Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We report on a retrospective comparison of biochemical outcomes using an ultra-high dose of conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) vs. a lower dose of IMRT combined with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy to increase the biologically effective dose of IMRT. METHODS:Patients received IMRT of 86.4Gy (n=470) or HDR brachytherapy (21Gy in three fractions) followed by IMRT of 50.4Gy (n=160). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse was defined as PSA nadir+2. Median followup was 53 months for IMRT alone and 47 months for HDR. RESULTS:The 5-year actuarial PSA relapse-free survival (PRFS) for HDR plus IMRT vs. ultra-high-dose IMRT were 100% vs. 98%, 98% vs. 84%, and 93% vs. 71%, for National Comprehensive Cancer Network low- (p=0.71), intermediate- (p<0.001), and high-risk (p=0.23) groups, respectively. Treatment (p=0.0006), T stage (p<0.0001), Gleason score (p<0.0001), pretreatment PSA (p=0.0037), risk group (p<0.0001), and lack of androgen-deprivation therapy (p=0.0005) were significantly associated with improved PRFS on univariate analysis. HDR plus IMRT vs. ultra-high-dose IMRT (p=0.0012, hazard ratio [HR]=0.184); age (p=0.0222, HR=0.965); and risk group (p<0.0001, HR=2.683) were associated with improved PRFS on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Dose escalation of IMRT by adding HDR brachytherapy provided improved PRFS in the treatment of prostate cancer compared with ultra-high-dose IMRT, independent of risk group on multivariate analysis, with the most significant benefit for intermediate-risk patients.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Assess the importance of overall time (OT) and dose for biochemical failure (BF) after external-beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer in a retrospective analysis of a nine-institution database with 4839 patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Relevant baseline factors (T stage, Gleason score, initial PSA) were available for 4338 men. Cox models were used to estimate the effects of dose and OT corrected for baseline factors, treatment year, institution and interactions, and differences in post-treatment PSA-measurement intervals. After exclusion of very short and long intervals, patient numbers were 1445 events/3426 at risk (endpoint all BFs), and 1177 events/3354 at risk (endpoint exclusion of BFs that were likely distant failures). Separate analyses were carried out by risk group for men who received <70 Gy and > or = 70 Gy. RESULTS:Neither dose nor OT was significant when the analysis was restricted to doses <70 Gy, while for patients treated to 70 Gy or higher there were significant influences of both dose and OT on outcome in low- and intermediate-risk patients. These effects were quantified as a relative increase after 5 years followup of 6% in BFs for a 1-week increase in OT, a relative decrease of 15% in BFs for a 6-Gy increase in dose, and a dose equivalent of proliferation of 0.24 Gy/day. As the dose per fraction was nearly constant, the data contain no information on the alpha/beta ratio. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The results show that OT and dose are significant determinants of outcome of radiotherapy in low- and intermediate-risk patients treated to 70 Gy or higher, and suggest that meaningful improvements in outcome may be targeted by modest increases in total dose and decreases in OT.

OBJECTIVES: To present our single-institution experience with postoperative radiotherapy for mucosal melanoma of the head and neck. METHODS: Between 1992 and 2007, 27 patients with mucosal melanoma of the head and neck underwent surgical resection followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Median age was 68 years (range: 45-89 years). Sites included were sinonasal in 24 patients, oral cavity in 2, and oropharynx in 1. All but 2 patients had stage I disease. Twenty-two patients received hypofractionated radiation. Radiation techniques were intensity-modulated radiation therapy in 13, 3-dimensional conformal in 4, and conventional in 10. RESULTS: The median follow-up for living patients was 45 months (range: 24-122 months). The 3- and 5-year estimates of local progression-free, loco-regional progression-free, distant metastasis-free, and overall survival were: 47% and 35%; 34% and 22%; 30% and 24%; and 40% and 33%, respectively. Median time to local failure and distant metastasis was 32 and 14 months, respectively. Acute toxicities included 19% with grade 2 or higher mucositis. No late complications related to the optic structures were seen. CONCLUSIONS: Modern radiotherapeutic techniques including intensity-modulated radiation therapy appear feasible and well-tolerated in the postoperative treatment of head and neck mucosal melanoma. Unusual or serious late complications have not been observed despite extensive use of hypofractionated regimens. However, rates of local and distant failure remain high.

PURPOSE: Increased prostate cancer risk has been reported for BRCA mutation carriers, but BRCA-associated clinicopathologic features have not been clearly defined. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We determined BRCA mutation prevalence in 832 Ashkenazi Jewish men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 1988 and 2007 and 454 Ashkenazi Jewish controls and compared clinical outcome measures among 26 BRCA mutation carriers and 806 noncarriers. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare age of diagnosis and Gleason score, and logistic regression models were used to determine associations between carrier status, prostate cancer risk, and Gleason score. Hazard ratios (HR) for clinical end points were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: BRCA2 mutations were associated with a 3-fold risk of prostate cancer [odds ratio, 3.18; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.52-6.66; P = 0.002] and presented with more poorly differentiated (Gleason score > or =7) tumors (85% versus 57%; P = 0.0002) compared with non-BRCA-associated prostate cancer. BRCA1 mutations conferred no increased risk. After 7,254 person-years of follow-up, and adjusting for clinical stage, prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and treatment, BRCA2 and BRCA1 mutation carriers had a higher risk of recurrence [HR (95% CI), 2.41 (1.23-4.75) and 4.32 (1.31-13.62), respectively] and prostate cancer-specific death [HR (95% CI), 5.48 (2.03-14.79) and 5.16 (1.09-24.53), respectively] than noncarriers. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA2 mutation carriers had an increased risk of prostate cancer and a higher histologic grade, and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were associated with a more aggressive clinical course. These results may have implications for tailoring clinical management of this subset of hereditary prostate cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To develop an optimization method using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and evaluate VMAT plans relative to the standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) approach in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:A single gantry rotation was modeled using 177 equispaced beams. Multileaf collimator apertures and dose rates were optimized with respect to gantry angle subject to dose-volume-based objectives. Our VMAT implementation used conjugate gradient descent to optimize dose rate, and stochastic sampling to find optimal multileaf collimator leaf positions. A treatment planning study of 11 prostate cancer patients with a prescription dose of 86.4 Gy was performed to compare VMAT with a standard five-field IMRT approach. Plan evaluation statistics included the percentage of planning target volume (PTV) receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95), dose to 95% of PTV (D95), mean PTV dose, tumor control probability, and dosimetric endpoints of normal organs, whereas monitor unit (MU) and delivery time were used to assess delivery efficiency. RESULTS:Patient-averaged PTV V95, D95, mean dose, and tumor control probability in VMAT plans were 96%, 82.6 Gy, 88.5 Gy, and 0.920, respectively, vs. 97%, 84.0 Gy, 88.9 Gy, and 0.929 in IMRT plans. All critical structure dose requirements were met. The VMAT plans presented better rectal wall sparing, with a reduction of 1.5% in normal tissue complication probability. An advantage of VMAT plans was that the average number of MUs (290 MU) was less than for IMRT plans (642 MU). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The VMAT technique can reduce beam on time by up to 55% while maintaining dosimetric quality comparable to that of the standard IMRT approach.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We assessed the effect of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on distant metastases (DM) rates in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with RP or EBRT at a single specialized cancer center. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients with clinical stages T1c-T3b prostate cancer were treated with intensity-modulated EBRT (> or = 81 Gy) or RP. Both cohorts included patients treated with salvage radiotherapy or androgen-deprivation therapy for biochemical failure. Salvage therapy for patients with RP was delivered a median of 13 months after biochemical failure compared with 69 months for EBRT patients. DM was compared controlling for patient age, clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, and year of treatment. RESULTS:The 8-year probability of freedom from metastatic progression was 97% for RP patients and 93% for EBRT patients. After adjustment for case mix, surgery was associated with a reduced risk of metastasis (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.65; P < .001). Results were similar for prostate cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.80; P = .015). Rates of metastatic progression were similar for favorable-risk disease (1.9% difference in 8-year metastasis-free survival), somewhat reduced for intermediate-risk disease (3.3%), and more substantially reduced in unfavorable-risk disease (7.8% in 8-year metastatic progression). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Metastatic progression is infrequent in men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with either RP or EBRT. RP patients with higher-risk disease treated had a lower risk of metastatic progression and prostate cancer-specific death than EBRT patients. These results may be confounded by differences in the use and timing of salvage therapy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To report the use of high-dose-rate intraoperative radiation therapy (HDR-IORT) for recurrent head-and-neck cancer (HNC) at a single institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Between July 1998 and February 2007, 34 patients with recurrent HNC received 38 HDR-IORT treatments using a Harrison-Anderson-Mick applicator with Iridium-192. A single fraction (median, 15 Gy; range, 10-20 Gy) was delivered intraoperatively after surgical resection to the region considered at risk for close or positive margins. In all patients, the target region was previously treated with external beam radiation therapy (median dose, 63 Gy; range, 24-74 Gy). The 1- and 2-year estimates for in-field local progression-free survival (LPFS), locoregional progression-free survival (LRPFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated. RESULTS:With a median follow-up for surviving patients of 23 months (range, 6-54 months), 8 patients (24%) are alive and without evidence of disease. The 1- and 2-year LPFS rates are 66% and 56%, respectively, with 13 (34%) in-field recurrences. The 1- and 2-year DMFS rates are 81% and 62%, respectively, with 10 patients (29%) developing distant failure. The 1- and 2-year OS rates are 73% and 55%, respectively, with a median time to OS of 24 months. Severe complications included cellulitis (5 patients), fistula or wound complications (3 patients), osteoradionecrosis (1 patient), and radiation-induced trigeminal neuralgia (1 patient). CONCLUSIONS:HDR-IORT has shown encouraging local control outcomes in patients with recurrent HNC with acceptable rates of treatment-related morbidity. Longer follow-up with a larger cohort of patients is needed to fully assess the benefit of this procedure.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To report a multi-institutional outcomes study on permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) to 9 years that includes postimplant dosimetry, to develop a postimplant nomogram predicting biochemical freedom from recurrence. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Cox regression analysis was used to model the clinical information for 5,931 patients who underwent PPB for clinically localized prostate cancer from six centers. The model was validated against the dataset using bootstrapping. Disease progression was determined using the Phoenix definition. The biological equivalent dose was calculated from the minimum dose to 90% of the prostate volume (D90) and external-beam radiotherapy dose using an alpha/beta of 2. RESULTS:The 9-year biochemical freedom from recurrence probability for the modeling set was 77% (95% confidence interval, 73-81%). In the model, prostate-specific antigen, Gleason sum, isotope, external beam radiation, year of treatment, and D90 were associated with recurrence (each p < 0.05), whereas clinical stage was not. The concordance index of the model was 0.710. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A predictive model for a postimplant nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence at 9-years after PPB has been developed and validated from a large multi-institutional database. This study also demonstrates the significance of implant dosimetry for predicting outcome. Unique to predictive models, these nomograms may be used a priori to calculate a D90 that likely achieves a desired outcome with further validation. Thus, a personalized dose prescription can potentially be calculated for each patient.

BACKGROUND:The 2 primary therapeutic interventions for localized prostate cancer are delivered by different types of physicians, urologists, and radiation oncologists. We evaluated how visits to specialists and primary care physicians (PCPs) by men with localized prostate cancer are related to treatment choice. METHODS:Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database, we identified 85 088 men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed at age 65 years or older, between 1994 and 2002. Men were categorized by primary treatment received within 9 months of diagnosis: radical prostatectomy (n = 18 201 [21%]), radiotherapy (n = 35 925 [42%]), androgen deprivation (n = 14 021 [17%]), or expectant management (n = 16 941 [20%]). Visits to specialists and PCPs were analyzed by patient characteristics and primary therapies received and were identified using Medicare claims and the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. RESULTS:Overall, 42 309 men (50%) were seen exclusively by urologists, 37 540 (44%) by urologists and radiation oncologists, 2329 (3%) by urologists and medical oncologists, and 2910 (3%) by all 3 specialists. There was a strong association between the type of specialist seen and primary therapy received. Visits to PCPs were infrequent between diagnosis and receipt of therapy (22% of patients visited any PCP and 17% visited an established PCP) and were not associated with a greater likelihood of specialist visits. Irrespective of age, comorbidity status, or specialist visits, men seen by PCPs were more likely to be treated expectantly. CONCLUSIONS:Specialist visits relate strongly to prostate cancer treatment choices. In light of these findings, prior evidence that specialists prefer the modality they themselves deliver and the lack of conclusive comparative studies demonstrating superiority of one modality over another, it is essential to ensure that men have access to balanced information before choosing a particular therapy for prostate cancer.

Most advice currently available with regard to fluoroscopic skin reactions is based on a table published in 1994. Many caveats in that report were not included in later reproductions, and subsequent research has yielded additional insights. This review is a consensus report of current scientific data. Expected skin reactions for an average patient are presented in tabular form as a function of peak skin dose and time after irradiation. The text and table indicate the variability of reactions in different patients. Images of injuries to skin and underlying tissues in patients and animals are provided and are categorized according to the National Cancer Institute skin toxicity scale, offering a basis for describing cutaneous radiation reactions in interventional fluoroscopy and quantifying their clinical severity. For a single procedure performed in most individuals, noticeable skin changes are observed approximately 1 month after a peak skin dose exceeding several grays. The degree of injury to skin and subcutaneous tissue increases with dose. Specialized wound care may be needed when irradiation exceeds 10 Gy. Residual effects from radiation therapy and from previous procedures influence the response of skin and subcutaneous tissues to subsequent procedures. Skin irradiated to a dose higher than 3-5 Gy often looks normal but reacts abnormally when irradiation is repeated. If the same area of skin is likely to be exposed to levels higher than a few grays, the effects of previous irradiation should be included when estimating the expected tissue reaction from the additional procedure.