of lymphedema-related quality of life among patients with locally advanced breast cancer: The foundation for building a patient-centered screening program. Breast 2023; 68:205-215. [PMID: 36863241 PMCID: PMC9996356 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.02.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2022] [Revised: 02/08/2023] [Accepted: 02/21/2023] [Indexed: 03/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We examined how breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) affects health-related quality of life (HRQOL), productivity, and compliance with therapeutic interventions to guide structuring BCRL screening programs. METHODS We prospectively followed consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) with arm volume screening and measures assessing patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and perceptions of BCRL care. Comparisons by BCRL status were made with Mann-Whitney U, Chi-square, Fisher's exact, or t tests. Trends over time from ALND were assessed with linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 8 months in 247 patients, 46% self-reported ever having BCRL, a proportion that increased over time. About 73% reported fear of BCRL, which was stable over time. Further in time from ALND, patients were more likely to report that BCRL screening reduced fear. Patient-reported BCRL was associated with higher soft tissue sensation intensity, biobehavioral, and resource concerns, absenteeism, and work/activity impairment. Objectively measured BCRL had fewer associations with outcomes. Most patients reported performing prevention exercises, but compliance decreased over time; patient-reported BCRL was not associated with exercise frequency. Fear of BCRL was positively associated with performing prevention exercises and using compressive garments. CONCLUSIONS Both incidence and fear of BCRL were high after ALND for breast cancer. Fear was associated with improved therapeutic compliance, but compliance decreased over time. Patient-reported BCRL was more strongly associated with worse HRQOL and productivity than was objective BCRL. Screening programs must support patients' psychological needs and aim to sustain long-term compliance with recommended interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anusha Gandhi
- Baylor College of Medicine, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Tianlin Xu
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Sarah M DeSnyder
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of GI Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Ruitao Lin
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Carlos H Barcenas
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Michael C Stauder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Eric A Strom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Susan Ferguson
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Wendy A Woodward
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - George H Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Melissa P Mitchell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Desmond Garner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Chelain R Goodman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Melissa Aldrich
- Center for Molecular Imaging, UT Health Science Center at Houston, USA
| | - Marigold Travis
- Department of Rehabilitative Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Susan Lilly
- Department of Rehabilitative Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Isabelle Bedrosian
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | - Simona F Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Solanki AA, Puckett LL, Kujundzic K, Katsoulakis E, Park J, Kapoor R, Hagan M, Kelly M, Palta J, Ballas LK, DeMarco J, Hoffman KE, Lawton CAF, Michalski J, Potters L, Zelefsky M, Kudner R, Dawes S, Wilson E, Sandler H. Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Prostate Cancer From the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Expert Panel. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:e149-e165. [PMID: 36522277 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2022.08.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2022] [Revised: 08/15/2022] [Accepted: 08/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE There are no agreed upon measures to comprehensively determine the quality of radiation oncology (RO) care delivered for prostate cancer. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the implementation of scientific advances and adherence to best practices in routine clinical practice. To address this need, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance (VA ROQS) Program to develop clinical quality measures to assess the quality of RO care delivered to Veterans with cancer. This article reports the prostate cancer consensus measures. METHODS AND MATERIALS The VA ROQS Program contracted with the American Society for Radiation Oncology to commission a Blue Ribbon Panel of prostate cancer experts to develop a set of evidence-based measures and performance expectations. From February to June 2021, the panel developed quality, aspirational, and surveillance measures for (1) initial consultation and workup, (2) simulation, treatment planning, and delivery, and (3) follow-up. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints to be used as quality measures for definitive and post-prostatectomy radiation therapy were selected. The panel also identified the optimal Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0 (CTCAE V5.0), toxicity terms to assess in follow-up. RESULTS Eighteen prostate-specific measures were developed (13 quality, 2 aspirational, and 3 surveillance). DVH metrics tailored to conventional, moderately hypofractionated, and ultrahypofractionated regimens were identified. Decision trees to determine performance for each measure were developed. Eighteen CTCAE V5.0 terms were selected in the sexual, urinary, and gastrointestinal domains as highest priority for assessment during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS This set of measures and DVH constraints serves as a tool for assessing the comprehensive quality of RO care for prostate cancer. These measures will be used for ongoing quality surveillance and improvement among veterans receiving care across VA and community sites. These measures can also be applied to clinical settings outside of those serving veterans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abhishek A Solanki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stritch School of Medicine, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois; Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr, VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois.
| | - Lindsay L Puckett
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | | | - Evangelia Katsoulakis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Tampa, Florida
| | - John Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Missouri, Kansas City, Missouri
| | - Rishabh Kapoor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Michael Hagan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia; National Radiation Oncology Program, Veteran's Healthcare Administration, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Maria Kelly
- National Radiation Oncology Program, Veteran's Healthcare Administration, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Jatinder Palta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia; National Radiation Oncology Program, Veteran's Healthcare Administration, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Leslie K Ballas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - John DeMarco
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Houston, Texas
| | - Colleen A F Lawton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | - Jeff Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri
| | - Louis Potters
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health Cancer Institute, Lake Success, New York; Department of Radiation Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York
| | - Michael Zelefsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Randi Kudner
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | - Samantha Dawes
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | - Emily Wilson
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | - Howard Sandler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Tallman JE, Wallis CJD, Huang LC, Zhao Z, Penson DF, Koyama T, Conwill R, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, O'Neil BB, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Barocas DA, Hoffman KE. Correction to: Association between adherence to radiation therapy quality metrics and patient reported outcomes in prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2023; 26:214. [PMID: 36914851 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00659-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob E Tallman
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
| | | | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - David F Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Ralph Conwill
- Office of Patient and Community Education, Patient Advocacy Program, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Ann S Hamilton
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Lisa E Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Brock B O'Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Sherrie H Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Sheldon Greenfield
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Daniel A Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Tallman JE, Wallis CJD, Huang LC, Zhao Z, Penson DF, Koyama T, Conwill R, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, O'Neil BB, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Barocas DA, Hoffman KE. Association between adherence to radiation therapy quality metrics and patient reported outcomes in prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2023; 26:80-87. [PMID: 35217831 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00518-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2021] [Revised: 02/03/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prior studies have shown significant variability in the quality of prostate cancer care in the US with questionable associations between quality measures and patient reported outcomes. We evaluated the impact of compliance with nationally recognized radiation therapy (RT) quality measures on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) cohort. METHODS CEASAR is a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer from which we identified 649 who received primary RT and completed HRQOL surveys for inclusion. Eight quality measures were identified based on national guidelines. We analyzed the impact of compliance with these measures on HRQOL assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years after treatment. Multivariable analysis was performed controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS Among eligible participants, 566 (87%) patients received external beam radiation therapy and 83 (13%) received brachytherapy. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range: 64-73), 33% had low-, 43% intermediate-, and 23% high-risk disease. 28% received care non-compliant with at least one measure. In multivariable analyses, while some statistically significant associations were identified, there were no clinically significant associations between compliance with evaluated RT quality measures and patient reported urinary irritative, urinary incontinence, bowel, sexual or hormonal function. CONCLUSIONS Compliance with RT quality measures was not meaningfully associated with patient-reported outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. Further work is needed to identify patient-centered quality measures of prostate cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob E Tallman
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
| | | | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - David F Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Ralph Conwill
- Office of Patient and Community Education, Patient Advocacy Program, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Ann S Hamilton
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Lisa E Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Brock B O'Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Sherrie H Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Sheldon Greenfield
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Daniel A Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Nguyen PL, Kollmeier M, Rathkopf DE, Hoffman KE, Zurita AJ, Spratt DE, Dess RT, Liauw SL, Szmulewitz RZ, Einstein DJ, Bubley G, Yu JB, An Y, Wong AC, Feng FY, McKay RR, Rose BS, Shin KY, Kibel AS, Taplin ME. FORMULA-509: A multicenter randomized trial of post-operative salvage radiotherapy (SRT) and 6 months of GnRH agonist with or without abiraterone acetate/prednisone (AAP) and apalutamide (Apa) post-radical prostatectomy (RP). J Clin Oncol 2023. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2023.41.6_suppl.303] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/16/2023] Open
Abstract
303 Background: Six months of a GnRH agonist with SRT is a standard of care for patients with unfavorable features and a detectable PSA post-RP. FORMULA-509 was designed to evaluate whether adding six months of AAP and Apa to this regimen could improve outcomes. Methods: FORMULA-509 (NCT03141671) is an investigator-initiated, multi-center, open-label, randomized trial. Patients had PSA≥0.1 post-RP and one or more unfavorable features (Gleason 8-10, PSA>0.5, pT3/T4, pN1 or radiographic N1, PSA doubling time <10 months, negative margins, persistent PSA, gross local/regional disease, or Decipher High Risk). All patients received SRT plus 6 months of GnRH agonist and randomization was to concurrent bicalutamide 50 mg or AAP 1000mg/5mg + Apa 240mg QD. Radiation to pelvic nodes was required for pN1 and optional for pN0. The primary endpoint was PSA progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoint was metastasis-free survival (MFS) determined by conventional imaging. The study was powered to detect a HR of 0.50 for PFS and a HR of 0.30 for MFS, each with 80% power and one-sided type I error of 0.05. Stratification was by PSA at study entry (>0.5 vs.≤0.5) and pN0 vs pN1. Analyses within these subgroups were pre-planned. Results: 345 participants (332 evaluable) from 9 sites were randomized from 11/24/2017 to 3/25/2020 (172 bicalutamide, 173 AAP/Apa). Median follow-up was 34 (6-53) months; 29% were pN1 and 31% had PSA >0.5 ng/mL. The HR for PFS was 0.71 (90% CI 0.49-1.03), stratified one-sided log-rank p=0.06 (3-year PFS was 68.5% bicalutamide vs 74.9% AAP/Apa). The HR for MFS was 0.57 (90% CI 0.33-1.01), stratified one-sided log rank p=0.05 (3-year MFS was 87.2% bicalutamide vs 90.6% AAP/Apa). In a pre-planned analysis by stratification factors, AAP/Apa was significantly superior for patients with PSA >0.5 for PFS [HR 0.50, (90% CI 0.30-0.86), p=0.03 (2-sided); 3-year PFS 46.8% bicalutamide vs. 67.2% AAP/Apa] and for MFS [HR 0.32 (90% CI 0.15-0.72), p=0.01 (2-sided); 3-year MFS 66.1% bicalutamide vs. 84.3% AAP/Apa.] No statistically significant benefit was detected in pre-planned analyses of stratification subgroups defined by PSA≤0.5, pN0, or pN1. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the agents being studied, with more rash and hypertension in the AAP/Apa arm. Conclusions: Although this primary analysis did not meet the pre-specified threshold for statistical significance, it does strongly suggest that the addition of AAP/Apa to SRT+6 months of ADT may improve PFS and MFS, particularly in the subgroup of patients with PSA>0.5 where a pre-planned subgroup analysis by stratification factors observed a statistically significant benefit for both PFS and MFS. Clinical trial information: NCT03141671 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul L. Nguyen
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | | | - Dana E. Rathkopf
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
| | | | | | - Daniel Eidelberg Spratt
- University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
| | | | | | | | | | - Glenn Bubley
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - James B. Yu
- New York Presbyterian - Columbia, New York, NY
| | - Yi An
- Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT
| | | | - Felix Y Feng
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Rana R. McKay
- Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA
| | - Brent S. Rose
- University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
De B, Pasalic D, Barocas DA, Wallis CJ, Huang LC, Zhao Z, Koyama T, Tang C, Conwill R, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, O’Neil BB, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Penson DF, Hoffman KE. Patient-reported Outcomes After External Beam Radiotherapy With Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost vs Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Five-year Results From a Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Study. J Urol 2022; 208:1226-1239. [PMID: 36006050 PMCID: PMC9933910 DOI: 10.1097/ju.0000000000002902] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2022] [Accepted: 07/21/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Data comparing radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost are lacking. To better guide shared decision making regarding treatment, we compared patient reported outcomes through 5 years following radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS From 2011-2012, men aged <80 years with localized prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled and followed longitudinally. Patient reported outcomes included the Expanded Prostate Index Composite. Regression models adjusted for baseline scores and covariates were constructed. RESULTS The study population included 112 men treated with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost and 1,553 treated with radical prostatectomy. Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive (adjusted mean score difference [95% confidence interval]: 5.0 [-8.7, -1.3]; P = .008 at 5 years) and better urinary incontinence function (13.3 [7.7, 18.9]; P < .001 at 5 years) through 5 years. Urinary function bother was similar between groups (P > .4 at all timepoints). Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with worse bowel function (-4.0 [-6.9, -1.1]; P = .006 at 5 years) through 5 years compared to radical prostatectomy. Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with better sexual function at 1 year (12.0 [6.5, 17.5]; P < .001 at 1 year) compared to radical prostatectomy, but there was insufficient evidence to reject the supposition that no difference was seen at 3 or 5 years. CONCLUSIONS Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive and bowel functions but better urinary incontinence function through 5 years after treatment. These patient-reported functional outcomes may clarify treatment expectations and help inform treatment choices for localized prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian De
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, TX
| | - Dario Pasalic
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, TX
| | - Daniel A. Barocas
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Nashville, TN
| | - Christopher J.D. Wallis
- Mount Sinai Hospital, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
| | - Li-Ching Huang
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, TN
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, TN
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, TN
| | - Chad Tang
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, TX
| | - Ralph Conwill
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Office of Patient and Community Education, Patient Advocacy Program, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Michael Goodman
- Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Atlanta, GA
| | - Ann S. Hamilton
- Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Department of Preventative Medicine, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, New Orleans, LA
| | - Lisa E. Paddock
- Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, Department of Epidemiology, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, Department of Epidemiology, New Brunswick, NJ
| | | | - Mia Hashibe
- University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Brock B. O’Neil
- University of Utah Health, Department of Urology, Salt Lake City, UT
| | | | | | - David F. Penson
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Nashville, TN
- Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Joyce DD, Wallis CJD, Huang LC, Hoffman KE, Zhao Z, Koyama T, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, O’Neil BB, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Penson DF, Barocas DA. The Association Between Financial Toxicity and Treatment Regret in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2022; 6:6762868. [PMID: 36255249 PMCID: PMC9731205 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkac071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2022] [Revised: 09/13/2022] [Accepted: 10/03/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling. METHODS Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations. RESULTS Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from "finances in general" was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7). CONCLUSIONS In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel D Joyce
- Correspondence to: Daniel D. Joyce, MD, Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN 55902, USA (e-mail: )
| | | | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Ann S Hamilton
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Lisa E Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Brock B O’Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Sherrie H Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Sheldon Greenfield
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - David F Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA,Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Daniel A Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Aldrich MB, Rasmussen JC, DeSnyder SM, Woodward WA, Chan W, Sevick-Muraca EM, Mittendorf EA, Smith BD, Stauder MC, Strom EA, Perkins GH, Hoffman KE, Mitchell MP, Barcenas CH, Isales LE, Shaitelman SF. Prediction of breast cancer-related lymphedema by dermal backflow detected with near-infrared fluorescence lymphatic imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 195:33-41. [PMID: 35816269 PMCID: PMC9272652 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06667-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2022] [Accepted: 06/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Mild breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is clinically diagnosed as a 5%-10% increase in arm volume, typically measured no earlier than 3-6 months after locoregional treatment. Early BCRL treatment is associated with better outcomes, yet amid increasing evidence that lymphedema exists in a latent form, treatment is typically delayed until arm swelling is obvious. In this study, we investigated whether near-infrared fluorescence lymphatic imaging (NIRF-LI) surveillance could characterize early onset of peripheral lymphatic dysfunction as a predictor of BCRL. METHODS In a prospective, longitudinal cohort/observational study (NCT02949726), subjects with locally advanced breast cancer who received axillary lymph node dissection and regional nodal radiotherapy (RT) were followed serially, between 2016 and 2021, before surgery, 4-8 weeks after surgery, and 6, 12, and 18 months after RT. Arm volume was measured by perometry, and lymphatic (dys) function was assessed by NIRF-LI. RESULTS By 18 months after RT, 30 of 42 study subjects (71%) developed mild-moderate BCRL (i.e., ≥ 5% arm swelling relative to baseline), all manifested by "dermal backflow" of lymph into lymphatic capillaries or interstitial spaces. Dermal backflow had an 83% positive predictive value and 86% negative predictive value for BCRL, with a sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 50%, accuracy of 83%, positive likelihood ratio of 1.93, negative likelihood ratio of 0.07, and odds ratio of 29.00. Dermal backflow appeared on average 8.3 months, but up to 23 months, before the onset of mild BCRL. CONCLUSION BCRL can be predicted by dermal backflow, which often appears months before arm swelling, enabling early treatment before the onset of edema and irreversible tissue changes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa B Aldrich
- Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 1825 Pressler, 330D, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| | - John C Rasmussen
- Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 1825 Pressler, 330D, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Sarah M DeSnyder
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Wendy A Woodward
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Wenyaw Chan
- Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 1825 Pressler, 330D, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Eva M Sevick-Muraca
- Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 1825 Pressler, 330D, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Elizabeth A Mittendorf
- Dana Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Michael C Stauder
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Eric A Strom
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - George H Perkins
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Melissa P Mitchell
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Carlos H Barcenas
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Lynn E Isales
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Simona F Shaitelman
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1502, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
De B, Lowenstein LM, Corrigan KL, Andring LM, Kuban DA, Cantor SB, Volk RJ, Hoffman KE. Patients’ Preferences for Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer. MDM Policy Pract 2022; 7:23814683221137752. [PMID: 36405544 PMCID: PMC9669695 DOI: 10.1177/23814683221137752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2022] [Accepted: 10/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background. For men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC), adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has shown efficacy, but men are often reluctant to accept it because of its impact on quality of life. Methods. We conducted time tradeoffs (score of 1 = perfect health and 0 = death) and probability tradeoffs with patients aged 51 to 78 y who had received EBRT for IRPC within the past 2 y. Of 40 patients, 20 had received 6 mo of ADT and 20 had declined. Utility assessments explored 4 ADT-related side effects: hot flashes, fatigue, loss of libido/erectile dysfunction, and weight gain. Results. The most commonly reported “worst” treatment-related complication of ADT was fatigue (50% in both cohorts) followed by reduced libido/erectile dysfunction (40% in both cohorts). The utilities for fatigue were mean = 0.71 and median = 0.92 and for reduced libido/erectile dysfunction were mean = 0.81 and median = 0.92. Utilities did not differ significantly between cohorts. Assuming a 6-mo course of ADT, men reported being willing to trade 3 mo of life expectancy to avoid fatigue due to ADT and 1.8 mo to avoid sexual side effects. Patients in the ADT cohort were willing to accept the side effects of ADT in exchange for a mean 8% absolute increase in survival, whereas patients in the no ADT cohort required a 16% increase ( P < 0.001). Conclusions. When considering treatment with ADT, men with IRPC identified fatigue and sexual dysfunction as the most bothersome side effects. Patients who declined ADT expected a larger survival benefit than those who opted for treatment. Both groups expected a survival benefit exceeding that shown by recent trials, suggesting some men may be selecting treatments inconsistent with their preferences. Highlights This study demonstrates that prostate cancer patients receiving radiation therapy are reluctant to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) most commonly due to anticipated fatigue and loss of libido/erectile dysfunction. Men who had received ADT reported they would require an average 8% absolute increase in survival to tolerate its side effects, whereas those who declined ADT would require an average 16% increase. Required thresholds are well above the estimated absolute survival benefit for ADT demonstrated in recent clinical trials, suggesting an unmet need for improved patient education regarding the risks and benefits of ADT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian De
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lisa M. Lowenstein
- Departments of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kelsey L. Corrigan
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lauren M. Andring
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Deborah A. Kuban
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Scott B. Cantor
- Departments of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Robert J. Volk
- Departments of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
De B, Fu S, Chen Y, Das P, Ku K, Maroongroge S, Woodhouse KD, Hoffman KE, Nguyen Q, Reed VK, Chen AB, Koong AC, Smith BD, Smith GL. Patient, physician, and policy factors underlying variation in use of telemedicine for radiation oncology cancer care. Cancer Med 2022; 11:2096-2105. [PMID: 35297210 PMCID: PMC9119354 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4555] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2021] [Revised: 12/10/2021] [Accepted: 12/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oncology telemedicine was implemented rapidly after COVID-19. We examined multilevel correlates and outcomes of telemedicine use for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS Upon implementation of a telemedicine platform at a comprehensive cancer center, we analyzed 468 consecutive patient RT courses from March 16, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients were categorized as using telemedicine during ≥1 weekly oncologist visits versus in-person oncologist management only. Temporal trends were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage tests; chi-squared test and multilevel multivariable logistic models identified correlates of use and outcomes. RESULTS Overall, 33% used telemedicine versus 67% in-person only oncologist management. Temporal trends (ptrend < 0.001) correlated with policy changes: uptake was rapid after local social-distancing restrictions, reaching peak use (35% of visits) within 4 weeks of implementation. Use declined to 15% after national "Opening Up America Again" guidelines. In the multilevel model, patients more likely to use telemedicine were White non-Hispanic versus Black or Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.72; p = 0.04) or receiving ≥6 fractions of RT versus 1-5 fractions (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.29-8.80; p < 0.001). Model intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated 43% utilization variation was physician-level driven. Treatment toxicities and 30-day emergency visits or unplanned hospitalizations did not differ for patients using versus not using telemedicine (p > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION Though toxicities were similar with telemedicine oncology management, there remained lower uptake among non-White patients. Continuing strategies for oncology telemedicine implementation should address multilevel patient, physician, and policy factors to optimize telemedicine's potential to surmount-and not exacerbate-barriers to quality cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian De
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Shuangshuang Fu
- Department of Health Services ResearchThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Ying‐Shiuan Chen
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Kimberly Ku
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Sean Maroongroge
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Kristina D. Woodhouse
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Quynh‐Nhu Nguyen
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Valerie K. Reed
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Aileen B. Chen
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
- Department of Health Services ResearchThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Benjamin D. Smith
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
- Department of Health Services ResearchThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Grace L. Smith
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
- Department of Health Services ResearchThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Hanson SE, Lei X, Roubaud MS, DeSnyder SM, Caudle AS, Shaitelman SF, Hoffman KE, Smith GL, Jagsi R, Peterson SK, Smith BD. Long-term Quality of Life in Patients With Breast Cancer After Breast Conservation vs Mastectomy and Reconstruction. JAMA Surg 2022; 157:e220631. [PMID: 35416926 PMCID: PMC9008558 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0631] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Importance Treatment options for early breast cancer include breast-conserving surgery with radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy and breast reconstruction without RT. Despite marked differences in these treatment strategies, little is known with regard to their association with long-term quality of life (QOL). Objective To evaluate the association of treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT vs mastectomy and reconstruction without RT with long-term QOL. Design, Setting, and Participants This comparative effectiveness research study used data from the Texas Cancer Registry for women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008. The study sample was mailed a survey between March 2017 and April 2018. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2018 to October 15, 2021. Exposures Breast-conserving surgery with RT or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was satisfaction with breasts, measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included BREAST-Q physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being; health utility, measured using the EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level questionnaire; and local therapy decisional regret. Multivariable linear regression models with weights for treatment, age, and race and ethnicity tested associations of the exposure with outcomes. Results Of 647 patients who responded to the survey (40.0%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery, and 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236). Among the 647 respondents, the median age was 53 years (range, 23-85 years) and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years (range, 8.4-12.5 years). Multivariable analysis showed no significant difference between breast-conserving surgery with RT (referent) and mastectomy and reconstruction without RT in satisfaction with breasts (effect size, 2.71; 95% CI, -2.45 to 7.88; P = .30) or physical well-being (effect size, -1.80; 95% CI, -5.65 to 2.05; P = .36). In contrast, psychosocial well-being (effect size, -8.61; 95% CI, -13.26 to -3.95; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, -10.68; 95% CI, -16.60 to -4.76; P < .001) were significantly worse with mastectomy and reconstruction without RT. Health utility (effect size, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03; P = .83) and decisional regret (effect size, 1.32; 95% CI, -3.77 to 6.40; P = .61) did not differ by treatment group. Conclusions and Relevance The findings support equivalence of breast-conserving surgery with RT and mastectomy and reconstruction without RT with regard to breast satisfaction and physical well-being. However, breast-conserving surgery with RT was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in psychosocial and sexual well-being. These findings may help inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Summer E Hanson
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Xiudong Lei
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Margaret S Roubaud
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Sarah M DeSnyder
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Abigail S Caudle
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Simona F Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.,Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Susan K Peterson
- Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.,Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Corrigan KL, Lei X, Ahmad N, Arzu I, Bloom E, Chun SG, Goodman C, Hoffman KE, Joyner M, Mayo L, Mitchell M, Nead KT, Perkins GH, Reed V, Reddy JP, Schlembach P, Shaitelman SF, Stauder MC, Strom EA, Tereffe W, Wiederhold L, Woodward WA, Smith BD. Adoption of Ultrahypofractionated Radiation Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 7:100877. [PMID: 35387420 PMCID: PMC8977907 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100877] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2021] [Accepted: 12/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction The first high-quality clinical trial to support ultrahypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (ultra-HF-WBI) for invasive early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) was published in April 2020, coinciding with the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed adoption of ultra-HF-WBI for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ESBC at our institution after primary trial publication. Methods and Materials We evaluated radiation fractionation prescriptions for all patients with DCIS or ESBC treated with WBI from March 2020 to May 2021 at our main campus and regional campuses. Demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from the electronic medical record. Treating physician characteristics were collected from licensure data. Hierarchical logistic regression models identified factors correlated with adoption of ultra-HF-WBI (26 Gy in 5 daily factions [UK-FAST-FORWARD] or 28.5 Gy in 5 weekly fractions [UK-FAST]). Results Of 665 included patients, the median age was 61.5 years, and 478 patients (71.9%) had invasive, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. Twenty-one physicians treated the included patients. In total, 249 patients (37.4%) received ultra-HF-WBI, increasing from 4.3% (2 of 46) in March-April 2020 to a high of 45.5% (45 of 99) in July-August 2020 (P < .001). Patient factors associated with increased use of ultra-HF-WBI included older age (≥50 years old), low-grade WBI without inclusion of the low axilla, no radiation boost, and farther travel distance (P < .03). Physician variation accounted for 21.7% of variance in the outcome, with rate of use of ultra-HF-WBI by the treating physicians ranging from 0% to 75.6%. No measured physician characteristics were associated with use of ultra-HF-WBI. Conclusions Adoption of ultra-HF-WBI at our institution increased substantially after the publication of randomized evidence supporting its use. Ultra-HF-WBI was preferentially used in patients with lower risk disease, suggesting careful selection for this new approach while long-term data are maturing. Substantial physician-level variation may reflect a lack of consensus on the evidentiary standards required to change practice.
Collapse
|
24
|
Chapman BV, Liu D, Shen Y, Olamigoke OO, Lakomy DS, Barrera AMG, Stecklein SR, Sawakuchi GO, Bright SJ, Bedrosian I, Litton JK, Smith BD, Woodward WA, Perkins GH, Hoffman KE, Stauder MC, Strom EA, Arun BK, Shaitelman SF. Outcomes After Breast Radiation Therapy in a Diverse Patient Cohort With a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 112:426-436. [PMID: 34610390 PMCID: PMC9330175 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.09.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2021] [Revised: 09/20/2021] [Accepted: 09/25/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) mutations confer radiation sensitivity preclinically, but there are limited data regarding breast cancer outcomes after radiation therapy (RT) among patients with documented BRCA1/2 PV mutations versus no PV mutations. METHODS AND MATERIALS This retrospective cohort study included women with clinical stage I-III breast cancer who received definitive surgery and RT and underwent BRCA1/2 genetic evaluation at the The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Rates of locoregional recurrence (LRR), disease-specific death (DSD), toxicities, and second cancers were compared by BRCA1/2 PV status. RESULTS Of the 2213 women who underwent BRCA1/2 testing, 63% self-reported their race as White, 13.6% as Black/African American, 17.6% as Hispanic, and 5.8% as Asian/American Indian/Alaska Native; 124 had BRCA1 and 100 had BRCA2 mutations; and 1394 (63%) received regional nodal RT. The median follow-up time for all patients was 7.4 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-7.7 years). No differences were found between the groups with and without BRCA1/2 PV mutations in 10-year cumulative incidences of LRR (with mutations: 11.6% [95% CI, 7.0%-17.6%]; without mutations: 6.6% [95% CI, 5.3%-8.0%]; P = .466) and DSD (with mutations: 12.3% [95% CI, 8.0%-17.7%]; without mutations: 13.8% [95% CI, 12.0%-15.8%]; P = .716). On multivariable analysis, BRCA1/2 status was not associated with LRR or DSD, but Black/African American patients (P = .036) and Asians/American Indians/Alaska Native patients (P = .002) were at higher risk of LRR compared with White patients, and Black/African American patients were at higher risk of DSD versus White patients (P = .004). No in-field, nonbreast second cancers were observed in the BRCA1/2 PV group. Rates of acute and late grade ≥3 radiation-related toxicity in the BCRA1/2 PV group were 5.4% (n = 12) and 0.4% (n = 1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Oncologic outcomes in a diverse cohort of patients with breast cancer who had a germline BRCA1/2 PV mutation and were treated with RT were similar to those of patients with no mutation, supporting the use of RT according to standard indications in patients with a germline BRCA1/2 PV mutation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bhavana V. Chapman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Diane Liu
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Yu Shen
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - David S. Lakomy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Angelica M. Gutierrez Barrera
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology and Clinical Cancer Genetics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Shane R. Stecklein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Gabriel O. Sawakuchi
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Scott J. Bright
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Isabelle Bedrosian
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jennifer K. Litton
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology and Clinical Cancer Genetics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin D. Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Wendy A. Woodward
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - George H. Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael C. Stauder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Eric A. Strom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Banu K. Arun
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology and Clinical Cancer Genetics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Simona F. Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Wallis CJ, Huang LC, Zhao Z, Penson DF, Koyama T, Conwill R, Tallman JE, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, O’Neil BB, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Barocas DA, Hoffman KE. Association between pelvic nodal radiotherapy and patient-reported functional outcomes through 5 years among men undergoing external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: An assessment of the comparative effectiveness analysis of surgery and radiation (CEASAR) cohort. Urol Oncol 2022; 40:56.e1-56.e8. [PMID: 34154899 PMCID: PMC9933913 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.04.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2021] [Revised: 04/12/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of pelvic irradiation in men receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer is unclear, in part due to a lack of data on patient-reported outcomes. We sought to compare functional outcomes for men receiving prostate and pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy, longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with clinically-localized prostate cancer undergoing EBRT. We examined the effect of prostate and pelvic (n = 102) versus prostate-only (n = 485) radiotherapy on patient-reported disease-specific (using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite[EPIC]-26) and general health-related (using the SF-36) function, over 5 years. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, clinicopathologic characteristics, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). RESULTS 587 men (median [quartiles] age 69 [64-73] years) met inclusion criteria and completed ≥1 post-treatment survey. More men treated with prostate and pelvic radiotherapy had high-risk disease (58% vs. 18%, P < 0.01) and received ADT (75% vs. 41%, P < 0.01). These men reported worse sexual (6 months-5 years), hormonal (at 6 months), and physical (6 months-5 years) function. Accounting for baseline function, patient and tumor characteristics, and use of ADT, pelvic irradiation was not associated with statistically or clinically significant differences in bowel function, urinary incontinence, irritative voiding symptoms or sexual function through 5-years (all P > 0.05). Marginally clinically important differences were noted in hormonal function at 3-years (adjusted mean difference 4.7, 95% confidence interval [1.2-8.3]; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) 4 to 6) and 5-years (4.2, [0.4-8.0]) following treatment. After adjustment, there was a transient statistically significant, but not clinically important, difference in emotional well-being at 6 months (3.0, [0.19-5.8]; MCID 6) that resolved by 1 year and no differences in physical functioning or energy and fatigue. CONCLUSION This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT, showed no clinically important differences in disease-specific or general health-related quality of life with the addition of pelvic irradiation to prostate radiotherapy, supporting the use of pelvic radiotherapy when it may be of clinical benefit, such as men with increased risk of nodal involvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
| | | | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
| | - Ralph Conwill
- Office of Patient and Community Education, Patient Advocacy Program, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
| | | | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health
| | - Ann S. Hamilton
- Department of Preventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health
| | - Lisa E. Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health
| | | | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | | | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Center
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Chapman BV, Liu D, Shen Y, Olamigoke OO, Lakomy DS, Gutierrez Barrera AM, Stecklein SR, Sawakuchi GO, Bright SJ, Bedrosian I, Litton JK, Smith BD, Woodward WA, Perkins GH, Hoffman KE, Stauder MC, Strom EA, Arun BK, Shaitelman SF. Breast Radiation Therapy-Related Treatment Outcomes in Patients With or Without Germline Mutations on Multigene Panel Testing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 112:437-444. [PMID: 34582940 PMCID: PMC8748284 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.09.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2021] [Revised: 09/10/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Multigene panel testing has increased the detection of germline mutations in patients with breast cancer. The implications of using radiation therapy (RT) to treat patients with pathogenic variant (PV) mutations are not well understood and have been studied mostly in women with only BRCA1 or BRCA2 PVs. We analyzed oncologic outcomes and toxicity after adjuvant RT in a contemporary, diverse cohort of patients with breast cancer who underwent genetic panel testing. METHODS AND MATERIALS We retrospectively reviewed the records of 286 women with clinical stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed from 1995 to 2017 who underwent surgery, breast or chest wall RT with or without regional nodal irradiation, multigene panel testing, and evaluation at a large cancer center's genetic screening program. We evaluated rates of overall survival, locoregional recurrence, disease-specific death, and radiation-related toxicities in 3 groups: BRCA1/2 PV carriers, non-BRCA1/2 PV carriers, and patients without PV mutations. RESULTS PVs were detected in 25.2% of the cohort (12.6% BRCA1/2 and 12.6% non-BRCA1/2). The most commonly detected non-BRCA1/2 mutated genes were ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, CDH1, TP53, and PTEN. The median follow-up time for the entire cohort was 4.4 years (95% confidence interval, 3.8-4.9 years). No differences were found in overall survival, locoregional recurrence, or disease-specific death between groups (P > .1 for all). Acute and late toxicities were comparable across groups. CONCLUSION Oncologic and toxicity outcomes after RT in women with PV germline mutations detected by multigene pane testing are similar to those in patients without detectable mutations, supporting the use of adjuvant RT as a standard of care when indicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bhavana V. Chapman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Diane Liu
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Yu Shen
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Oluwafikayo O. Olamigoke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - David S. Lakomy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Angelica M. Gutierrez Barrera
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology and Clinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Shane R. Stecklein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Gabriel O. Sawakuchi
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Scott J. Bright
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Isabelle Bedrosian
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jennifer K. Litton
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology and Clinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin D. Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Wendy A. Woodward
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - George H. Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael C. Stauder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Eric A. Strom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Banu K. Arun
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology and Clinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Simona F. Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Wallis CJD, Zhao Z, Huang LC, Penson DF, Koyama T, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Luckenbaugh AN, Klaassen Z, Conwill R, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, O’Neil BB, Hoffman KE, Barocas DA. Association of Treatment Modality, Functional Outcomes, and Baseline Characteristics With Treatment-Related Regret Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8:50-59. [PMID: 34792527 PMCID: PMC8603232 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Treatment-related regret is an integrative, patient-centered measure that accounts for morbidity, oncologic outcomes, and anxiety associated with prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. OBJECTIVE To assess the association between treatment approach, functional outcomes, and patient expectations and treatment-related regret among patients with localized prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This population-based, prospective cohort study used 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-based registries in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation cohort. Participants included men with clinically localized prostate cancer from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012. Data were analyzed from August 2, 2020, to March 1, 2021. EXPOSURES Prostate cancer treatments included surgery, radiotherapy, and active surveillance. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Patient-reported treatment-related regret using validated metrics. Regression models were adjusted for demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment approach, and patient-reported functional outcomes. RESULTS Among the 2072 men included in the analysis (median age, 64 [IQR, 59-69] years), treatment-related regret at 5 years after diagnosis was reported in 183 patients (16%) undergoing surgery, 76 (11%) undergoing radiotherapy, and 20 (7%) undergoing active surveillance. Compared with active surveillance and adjusting for baseline differences, active treatment was associated with an increased likelihood of regret for those undergoing surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.40 [95% CI, 1.44-4.01]) but not radiotherapy (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.88-2.66]). When mediation by patient-reported functional outcomes was considered, treatment modality was not independently associated with regret. Sexual dysfunction, but not other patient-reported functional outcomes, was significantly associated with regret (aOR for change in sexual function from baseline, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.81]). Subjective patient-perceived treatment efficacy (aOR, 5.40 [95% CI, 2.15-13.56]) and adverse effects (aOR, 5.83 [95% CI, 3.97-8.58]), compared with patient expectations before treatment, were associated with treatment-related regret. Other patient characteristics at the time of treatment decision-making, including participatory decision-making tool scores (aOR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.69-0.92]), social support (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.90]), and age (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.97]), were significantly associated with regret. Results were comparable when assessing regret at 3 years rather than 5 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The findings of this cohort study suggest that more than 1 in 10 patients with localized prostate cancer experience treatment-related regret. The rates of regret appear to differ between treatment approaches in a manner that is mediated by functional outcomes and patient expectations. Treatment preparedness that focuses on expectations and treatment toxicity and is delivered in the context of shared decision-making should be the subject of future research to examine whether it can reduce regret.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J. D. Wallis
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee,Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - David F. Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | | | | | - Amy N. Luckenbaugh
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | | | - Ralph Conwill
- Office of Patient and Community Education, Patient Advocacy Program, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Franklin, Tennessee
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Ann S. Hamilton
- Department of Preventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans
| | - Lisa E. Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick
| | | | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City
| | - Brock B. O’Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Center, Houston
| | - Daniel A. Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Lowenstein LM, Choi NJ, Hoffman KE, Volk RJ, Loeb S. Factors that influence clinicians' decisions to decrease active surveillance monitoring frequency or transition to watchful waiting for localised prostate cancer: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e048347. [PMID: 34772748 PMCID: PMC8593754 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048347] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Little is known about clinicians' decision-making about decreasing active surveillance (AS) testing/converting patients to watchful waiting (WW), nor are there any guidelines. The objective of this study was to identify factors that clinicians consider when decreasing AS testing/converting to WW for men with prostate cancer. DESIGN Exploratory qualitative study. SETTING All participants practiced in various institutions in the USA. PARTICIPANTS Eligible clinicians had to provide clinical care for patients with prostate cancer in the USA and speak English. Clinicians could be either urologists or radiation oncologists. Of the 24 clinicians, 83% were urologists representing 11 states, 92% were men and 62% were white. METHODS This qualitative study used data from semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to ensure geographical variation in the USA. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was achieved. Framework analysis guided coding and identification of themes. Two researchers coded all transcripts independently, met to discuss and reached consensus. RESULTS Interviews with clinicians demonstrated that testing or monitoring for AS or transitioning to WW is happening in practice, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Decisions to decrease AS were personalised and tailored to patients' health status. Life expectancy was the dominant factor that influenced decision, but clinicians were generally hesitant to specify an age when they would decrease AS or transition to WW. Fear that poor adherence could lead to missed progression and concerns about the medico-legal issue of not doing enough were cited as barriers to decreasing AS. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that in certain situations, AS frequency is reduced or transitioned to WW, yet decisions appear to be inconsistent and there are no significant barriers. These findings could inform further areas to explore when drafting recommendations that consider patients' values and preferences when making decisions about decreasing AS/converting to WW.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa M Lowenstein
- Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Noah J Choi
- Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Division of Radiation Oncology, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Robert J Volk
- Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Stacy Loeb
- Urology, Population Health, New York University, New York, New York, USA
- Population Health, New York University, New York City, New York, USA
- Manhattat Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York City, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Hoffman KE, Johnstone P. A 25-year perspective on the evolution of radiation treatment of urologic cancers. Urol Oncol 2021; 39:577-581. [PMID: 34325987 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2021] [Revised: 06/04/2021] [Accepted: 06/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Advances in radiotherapy technology and technique over the last 3 decades have revolutionized radiation treatment options for genitourinary malignancies. The development of more focused and accurate radiation treatment has facilitated safe delivery of dose-escalated treatment that improves disease control and the development of shorter-duration hypofractionated treatment regimens that are more convenient for patients and improve access to treatment. The management of oligometastatic disease is evolving with ablative treatment of oligometastasis and the primary for select patients and shorter-duration palliative treatment regimens. Work is ongoing to personalize radiation treatment regimens for genitourinary malignancies based on molecular biomarkers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| | - Peter Johnstone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Dorff TB, O'Neil B, Hoffman KE, Lin DW, Loughlin KR, Dall'Era M. 25-year perspective on prostate cancer: Conquering frontiers and understanding tumor biology. Urol Oncol 2021; 39:521-527. [PMID: 34266741 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.04.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2021] [Revised: 04/12/2021] [Accepted: 04/12/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Major changes in the field of prostate cancer over the last 25 years include the implementation of prostate specific antigen screening and the recognition that BRCA confers hereditary risk of prostate cancer. Quality of life and survivorship have driven risk stratification for localized prostate cancer, facilitated by molecular signatures and leading to increased acceptance of active surveillance as a mainstream treatment option. Advances in technology have improved efficacy and reduced toxicity in both radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Improved understanding of the androgen receptor has yielded substantially more effective therapies. Future growth areas include personalized treatment based on genomic and genetic information, theranostics radiopharmaceuticals, and more aggressive treatment of metastatic disease to include focal therapy. Multidisciplinary management between specialized urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists remains central to maximizing patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanya B Dorff
- Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center. Duarte, CA.
| | - Brock O'Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Huntsman Comprehensive Cancer Center. Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Houston, TX
| | - Daniel W Lin
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Seattle, WA
| | - Kevin R Loughlin
- Vascular biology research laboratory, Boston Children's Hospital. Boston, MA
| | - Marc Dall'Era
- Department of Urology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center. Davis, CA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Joyce DD, Wallis CJD, Luckenbaugh AN, Huelster HL, Zhao Z, Hoffman KE, Huang LC, Koyama T, Conwill R, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, Neil BBO, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Penson DF, Barocas DA. Sexual function outcomes of radiation and androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer in men with good baseline function. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2021; 25:238-247. [PMID: 34108648 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00405-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2021] [Revised: 05/23/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sexual dysfunction, including erectile dysfunction and loss of libido, are common among men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer. Both local treatments and systemic androgen deprivation therapy may contribute to these outcomes and are differentially indicated based on disease characteristics. We sought to compare sexual function through 5 years after radiation treatment with and without androgen deprivation therapy in men with good baseline sexual function to better understand long-term effects in this understudied subset of patients. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively assembled population-based cohort of men who underwent radiation with and without androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate or high-risk localized prostate cancer. Sexual function was assessed longitudinally over 5 years. Men with erections sufficient for intercourse at baseline were selected for inclusion. RESULTS Out of 167 patients included, 73 underwent radiation alone and 94 received androgen deprivation therapy plus radiation (51 with intermediate and 43 with high-risk disease). Androgen deprivation therapy use was associated with worse sexual function through 1 year regardless of disease risk. This difference was no longer statistically significant at 3 years in the intermediate-risk group. Compared to radiation alone, androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk disease was associated with worse sexual function at 3 years (effect: -20.3 points, CI [-31.8, -8.8], p < 0.001) but not at 5 years (effect: -3.4, CI [-17.2, 10.5], p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS Androgen deprivation therapy plus radiation is associated with worse sexual function through 3-years follow-up in men with high-risk prostate cancer compared to radiation alone. The addition of androgen deprivation therapy in the treatment of intermediate-risk disease does not appear to result in worse sexual function at 3 or 5-year follow-up compared to radiation alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel D Joyce
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
| | | | - Amy N Luckenbaugh
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Heather L Huelster
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Ralph Conwill
- Office of Patient and Community Education, Patient Advocacy Program, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Ann S Hamilton
- Department of Preventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Lisa E Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Brock B O' Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Sherrie H Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Sheldon Greenfield
- Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - David F Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Daniel A Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
De B, Kaiser KW, Ludmir EB, Yeboa DN, Tang C, Hoffman KE, Liao Z, Koong AC, Smith BD. Radiotherapy clinical trial enrollment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Oncol 2021; 60:312-315. [PMID: 33356801 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2020.1865564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Brian De
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kelsey W. Kaiser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ethan B. Ludmir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Debra N. Yeboa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Zhongxing Liao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Benjamin D. Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Pasalic D, Barocas DA, Huang LC, Zhao Z, Koyama T, Tang C, Conwill R, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup AM, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, O'Neil BB, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Penson DF, Hoffman KE. Five-year outcomes from a prospective comparative effectiveness study evaluating external-beam radiotherapy with or without low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2021; 127:1912-1925. [PMID: 33595853 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33388] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2020] [Revised: 10/14/2020] [Accepted: 11/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To inform patients who are in the process of selecting prostate cancer treatment, the authors compared disease-specific function after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone versus EBRT plus a low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR). METHODS For this prospective study, men who had localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012 were enrolled. Assessments at baseline, 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 years included the patient-reported Expanded Prostate Index Composite, the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey, and treatment-related regret. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and for patient and treatment characteristics. The minimum clinically important difference in scores on the Expanded Prostate Index Composite 26-item instrument was from 5 to 7 for urinary irritation and from 4 to 6 for bowel function. RESULTS Six-hundred ninety-five men met inclusion criteria and received either EBRT (n = 583) or EBRT-LDR (n = 112). Patients in the EBRT-LDR group were younger (median age, 66 years [interquartile range [IQR], 60-71 years] vs 69 years [IQR, 64-74 years]; P < .001), were less likely to receive pelvic radiotherapy (10% vs 18%; P = .040), and had higher baseline 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey physical function scores (median score, 95 [IQR, 86-100] vs 90 [IQR, 70-100]; P < .001). Over a 3-year period, compared with EBRT, EBRT-LDR was associated with worse urinary irritative scores (adjusted mean difference at 3 years, -5.4; 95% CI, -9.3, -1.6) and bowel function scores (-4.1; 95% CI, -7.6, -0.5). The differences were no longer clinically meaningful at 5 years (difference in urinary irritative scores: -4.5; 95% CI, -8.4, -0.5; difference in bowel function scores: -2.1; 95% CI, -5.7, -1.4). However, men who received EBRT-LDR were more likely to report moderate or big problems with urinary function bother (adjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.2) and frequent urination (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.6) through 5 years. There were no differences in survival or treatment-related regret between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Compared with EBRT alone, EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative and bowel function over 3 years after treatment and more urinary bother at 5 years. LAY SUMMARY In men with prostate cancer who received external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR), EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically worse urinary irritation and bowel function through 3 years but resolved after 5 years. Men who received EBRT-LDR continued to report moderate-to-big problems with urinary function bother and frequent urination through 5 years. There was no difference in treatment-related regret or survival between patients who received EBRT and those who received EBRT-LDR. These intermediate-term estimates of function may facilitate counseling for men who are selecting treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dario Pasalic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Daniel A Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ralph Conwill
- Patient Advocacy Program, Office of Patient and Community Education, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Ann S Hamilton
- Department of Preventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans, Louisiana
| | - Lisa E Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Antoinette M Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Brock B O'Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Sherrie H Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California
| | - Sheldon Greenfield
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California
| | - David F Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Tang C, Lei X, Smith GL, Pan HY, Hoffman KE, Kumar R, Chapin BF, Shih YCT, Frank SJ, Smith BD. Influence of Geography on Prostate Cancer Treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:1286-1295. [PMID: 33316361 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.11.055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2020] [Revised: 11/18/2020] [Accepted: 11/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Several definitive treatment options are available for prostate cancer, but geographic access to those options is not uniform. We created maps illustrating provider practice patterns relation to patients and assessed the influence of distance to treatment receipt. METHODS AND MATERIALS The patient cohort was created by searching the National Medicare Database for patients diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer from 2011 to 2014. The provider cohort was created by querying the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to identify physicians who had treated patients with prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), or proton therapy. Maps detailing the location of providers were created for each modality. Multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were used to assess the association between patient-provider distance and probability of treatment. RESULTS Cohorts consisted of 89,902 patients treated by 5518 physicians. Substantial numbers of providers practicing established modalities (IMRT, prostatectomy, and brachytherapy) were noted in major urban centers, whereas provider numbers were reduced in rural areas, most notably for brachytherapy. Ninety percent of prostate cancer patients lived within 35.1, 28.9, and 55.6 miles of a practitioner of prostatectomy, IMRT, and brachytherapy, respectively. Practitioners of emerging modalities (SBRT and proton therapy) were predominantly concentrated in urban locations, with 90% of patients living within 128 miles (SBRT) and 374.5 miles (proton). Greater distance was associated with decreased probability of treatment (IMRT -3.8% per 10 miles; prostatectomy -2.1%; brachytherapy -2%; proton therapy -1.6%; and SBRT -1.1%). CONCLUSIONS Geographic disparities were noted for analyzed treatment modalities, and these disparities influenced delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Xiudong Lei
- Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Hubert Y Pan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Rachit Kumar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Brian F Chapin
- Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ya-Chen Tina Shih
- Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Koontz BF, Hoffman KE, Halabi S, Healy P, Anand M, George DJ, Harrison MR, Zhang T, Berry WR, Corn PG, Lee WR, Armstrong AJ. Combination of Radiation Therapy and Short-Term Androgen Blockade With Abiraterone Acetate Plus Prednisone for Men With High- and Intermediate-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:1271-1278. [PMID: 33259932 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.11.059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2020] [Revised: 10/21/2020] [Accepted: 11/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care in combination with radiation therapy (RT) in high-risk prostate cancer (PC), despite substantial toxicity from the resulting hypogonadism. We hypothesized that a combination of more potent but shorter-term androgen inhibition in men with intermediate- or high-risk localized PC would synergize with definitive RT to provide short-term testosterone recovery and improve disease control. METHODS AND MATERIALS This prospective phase 2 single-arm trial enrolled men with low-volume unfavorable intermediate or high-risk localized PC. Treatment included 6 months of ADT concurrent with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) once daily and RT to prostate and seminal vesicles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of men with an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 12-months; secondary objectives included biochemical progression-free survival (PFS), testosterone recovery, toxicity, and sexual and hormonal quality of life. RESULTS We enrolled 37 men between January 2014 and August 2016, 45% of whom were high risk. All patients had T1-2 disease and PSA < 20 ng/mL. Median follow-up is 37 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.7-39.1). Treatment noted 32% grade 3 toxicities related to AAP, predominantly hypertension, with no toxicities ≥G4. The rate of undetectable PSA at 12 months was 55% (95% CI, 36%-72%). With 46 months of median follow-up, 2 of 37 patients developed PSA progression (36-month PFS = 96%; 95% CI, 76%-99%), and 81% of patients recovered testosterone with a median time to recovery of 9.2 months. Hormonal or sexual function declined at 6 months with subsequent improvement by 24 months. CONCLUSIONS The combination of RT and 6 months of ADT and AAP demonstrated acceptable toxicity and a high rate of testosterone recovery with restoration of quality of life and excellent disease control in men with low-volume, intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer. Prospective comparative studies are justified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bridget F Koontz
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Susan Halabi
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Patrick Healy
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Monika Anand
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Daniel J George
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Michael R Harrison
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Tian Zhang
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - William R Berry
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Paul G Corn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - W Robert Lee
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Andrew J Armstrong
- Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Dinh TKT, Mitin T, Bagshaw HP, Hoffman KE, Hwang C, Jeffrey Karnes R, Kishan AU, Liauw SL, Lloyd S, Potters L, Showalter TN, Taira AV, Vapiwala N, Zaorsky NG, D'Amico AV, Nguyen PL, Davis BJ. Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Radiation Treatment of Node-Negative Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:953-963. [PMID: 33127490 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.10.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2020] [Revised: 10/19/2020] [Accepted: 10/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Definitive radiation therapy (RT), with or without concurrent chemotherapy, is an alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with localized, muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are either not surgical candidates or prefer organ preservation. We aim to synthesize an evidence-based guideline regarding the appropriate use of RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS We performed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses literature review using the PubMed and Embase databases. Based on the literature review, critical management topics were identified and reformulated into consensus questions. An expert panel was assembled to address key areas of both consensus and controversy using the modified Delphi framework. RESULTS A total of 761 articles were screened, of which 61 were published between 1975 and 2019 and included for full review. There were 7 well-designed studies, 20 good quality studies, 28 quality studies with design limitations, and 6 references not suited as primary evidence. Adjuvant radiation therapy after cystectomy was not included owing to lack of high-quality data or clinical use. An expert panel consisting of 14 radiation oncologists, 1 medical oncologist, and 1 urologist was assembled. We identified 4 clinical variants of MIBC: surgically fit patients who wish to pursue organ preservation, patients surgically unfit for cystectomy, patients medically unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and borderline cystectomy candidates based on age with unilateral hydronephrosis and normal renal function. We identified key areas of controversy, including use of definitive radiation therapy for patients with negative prognostic factors, appropriate radiation therapy dose, fractionation, fields and technique when used, and chemotherapy sequencing and choice of agent. CONCLUSIONS There is limited level-one evidence to guide appropriate treatment of MIBC. Studies vary significantly with regards to patient selection, chemotherapy use, and radiation therapy technique. A consensus guideline on the appropriateness of RT for MIBC may aid practicing oncologists in bridging the gap between data and clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tru-Khang T Dinh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Timur Mitin
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon.
| | - Hilary P Bagshaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Clinics, Palo Alto, California
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Clara Hwang
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
| | | | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - Stanley L Liauw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Shane Lloyd
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Louis Potters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, New York
| | - Timothy N Showalter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Al V Taira
- Sutter Health Radiation Oncology, San Mateo, California
| | - Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Nicholas G Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State University Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Anthony V D'Amico
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer, Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer, Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Brian J Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Hoffman KE. Wait and Hurry Up: Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 108:340. [PMID: 32890505 PMCID: PMC7462868 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2020] [Accepted: 07/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Hoffman KE, Garner D, Koong AC, Woodward WA. Understanding the Intersection of Working from Home and Burnout to Optimize Post-COVID19 Work Arrangements in Radiation Oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 108:370-373. [PMID: 32890515 PMCID: PMC7462773 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.06.062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2020] [Accepted: 06/25/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate burnout in an academic radiation oncology program after the workforce shifted to working from home all or part of the time to better understand the impact of remote work and if it is sustainable after the COVID-19 virus abates. Methods and Materials In May 2020, in the midst of work-safe policies in the state and stabilizing COVID-19 case numbers, the Qualtrics-based MiniZ burnout survey was amended to include questions related to COVID-19 and working from home and was emailed to all radiation oncology employees across 3 departments: radiation oncology, radiation physics, and experimental radiation oncology. Descriptive and χ2 statistics were calculated within Qualtrics using StatIQ to evaluate factors associated with burnout and positive work from home experience. Results Five hundred seventy-five employees completed the survey. Aggregating 3 responses that indicate having some degree of burnout, the rate of burnout across the cohort was 32%. For the same survey questions administered a year earlier, burnout rate was reported to be 40%. In the current survey, radiation oncology faculty and therapists had the highest reported burnout rates, at 47% and 44%, respectively (P = .031). The majority of employees working from home at least part of the time reported the experience was positive (74%, 323/436), and feeling positive about working from home was associated with reduced burnout (P = .030). Qualitative data review suggested the main drivers of unfavorable work-from-home responses were child/family care issues and information technology issues. Conclusions Burnout was not increased during the emerging COVID-19 period compared with pre-COVID data. The shift to working from home was positive for most of the workforce and a potential benefit in reducing burnout for many staff groups. Maintaining work-from-home options post COVID-19 may help reduce burnout long term. It is important to personalize options for those unable to work effectively from home and to resolve information technology challenges to ensure functionality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen E Hoffman
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, Texas.
| | - Desmond Garner
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, Texas
| | - Albert C Koong
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, Texas
| | - Wendy A Woodward
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Pasalic D, Strom EA, Allen PK, Williamson TD, Poenisch F, Amos RA, Woodward WA, Stauder MC, Shaitelman SF, Smith BD, Perkins GH, Tereffe W, Hoffman KE. Proton Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation: Clinical Outcomes at a Planned Interim Analysis of a Prospective Phase 2 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:441-448. [PMID: 32946965 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.09.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2020] [Revised: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 09/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To perform a planned interim analysis of acute (within 12 months) and late (after 12 months) toxicities and cosmetic outcomes after proton accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 100 patients with pTis or pT1-2 N0 (≤3cm) breast cancer status after segmental mastectomy were enrolled in a single-arm phase 2 study from 2010 to 2019. The clinically determined postlumpectomy target volume, including tumor bed surgical clips and operative-cavity soft-tissue changes seen on imaging plus a radial clinical expansion, was irradiated with passively scattered proton APBI (34 Gy in 10 fractions delivered twice daily with a minimum 6-hour interfraction interval). Patients were evaluated at protocol-specific time intervals for recurrence, physician reports of cosmetic outcomes and toxicities, and patient reports of cosmetic outcomes and satisfaction with the treatment or experience. RESULTS Median follow-up was 24 months (interquartile range [IQR], 12-43 months). Local control and overall survival were 100% at 12 and 24 months. There were no acute or late toxicities of grade 3 or higher; no patients experienced fat necrosis, fibrosis, infection, or breast shrinkage. Excellent or good cosmesis at 12 months was reported by 91% of patients and 94% of physicians; at the most recent follow-up, these were 94% and 87%, respectively. The most commonly reported late cosmetic effect was telangiectasis (17%). The total patient satisfaction rate for treatment and results at 12 and 24 months was 96% and 100%, respectively. Patients' mean time away from work was 5 days (IQR, 2-5 days), and the median out-of-pocket cost was $700 (IQR, $100-$1600). The mean left-sided heart dose was 2 cGy (range, 0.2-75 cGy), and the mean ipsilateral lung dose was 19 cGy (range, 0.2-164 cGy). CONCLUSIONS Proton APBI is a maturing treatment option with high local control, favorable intermediate-term cosmesis, high treatment satisfaction, low treatment burden, and exceptional heart and lung sparing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dario Pasalic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Eric A Strom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas.
| | - Pamela K Allen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Tyler D Williamson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Falk Poenisch
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Richard A Amos
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas; Department of Proton and Advanced Radiation Therapy Group, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Wendy A Woodward
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael C Stauder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Simona F Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - George H Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Welela Tereffe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Huelster HL, Laviana AA, Joyce DD, Huang LC, Zhao Z, Koyama T, Hoffman KE, Conwill R, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg M, Hashibe M, O'Neil BB, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Penson DF, Barocas DA. Radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: Effect of timing of postprostatectomy radiation on functional outcomes. Urol Oncol 2020; 38:930.e23-930.e32. [PMID: 32736934 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.06.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2020] [Revised: 06/11/2020] [Accepted: 06/19/2020] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE The timing of radiotherapy (RT) after prostatectomy is controversial, and its effect on sexual, urinary, and bowel function is unknown. This study seeks to compare patient-reported functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) and postprostatectomy radiation as well as elucidate the timing of radiation to allow optimal recovery of function. METHODS The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, observational study of men with localized prostate cancer. Patient-reported sexual, urinary, and bowel functional outcomes were measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at baseline and at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Functional outcomes were compared among men undergoing RP alone, post-RP adjuvant radiation (RP + aRT), and post-RP salvage radiation (RP + sRT) using multivariable models controlling for baseline clinical, demographic, and functional characteristics. RESULTS Among 1,482 CEASAR participants initially treated with RP for clinically localized prostate cancer, 11.5% (N = 170) received adjuvant (aRT, N = 57) or salvage (sRT, N = 113) radiation. Men who received post-RP RT had worse scores in all domains (sexual function [-9.0, 95% confidence interval {-14.5, -3.6}, P < 0.001], incontinence [-8.8, {-14.0, -3.6}, P < 0.001], irritative voiding [-5.9, {-9.0, -2.8}, P < 0.001], bowel irritative [-3.5, {-5.8, -1.2}, P = 0.002], and hormonal function [-4.5, {-7.2, -1.7}, P = 0.001]) compared to RP alone at 5 years of follow-up. Compared to men treated with RP alone in an adjusted linear model, sRT was associated with significantly worse scores in all functional domains. aRT was associated with significantly worse incontinence, urinary irritation, and hormonal function domain scores compared to RP alone at 5 years of follow-up. On multivariable modeling, RT administered approximately 24 months after RP was associated with the smallest decline in sexual domain score, with an adjusted mean decrease of 8.85 points (95% confidence interval [-19.8, 2.1]) from post-RP, pre-RT baseline. CONCLUSIONS In men with localized prostate cancer, post-RP RT was associated with significantly worse sexual, urinary, and bowel function domain scores at 5 years compared to RP alone. Radiation delayed for approximately 24 months after RP may be optimal for preserving erectile function compared to radiation administered closer to the time of RP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather L Huelster
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Aaron A Laviana
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Daniel D Joyce
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Ralph Conwill
- Office of Patient and Community Education, Patient Advocacy Program, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA
| | - Ann S Hamilton
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA
| | - Lisa E Paddock
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ; Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; New Jersey State Cancer Registry, New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, NJ
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ; Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; New Jersey State Cancer Registry, New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, NJ
| | | | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Brock B O'Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Sherrie H Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA
| | | | - David F Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Daniel A Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Abu-Gheida I, Bathala TK, Maldonado JA, Khan M, Anscher MS, Frank SJ, Choi S, Nguyen QN, Hoffman KE, McGuire SE, Kim M, Kuban DA, Aparicio A, Chapin BF, Tang C. Increased Frequency of Mesorectal and Perirectal LN Involvement in T4 Prostate Cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 107:982-985. [PMID: 32353391 PMCID: PMC10018317 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.04.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2020] [Revised: 04/09/2020] [Accepted: 04/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients with prostate cancer presenting with advanced T stage, mainly T4, might have a unique pattern of nodal failure and disease involvement that is not typically covered when local therapy is offered. We attempted to identify common sites of nodal disease presentation and failure for patients presenting with cT4 prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS All patients with treatment-naïve cT4 prostate cancer were retrospectively identified. All patients were required to have a confirmed diagnosis reviewed by our genitourinary pathologist and completed baseline staging. Lymph node (LN) involvement and location at diagnosis were reviewed by a genitourinary radiologist. All patients' follow-up scans were also reviewed; based on LN size, imaging characteristics, and progression/regression characteristics on systemic therapy, the locations of sites of LN failure were recorded. For patients who underwent surgery, any pathologically involved LNs and their anatomic locations were recorded. A total of 103 patients met these criteria, with a median follow-up of 8 years (range, 0.5-14 years). RESULTS Rectal involvement by the primary disease was associated with a higher risk of perirectal and mesorectal LN involvement (45%) relative to no rectal involvement (26%) (P < .05). These echelons are typically not covered with conventional pelvic external beam radiation therapy and are not routinely part of pelvic LN dissection in patients treated surgically. Conversely, bladder or pelvic side wall invasion did not correlate with increased frequency of involvement of perirectal/mesorectal LNs (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS When offering local therapy, target modification to include the perirectal and mesorectal LNs should be considered for patients presenting with T4 prostate cancer with rectal involvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ibrahim Abu-Gheida
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, Burjeel Medical City, Mohammaed Bin-Zayed, Abu-Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| | - Tharakeswara K Bathala
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - J Alberto Maldonado
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mishal Khan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mitchell S Anscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Steven Jay Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Seungtaek Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sean Eric McGuire
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Minsoo Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Deborah A Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ana Aparicio
- Department of Genitourinary Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Brian Francis Chapin
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Boyce-Fappiano D, Bathala TK, Ye R, Pasalic D, Gjyshi O, Pezzi TA, Noticewala SS, McGinnis GJ, Maroongroge S, Kuban DA, Nguyen QN, McGuire SE, Hoffman KE, Choi S, Tang C, Kudchadker RJ, Frank SJ. Predictors of urinary toxicity with MRI-assisted radiosurgery for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2020; 19:574-583. [PMID: 32682778 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2020.06.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2020] [Revised: 05/31/2020] [Accepted: 06/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE MRI-assisted radiosurgery (MARS) is a modern technique for prostate brachytherapy that provides superior soft tissue contrast. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate treatment planning factors associated with urinary toxicity, particularly damage to the membranous urethra (MUL) and external urethral sphincter (EUS), after MARS. MATERIAL AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 227 patients treated with MARS. Comparisons were made between several factors including preimplantation length of the MUL and EUS dosimetric characteristics after implantation with longitudinal changes in American Urological Association (AUA) urinary symptom score. RESULTS Rates of grade 3 urinary incontinence and obstructive urinary symptoms were 4% and 2%. A piecewise mixed univariate model revealed that MUL and V200, V150, V125, and D5 to the EUS were all associated with increased rates of urinary toxicity over time. On univariate logistic regression, MUL >14.2 mm (odds ratio [OR] 2.03 per cm3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-3.77, p = 0.025), V125 to the EUS (OR 3.21 cm3, 95% CI 1.18-8.71, p = 0.022), and use of the I-125 isotope (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.55-7.70, p = 0.001) were associated with subacute urinary toxicity (i.e., that occurring at 4-8 months). Optimal dose-constraint limits to the EUS were determined to be V200 < 0.04 cm3 (p = 0.002), V150 < 0.12 cm3 (p = 0.041), V125 < 0.45 cm3 (p = 0.033), D30 < 160 Gy (p = 0.004), and D5 < 218 Gy (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS MARS brachytherapy provides detailed anatomic information for treatment planning, implantation, and quality assurance. Overall rates of urinary toxicity are low; however, several dosimetric variables associated with the EUS were found to correlate with urinary toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Boyce-Fappiano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Tharakeswara K Bathala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Rong Ye
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Dario Pasalic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Olsi Gjyshi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Todd A Pezzi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Sonal S Noticewala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gwendolyn J McGinnis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Sean Maroongroge
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Deborah A Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Sean E McGuire
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Seungtaek Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Rajat J Kudchadker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Tang C, Lei X, Smith GL, Pan HY, Hess K, Chen A, Hoffman KE, Chapin BF, Kuban DA, Anscher M, Tina Shih YC, Frank SJ, Smith BD. Costs and Complications After a Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer Treated With Time-Efficient Modalities: An Analysis of National Medicare Data. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 10:282-292. [PMID: 32298794 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.02.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2020] [Revised: 02/18/2020] [Accepted: 02/21/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Recent trends in payer and patient preferences increasingly incentivize time-efficient (≤2-week treatment time) prostate cancer treatments. METHODS AND MATERIALS National Medicare claims from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2014, were analyzed to identify newly diagnosed prostate cancers. Three "radical treatment" cohorts were identified (prostatectomy, brachytherapy, and stereotactic body radiation therapy [SBRT]) and matched to an active surveillance (AS) cohort by using inverse probability treatment weighting via propensity score. Total costs at 1 year after biopsy were calculated for each cohort, and treatment-specific costs were estimated by subtracting total 1-year costs in each radical treatment group from those in the AS group. RESULTS Mean 1-year adjusted costs were highest among patients receiving SBRT ($26,895), lower for prostatectomy ($23,632), and lowest for brachytherapy ($19,980), whereas those for AS were $9687. Costs of radical modalities varied significantly by region, with the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions having the highest cost ranges (>$10,000) and the West South Central and Mountain regions the lowest range in costs (<$2000). Quantification of toxic effects showed that prostatectomy was associated with higher genitourinary incontinence (hazard ratio [HR] = 10.8 compared with AS) and sexual dysfunction (HR = 3.5), whereas the radiation modalities were associated with higher genitourinary irritation/bleeding (brachytherapy HR = 1.7; SBRT HR = 1.5) and gastrointestinal ulcer/stricture/fistula (brachytherapy HR = 2.7; SBRT HR = 3.0). Overall mean toxicity costs were highest among patients treated with prostatectomy ($3500) followed by brachytherapy ($1847), SBRT ($1327), and AS ($1303). CONCLUSIONS Time-efficient treatment techniques exhibit substantial variability in toxicity and costs. Furthermore, geographic location substantially influenced treatment costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Xiudong Lei
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Hubert Y Pan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Kenneth Hess
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Aileen Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Brian F Chapin
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Deborah A Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mitchell Anscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ya-Chen Tina Shih
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Bagley AF, Anscher MS, Choi S, Frank SJ, Hoffman KE, Kuban DA, McGuire SE, Nguyen QN, Chapin B, Aparicio A, Pezzi TA, Smith GL, Smith BD, Hess K, Tang C. Association of Sociodemographic and Health-Related Factors With Receipt of Nondefinitive Therapy Among Younger Men With High-Risk Prostate Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3:e201255. [PMID: 32191331 PMCID: PMC7082722 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Multiple randomized clinical trials have shown that definitive therapy improves overall survival among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. However, many patients do not receive definitive therapy because of sociodemographic and health-related factors. OBJECTIVE To identify factors associated with receipt of nondefinitive therapy (NDT) among patients aged 70 years and younger with high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study identified 72 036 patients aged 70 years and younger with high-risk prostate cancer and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores of 2 or less who were entered in the National Cancer Database between January 2004 and December 2014. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to December 2019. EXPOSURE Receipt of NDT as an initial treatment approach. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survival rates were compared based on receipt of definitive therapy or NDT, and sociodemographic and health-related factors were associated with the type of therapy received. Residual life expectancy was estimated from the National Center for Health Statistics to calculate person-years of life lost. RESULTS A total of 72 036 men with a median (range) age of 63 (30-70) years, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores of 2 or less, and high-risk prostate cancer without regional lymph node or distant metastatic disease were analyzed. Among eligible patients, 5252 (7.3%) received NDT as an initial therapeutic strategy. On univariate and multivariate analyses, NDT was associated with worse overall survival (univariate analysis hazard ratio, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.40-2.69; P < .001; multivariate analysis hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 2.26-2.56; P < .001). Compared with patients with private insurance or managed care, those with no insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare were more likely to receive systemic therapy only (no insurance: odds ratio [OR], 3.34; 95% CI, 2.81-3.98; P < .001; Medicaid: OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.48-3.43; P < .001; Medicare: OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.53; P < .001) or no treatment (no insurance: OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.24-3.08; P < .001; Medicaid: OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.45-2.01; P < .001; Medicare: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P = .004). Compared with white patients, black patients were more likely to receive systemic therapy only (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.74-2.14; P < .001) or no treatment (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.32-1.61; P < .001), and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive systemic therapy only (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.64; P = .001) or no treatment (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.60; P < .001). Between 2004 and 2014, patients without insurance or enrolled in Medicaid had 1.83-fold greater person-years of life lost compared with patients with private insurance (area under the curve, 77 600 vs 42 300 person-years of life lost). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, receipt of NDT was associated with insurance status and race/ethnicity. While treatment decisions should be individualized for every patient, younger men with high-risk prostate cancer and minimal comorbidities should be encouraged to receive definitive local therapy regardless of other factors. These data suggest that significant barriers to life-extending treatment options for patients with prostate cancer remain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander F. Bagley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Mitchell S. Anscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Seungtaek Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Steven J. Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Deborah A. Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Sean E. McGuire
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Brian Chapin
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Ana Aparicio
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Todd A. Pezzi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Grace L. Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Benjamin D. Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Kenneth Hess
- Department of Statistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Hoffman KE, Penson DF, Zhao Z, Huang LC, Conwill R, Laviana AA, Joyce DD, Luckenbaugh AN, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, Stroup A, Cooperberg MR, Hashibe M, O’Neil BB, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Koyama T, Barocas DA. Patient-Reported Outcomes Through 5 Years for Active Surveillance, Surgery, Brachytherapy, or External Beam Radiation With or Without Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA 2020; 323:149-163. [PMID: 31935027 PMCID: PMC6990712 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.20675] [Citation(s) in RCA: 156] [Impact Index Per Article: 39.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2019] [Accepted: 11/30/2019] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
Importance Understanding adverse effects of contemporary treatment approaches for men with favorable-risk and unfavorable-risk localized prostate cancer could inform treatment selection. Objective To compare functional outcomes associated with prostate cancer treatments over 5 years after treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective, population-based cohort study of 1386 men with favorable-risk (clinical stage cT1 to cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤20 ng/mL, and Grade Group 1-2) prostate cancer and 619 men with unfavorable-risk (clinical stage cT2cN0M0, PSA of 20-50 ng/mL, or Grade Group 3-5) prostate cancer diagnosed in 2011 through 2012, accrued from 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program sites and a US prostate cancer registry, with surveys through September 2017. Exposures Treatment with active surveillance (n = 363), nerve-sparing prostatectomy (n = 675), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT; n = 261), or low-dose-rate brachytherapy (n = 87) for men with favorable-risk disease and treatment with prostatectomy (n = 402) or EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 217) for men with unfavorable-risk disease. Main Outcomes and Measures Patient-reported function, based on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (range, 0-100), 5 years after treatment. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important difference was 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritative symptoms, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormonal function. Results A total of 2005 men met inclusion criteria and completed the baseline and at least 1 postbaseline survey (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [59-70] years; 1529 of 1993 participants [77%] were non-Hispanic white). For men with favorable-risk prostate cancer, nerve-sparing prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence at 5 years (adjusted mean difference, -10.9 [95% CI, -14.2 to -7.6]) and sexual function at 3 years (adjusted mean difference, -15.2 [95% CI, -18.8 to -11.5]) compared with active surveillance. Low-dose-rate brachytherapy was associated with worse urinary irritative (adjusted mean difference, -7.0 [95% CI, -10.1 to -3.9]), sexual (adjusted mean difference, -10.1 [95% CI, -14.6 to -5.7]), and bowel (adjusted mean difference, -5.0 [95% CI, -7.6 to -2.4]) function at 1 year compared with active surveillance. EBRT was associated with urinary, sexual, and bowel function changes not clinically different from active surveillance at any time point through 5 years. For men with unfavorable-risk disease, EBRT with ADT was associated with lower hormonal function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference, -5.3 [95% CI, -8.2 to -2.4]) and bowel function at 1 year (adjusted mean difference, -4.1 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.9]), but better sexual function at 5 years (adjusted mean difference, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.2-18.7]) and incontinence at each time point through 5 years (adjusted mean difference, 23.2 [95% CI, 17.7-28.7]), than prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, most functional differences associated with contemporary management options attenuated by 5 years. However, men undergoing prostatectomy reported clinically meaningful worse incontinence through 5 years compared with all other options, and men undergoing prostatectomy for unfavorable-risk disease reported worse sexual function at 5 years compared with men who underwent EBRT with ADT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Center, Houston
| | - David F. Penson
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Zhiguo Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Li-Ching Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Ralph Conwill
- Office of Patient and Community Education, Patient Advocacy Program, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Aaron A. Laviana
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Daniel D. Joyce
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Amy N. Luckenbaugh
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Ann S. Hamilton
- Department of Preventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Department of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans
| | - Lisa E. Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick
| | | | - Mia Hashibe
- Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City
| | - Brock B. O’Neil
- Department of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City
| | | | | | - Tatsuki Koyama
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Daniel A. Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Tang C, Hoffman KE, Allen PK, Gabel M, Schreiber D, Choi S, Chapin BF, Nguyen QN, Davis JW, Corn P, Logothetis C, Ward J, Frank SJ, Navai N, McGuire SE, Anscher M, Pisters L, Pettaway CA, Kumar R, Linson P, Tripuraneni P, Tomaszewski JJ, Patel AB, Augspurger M, Kuban DA. Contemporary prostate cancer treatment choices in multidisciplinary clinics referenced to national trends. Cancer 2019; 126:506-514. [PMID: 31742674 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32570] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2019] [Revised: 07/01/2019] [Accepted: 07/02/2019] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to assess treatment choices among men with prostate cancer who presented at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center multidisciplinary (MultiD) clinic compared with nationwide trends. METHODS In total, 4451 men with prostate cancer who presented at the MultiD clinic from 2004 to 2016 were analyzed. To assess nationwide trends, the authors analyzed 392,710 men with prostate cancer who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The primary endpoint was treatment choice as a function of pretreatment demographics. RESULTS Univariate analyses revealed similar treatment trends in the MultiD and SEER cohorts. The use of procedural forms of definitive therapy decreased with age, including brachytherapy and prostatectomy (all P < .05). Later year of diagnosis/clinic visit was associated with decreased use of definitive treatments, whereas higher risk grouping was associated with increased use (all P < .001). Patients with low-risk disease treated at the MultiD clinic were more likely to receive nondefinitive therapy than patients in SEER, whereas the opposite trend was observed for patients with high-risk disease, with a substantial portion of high-risk patients in SEER not receiving definitive therapy. In the MultiD clinic, African American men with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease were more likely to receive definitive therapy than white men, but for SEER the opposite was true. CONCLUSIONS Presentation at a MultiD clinic facilitates the appropriate disposition of patients with low-risk disease to nondefinitive strategies of patients with high-risk disease to definitive treatment, and it may obviate the influence of race.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Pamela K Allen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Molly Gabel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Summit Medical Group, Summit, New Jersey
| | - David Schreiber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Summit Medical Group, Summit, New Jersey
| | - Seungtaek Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Brian F Chapin
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - John W Davis
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Paul Corn
- Department of genitourinary medical oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer center, Houston, Texas
| | - Christopher Logothetis
- Department of genitourinary medical oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer center, Houston, Texas
| | - John Ward
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Neema Navai
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sean E McGuire
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mitchell Anscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Louis Pisters
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Curtis A Pettaway
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Patrick Linson
- Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Diego, California
| | | | | | | | | | - Deborah A Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Grossberg AJ, Lei X, Xu T, Shaitelman SF, Hoffman KE, Bloom ES, Stauder MC, Tereffe W, Schlembach PJ, Woodward WA, Buchholz TA, Smith BD. Association of Transforming Growth Factor β Polymorphism C-509T With Radiation-Induced Fibrosis Among Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2019; 4:1751-1757. [PMID: 30027292 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
Importance Whether genetic factors can identify patients at risk for radiation-induced fibrosis remains unconfirmed. Objective To assess the association between the C-509T variant allele in the promoter region of TGFB1 and breast fibrosis 3 years after radiotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants This is an a priori-specified, prospective, cohort study nested in an open-label, randomized clinical trial, which was conducted in community-based and academic cancer centers to compare hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (WBI) (42.56 Gy in 16 fractions) with conventionally fractionated WBI (50 Gy in 25 fractions) after breast-conserving surgery. In total, 287 women 40 years or older with pathologically confirmed stage 0 to IIA breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery were enrolled from February 2011 to February 2014. Patients were observed for a minimum of 3 years. Outcomes were compared using the 1-sided Fisher exact test and multivariable logistic regression. Exposures A C-to-T single-nucleotide polymorphism at position -509 relative to the first major transcription start site (C-509T) of the TGFB1 gene. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was grade 2 or higher breast fibrosis as assessed using the Late Effects Normal Tissue/Subjective, Objective, Medical Management, Analytic scale (range, 0 to 3) three years after radiotherapy. Results Among 287 women enrolled in the trial, TGFB1 genotype and 3-year radiotherapy-induced toxicity data were available for 174 patients, of whom 89 patients (51%) with a mean (SD) age of 60 (8) years had at least 1 copy of C-509T. Grade 2 or higher breast fibrosis was present in 12 of 87 patients with C-509T (13.8%) compared with 3 of 80 patients without the allele variant (3.8%) (absolute difference, 10.0%; 95% CI, 1.7%-18.4%; P = .02). The results of multivariable analyses indicated that only C-509T (odds ratio, 4.47; 95% CI, 1.25-15.99; P = .02) and postoperative cosmetic outcome (odds ratio, 7.09; 95% CI, 2.41-20.90; P < .001) were significantly associated with breast fibrosis risk. Conclusions and Relevance To date, this study seems to be the first prospective validation of a genomic marker for radiation fibrosis. The C-509T allele in TGFB1 is a key determinant of breast fibrosis risk. Assessing TGFB1 genotype may facilitate a more personalized approach to locoregional treatment decisions in breast cancer. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01266642.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aaron J Grossberg
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.,Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
| | - Xiudong Lei
- Division of Cancer Prevention, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Ting Xu
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Simona F Shaitelman
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Elizabeth S Bloom
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Michael C Stauder
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Welela Tereffe
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Pamela J Schlembach
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Wendy A Woodward
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Thomas A Buchholz
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Frey SD, Hoffman KE, Jhingran A, McAleer MF, Minsky BD, Kirsner S, Arora G, Zaebst D, Robinson I, Roberts T, Patel AB, Olson MR, Gabel M, Bolukbasi Y, Llorente M, de Carvalho IT, Ghafar R, Koong A, Herman JM, Kuban DA. Developing clinical indicators to effectively monitor a large network of radiation oncology practices. J Clin Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2019.37.27_suppl.236] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
236 Background: The MD Anderson Cancer Network includes 29 distinct Radiation Oncology facilities spread across metropolitan Houston area locations, national partnerships, and international affiliates. Standard performance indicators (PIs) were developed to monitor the quality and safety of radiation treatment at these facilities spread across the globe. Methods: Stakeholders from Radiation Oncology nursing, dosimetry, physics, radiation therapy, and clinical operations identified PIs that measure safe, efficient, and effective radiation oncology care. PIs are collected monthly from each facility and are reported in a scorecard that includes performance goals. The appropriateness and effectiveness of the PIs are reviewed annually to determine if PIs need to be added, removed, or revised. Results: As the network expanded, scorecard use expanded from 11 facilities in 2013 to 29 facilities in 2019. Select PIs are summarized in the table. Scorecard composition has evolved over time. PIs such as completion of simulation orders and treatment planning directives were removed once consistently reaching 100% after improved monitoring, process improvements, and implementation of hard stops. The scorecard has been especially useful when onboarding new facilities, as evidenced by PIs increasingly meeting performance thresholds in the first year after joining the network. For example, one facility increased PI compliance from 61% to 100% the first year after joining the network. Conclusions: It is feasible to develop and implement a performance indicator scorecard across a large radiation oncology network. The scorecard permits timely assessment of quality indicators, provides oversight, and is effective in stabilizing operations at newly on-boarded radiation oncology practices. [Table: see text]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seth D. Frey
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Anuja Jhingran
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Bruce D. Minsky
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Steve Kirsner
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gurpreet Arora
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Denise Zaebst
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Ivy Robinson
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | - Molly Gabel
- Summit Medical Group MD Anderson Cancer Center, New Brunswick, NJ
| | | | | | | | - Robert Ghafar
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Albert Koong
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Ludmir EB, Hoffman KE, Jhingran A, Ip MCP, Frey SD, Ning MS, Minsky BD, McAleer MF, Chronowski G, Arzu I, Reed VK, Garg AK, Roberts T, Ashish P, Olson MR, Selek U, Gabel M, Koong A, Herman JM, Kuban DA. Implementation and efficacy of a large-scale radiation oncology case-based peer-review quality program across a multinational cancer network. J Clin Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2019.37.27_suppl.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
1 Background: With rapid community expansion of academic cancer centers, ensuring high-quality delivery of care across all affiliated network sites is critical. Here we report the results of a radiation oncology peer-review system implemented across a large multinational cancer network. Methods: Weekly radiation oncology peer-review conferences were held between network centers and the main campus of a major cancer system; results of standardized peer-review for each case were recorded. Peer-review resulted in each case being scored as concordant or nonconcordant on initial review; nonconcordance was based on institutional guidelines, national standards, and/or expert opinion. Results: Between 2014 and 2018, 28,730 patient radiation treatment plans underwent peer-review at 10 network centers. The peer-review case volume increased over this study period, from 1,420 cases in 2014 to 9,112 in 2018, concomitant with network expansion. Examining cases reviewed in 2018 (N = 9,112), the most-commonly reviewed cases by disease site were breast (28.9%), head and neck (HN; 13.9%), and lung (12.6%). Of all cases in 2018, 452 (5.0%) were deemed nonconcordant. Higher nonconcordance rates were noted for HN cases (14.0%), and lower rates for lung cases (2.3%; p < 0.001). Of nonconcordant HN cases, the majority (69.5%) were deemed nonconcordant based on target volume delineation. Of nonconcordant breast cases, most (67.1%) were nonconcordant based on radiation field design. For centers added to the network during the study period, we observed a significant decrease in the nonconcordance rate over time after joining the network (average annual decrease of 5.4% in nonconcordant cases; p < 0.001). Conclusions: These data demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of a large-scale multinational cancer network radiation oncology weekly peer-review program. Nonconcordance rates were highest for HN cases, primarily due to target volume delineation. With improved nonconcordance rates for newly-added network centers, these results offer the promise of improving the quality of radiotherapy delivery across an extensive cancer network with a major academic center as the nucleus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ethan B. Ludmir
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Anuja Jhingran
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Seth D. Frey
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Matthew S. Ning
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Bruce D. Minsky
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Isidora Arzu
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Amit K. Garg
- Presbyterian MD Anderson Radiation Treatment Center, Rio Rancho, NM
| | | | | | | | - Ugur Selek
- Radiation Treatment Center at American Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Molly Gabel
- Summit Medical Group MD Anderson Cancer Center, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Albert Koong
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Reichard CA, Hoffman KE, Tang C, Williams SB, Allen PK, Achim MF, Kuban DA, Chapin BF. Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for high- and very high-risk prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic experience of patients eligible for either treatment. BJU Int 2019; 124:811-819. [DOI: 10.1111/bju.14780] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Chad A. Reichard
- Department of Urology; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston TX USA
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston TX USA
| | - Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston TX USA
| | - Stephen B. Williams
- Department of Surgery; Division of Urology; The University of Texas Medical Branch; Galveston TX USA
| | - Pamela K. Allen
- Department of Radiation Oncology; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston TX USA
| | - Mary F. Achim
- Department of Urology; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston TX USA
| | - Deborah A. Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston TX USA
| | - Brian F. Chapin
- Department of Urology; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston TX USA
| |
Collapse
|