Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To review the impact of high-dose radiotherapy (RT) in the postprostatectomy salvage setting on long-term biochemical control and distant metastases-free survival, and to identify clinical and pathologic predictors of outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:During 1988-2007, 285 consecutive patients were treated with salvage RT (SRT) after radical prostatectomy. All patients were treated with either three-dimensional conformal RT or intensity-modulated RT. Two hundred seventy patients (95%) were treated to a dose ≥66 Gy, of whom 205 (72%) received doses ≥70 Gy. Eighty-seven patients (31%) received androgen-deprivation therapy as a component of their salvage treatment. All clinical and pathologic records were reviewed to identify treatment risk factors and response. RESULTS:The median follow-up time after SRT was 60 months. Seven-year actuarial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse-free survival and distant metastases-free survival were 37% and 77%, respectively. Independent predictors of biochemical recurrence were vascular invasion (p < 0.01), negative surgical margins (p < 0.01), presalvage PSA level >0.4 ng/mL (p < 0.01), androgen-deprivation therapy (p = 0.03), Gleason score ≥7 (p = 0.02), and seminal vesicle involvement (p = 0.05). Salvage RT dose ≥70 Gy was not associated with improvement in biochemical control. A doubling time <3 months was the only independent predictor of metastatic disease (p < 0.01). There was a trend suggesting benefit of SRT dose ≥70 Gy in preventing clinical local failure in patients with radiographically visible local disease at time of SRT (7 years: 90% vs. 79.1%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Salvage RT provides effective long-term biochemical control and freedom from metastasis in selected patients presenting with detectable PSA after prostatectomy. Androgen-deprivation therapy was associated with improvement in biochemical progression-free survival. Clinical local failures were rare but occurred most commonly in patients with greater burden of disease at time of SRT as reflected by either radiographic imaging or a greater PSA level. Salvage radiation doses ≥70 Gy may ultimately be most beneficial in these patients, but this needs to be further studied.

Selecting the "optimal therapy" for the patient with localized prostate cancer may be one of the most challenging medical decisions facing the oncologist. Most patients will have a number of appropriate therapeutic options available to them. Before determining which therapy is most appropriate for a patient, a critical question which needs to be asked is whether any therapy is necessary, especially for those who present with early-stage, low-grade, low-volume disease. Furthermore, given the lack of randomized trials available to guide physicians regarding the superiority of one therapy over another, it is important to consider the different side-effect profiles relevant for each treatment modality. The potential toxicities of therapy impact quality-of-life outcomes and play an important role for most patients in their individual selection of a particular therapy. In addition, there are other important issues that need to be considered, which include the medical condition of the patient and emotional and psychological considerations, as well as family/peer viewpoints or perceived notions of a particular therapy. This review will discuss the relevant issues in the decision making and treatment selection for the patient.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To report the incidence and excess risk of second malignancy (SM) development compared with the general population after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy to treat prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Between 1998 and 2001, 1,310 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with EBRT (n = 897) or brachytherapy (n = 413). We compared the incidence of SMs in our patients with that of the general population extracted from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data set combined with the 2000 census data. RESULTS:The 10-year likelihood of SM development was 25% after EBRT and 15% after brachytherapy (p = .02). The corresponding 10-year likelihood for in-field SM development in these groups was 4.9% and 1.6% (p = .24). Multivariate analysis showed that EBRT vs. brachytherapy and older age were the only significant predictors for the development of all SMs (p = .037 and p = .030), with a trend for older patients to develop a SM. The increased incidence of SM for EBRT patients was explained by the greater incidence of skin cancer outside the radiation field compared with that after brachytherapy (10.6% and 3.3%, respectively, p = .004). For the EBRT group, the 5- and 10-year mortality rate was 1.96% and 5.1% from out-of field cancer, respectively; for in-field SM, the corresponding mortality rates were 0.1% and 0.7%. Among the brachytherapy group, the 5- and 10-year mortality rate related to out-of field SM was 0.8% and 2.7%, respectively. Our observed SM rates after prostate RT were not significantly different from the cancer incidence rates in the general population. CONCLUSIONS:Using modern sophisticated treatment techniques, we report low rates of in-field bladder and rectal SM risks after prostate cancer RT. Furthermore, the likelihood of mortality secondary to a SM was unusual. The greater rate of SM observed with EBRT vs. brachytherapy was related to a small, but significantly increased, number of skin cancers in the EBRT patients compared with that of the general population.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:High-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is a potentially lethal disease. It is clinically important to identify patients with high-risk PCa early on because they stand to benefit the most from curative therapy. Because of recent advances in PCa management, a multimodal approach may be advantageous. OBJECTIVE:Define high-risk PCa, and identify the best diagnostic and treatment patterns for patients with clinically localized and locally advanced disease. A critical analysis of published results following monomodal and/or multimodal therapy for high-risk PCa patients was also performed. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION/METHODS:A review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:High-risk PCa accounts for ≤ 15% of all new diagnoses. Compared with patients with low- and intermediate-risk PCa, patients with high-risk PCa are at increased risk of treatment failure. Unfortunately, no contemporary randomized controlled trials comparing different treatment modalities exist. Evaluation of the results published to date shows that no single treatment can be universally recommended. Most often, a multimodal approach is warranted to optimize patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:A significant minority of patients continue to present with high-risk PCa, which remains lethal in some cases. Outcomes following treatment of men with high-risk tumors have not substantially improved over time. However, not all high-risk patients are at the same risk of PCa progression and death. At present, a multimodal approach seems the best way to achieve acceptable outcomes for high-risk PCa patients.

What is the best way to manage patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer? One of the most controversial aspects of treatment is the role of short-term androgen deprivation therapy in combination with definitive radiotherapy. In two randomised trials of patients with mostly intermediate-risk prostate cancer, increased overall survival was reported when short-term androgen deprivation therapy was added to radiotherapy. However, radiation doses in these studies were far below the current standard of care. This limitation, in combination with the heterogeneous nature of the cancers classified as intermediate risk, has complicated the application of these trial results to modern clinical practice. In this Review, we discuss clinical evidence for and against use of short-term androgen deprivation therapy with dose-escalated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVE:To develop and validate a simple prognostic tool that would help predict larynx preservation outcome. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A retrospective review of 3 prospective studies. METHODS:We reviewed consecutive chemotherapy/radiation protocols for patients (n = 170) with advanced, resectable, squamous cell, larynx, or pharynx cancer treated at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center from 1988 to 1995 with larynx preservation intent. The outcome was successful larynx preservation. Model validation used data from U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs larynx preservation study. RESULTS:The developed model added one point for each poor prognostic covariate present (show in parentheses) and was given the acronym TALK: T stage (T4), albumin (<4 g/dL), maximum alcohol/liquor use (≥6 drinks/day or heavy drinking), and Karnofsky performance status (<80%). The 3-year larynx preservation rates by TALK score were 65% (0), 41% (1-2), and 6% (3-4), P < .0001; on validation, the TALK 3-4 group was particularly well demarcated. CONCLUSIONS:The TALK score is an easily applied and valid tool that should assist treatment selection.

UNLABELLED:Study Type--Therapy (practice patterns). Level of Evidence 2b. What's known on the subject? And what does the study add? The treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer varies widely even though there is level one evidence supporting the use of multimodality therapy as compared with monotherapy. This study defines treatment patterns of locally advanced prostate cancer within the United States and identifies predicators of who receives multimodality therapy rather than monotherapy. OBJECTIVE:• To identify treatment patterns and predictors of receiving multimodality therapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:• The cohort comprised patients ≥66 years with clinical stage T3 or T4 non-metastatic prostate cancer diagnosed between 1998 and 2005 identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry records linked with Medicare claims. • Treatments were classified as radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) received within 6 and 24 months of diagnosis. • We assessed trends over time and used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of multimodality treatment. RESULTS:• Within the first 6 months of diagnosis, 1060 of 3095 patients (34%) were treated with a combination of RT and ADT, 1486 (48%) received monotherapy (RT alone, ADT alone or RP alone), and 461 (15%) received no active treatment. • The proportion of patients who received RP increased, exceeding 10% in 2005. • Use of combined RT and ADT and use of ADT alone fluctuated throughout the study period. • In all 6% of patients received RT alone in 2005. • Multimodality therapy was less common in patients who were older, African American, unmarried, who lived in the south, and who had co-morbidities or stage T4 disease. CONCLUSIONS:• Treatment of LAPC varies widely, and treatment patterns shifted during the study period. • The slightly increased use of multimodality therapy since 2003 is encouraging, but further work is needed to increase combination therapy in appropriate patients and to define the role of RP.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To report tumor local progression-free outcomes after treatment with single-dose, image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and hypofractionated regimens for extracranial metastases from renal cell primary tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Between 2004 and 2010, 105 lesions from renal cell carcinoma were treated with either single-dose, image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy to a prescription dose of 18-24 Gy (median, 24) or hypofractionation (three or five fractions) with a prescription dose of 20-30 Gy. The median follow-up was 12 months (range, 1-48). RESULTS:The overall 3-year actuarial local progression-free survival for all lesions was 44%. The 3-year local progression-free survival for those who received a high single-dose (24 Gy; n = 45), a low single-dose (<24 Gy; n = 14), or hypofractionation regimens (n = 46) was 88%, 21%, and 17%, respectively (high single dose vs. low single dose, p = .001; high single dose vs. hypofractionation, p < .001). Multivariate analysis revealed the following variables were significant predictors of improved local progression-free survival: 24 Gy dose compared with a lower dose (p = .009) and a single dose vs. hypofractionation (p = .008). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:High single-dose, image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy is a noninvasive procedure resulting in high probability of local tumor control for metastatic renal cell cancer generally considered radioresistant according to the classic radiobiologic ranking.

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of primary gross tumor volume (pGTV) and nodal gross tumor volume (nGTV) on treatment outcomes in patients treated with definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between September 1998 and April 2009, a total of 442 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx were treated with IMRT with curative intent at our center. Thirty patients treated postoperatively and 2 additional patients who started treatment more than 6 months after diagnosis were excluded. A total of 340 patients with restorable treatment plans were included in this present study. The majority of the patients underwent concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy. The pGTV and nGTV were calculated using the original clinical treatment plans. Cox proportional hazards models and log-rank tests were used to evaluate the correlation between tumor volumes and overall survival (OS), and competing risks analysis tools were used to evaluate the correlation between local failure (LF), regional failure (RF), distant metastatic failure (DMF) vs. tumor volumes with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: Median follow-up among surviving patients was 34 months (range, 5-67). The 2-year cumulative incidence of LF, RF and DF in this cohort of patients was 6.1%, 5.2%, and 12.2%, respectively. The 2-year OS rate was 88.6%. Univariate analysis determined pGTV and T-stage correlated with LF (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.004, respectively), whereas nGTV was not associated with RF. On multivariate analysis, pGTV and N-stage were independent risk factors for overall survival (p = 0.0003 and p = 0.0073, respectively) and distant control (p = 0.0008 and p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with OPC treated with IMRT, pGTV was found to be associated with overall survival, local failure, and distant metastatic failure.

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Very few comparative studies to date evaluate the results of treatment options for prostate cancer using the most sensitive measurement tools. PSA has been identified as the most sensitive tool for measuring treatment effectiveness. To date, comprehensive unbiased reviews of all the current literature are limited for prostate cancer. This is the first large scale comprehensive review of the literature comparing risk stratified patients by treatment option and with long-term follow-up. The results of the studies are weighted, respecting the impact of larger studies on overall results. The study identified a lack of uniformity in reporting results amongst institutions and centres. A large number of studies have been conducted on the primary therapy of prostate cancer but very few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. The comparison of outcomes from individual studies involving surgery (radical prostatectomy or robotic radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation (EBRT) (conformal, intensity modulated radiotherapy, protons), brachytherapy, cryotherapy or high intensity focused ultrasound remains problematic due to the non-uniformity of reporting results and the use of varied disease outcome endpoints. Technical advances in these treatments have also made long-term comparisons difficult. The Prostate Cancer Results Study Group was formed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments. This international group conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify all studies involving treatment of localized prostate cancer published during 2000-2010. Over 18,000 papers were identified and a further selection was made based on the following key criteria: minimum/median follow-up of 5 years; stratification into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups; clinical and pathological staging; accepted standard definitions for prostate-specific antigen failure; minimum patient number of 100 in each risk group (50 for high-risk group). A statistical analysis (standard deviational ellipse) of the study outcomes suggested that, in terms of biochemical-free progression, brachytherapy provides superior outcome in patients with low-risk disease. For intermediate-risk disease, the combination of EBRT and brachytherapy appears equivalent to brachytherapy alone. For high-risk patients, combination therapies involving EBRT and brachytherapy plus or minus androgen deprivation therapy appear superior to more localized treatments such as seed implant alone, surgery alone or EBRT. It is anticipated that the study will assist physicians and patients in selecting treatment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.