Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Radiation Treatment of Node-Negative Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer

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

Surgery vs Radiotherapy in the Management of Biopsy Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer and the Risk of Mortality

Importance: It is unknown how treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) and adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or both (termed MaxRP) compares with treatment with EBRT, brachytherapy, and ADT (termed MaxRT). Objective: To investigate whether treatment of Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer with MaxRP vs MaxRT was associated with prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: The study cohort comprised 639 men with clinical T1-4,N0M0 biopsy Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer. Between February 6, 1992, and April 26, 2013, a total of 80 men were consecutively treated with MaxRT at the Chicago Prostate Cancer Center, and 559 men were consecutively treated with RP and pelvic lymph node dissection at the Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center. Follow-up started on the day of prostate EBRT or RP and concluded on October 27, 2017. Exposures: Of the 559 men managed with RP and pelvic lymph node dissection, 88 (15.7%) received adjuvant EBRT, 49 (8.8%) received ADT, and 50 (8.9%) received both. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment propensity score-adjusted risk of PCSM and ACM and the likelihood of equivalence of these risks between treatments using a plausibility index. Results: The cohort included 639 men, with a mean (SD) age of 65.83 (6.52) years. After median follow-ups of 5.51 years (interquartile range, 2.19-6.95 years) among 80 men treated with MaxRT and 4.78 years (interquartile range, 4.01-6.05 years) among 559 men treated with RP-containing treatments, 161 men had died, 106 (65.8%) from prostate cancer. There was no significant difference in the risk of PCSM (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.49-3.64; P =.58) and ACM (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.36-1.81; P =.60) when comparing men who underwent MaxRP vs MaxRT, with plausibility indexes for equivalence of 76.75% for the end point of the risk of PCSM and 77.97% for the end point of the risk of ACM. Plausibility indexes for all other treatment comparisons were less than 63%. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that it is plausible that treatment with MaxRP or MaxRT for men with biopsy Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer can lead to equivalent risk of PCSM and ACM.

Time to Prostate-specific Antigen Nadir and the Risk of Death From Prostate Cancer Following Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Objective: To assess whether the time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir (TTN) has differential prognostic value in men who reach an undetectable vs detectable PSA nadir. Methods: Two hundred and four men from a prospective randomized controlled trial involving radiation therapy with or without 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy in unfavorable risk Prostate cancer (CaP) at academic or community based centers in Massachusetts, enrolled between 1995 and 2001. Adjusted hazard ratios (AHR) of the risk of CaP-specific mortality calculated using Fine and Gray competing risk regression. Results: After a median follow-up of 18.17years, 160 men died; 30 (18.75%) of CaP. Among men with a PSA nadir ≥ 0.2ng/ml, a TTN \u3c median (12 months) was significantly associated with an increased CaP-specific mortality-risk vs the median or more (AHR 5.07, 95% CI 2.10-12.23, P \u3c.001); whereas this association was not observed among men with a PSA nadir of \u3c 0.2ng/mL, (AHR 9.9, 95% CI 0.23-433.8, P =.23). Conclusion: Men with both a short TTN and detectable PSA nadir could be considered for entry on randomized controlled trials at a novel entry point prior to PSA failure at the time of PSA nadir to completeplanned conventional androgen deprivation therapy vs that plus agent(s) shown to improve outcomes in men with or at high risk of having castrate-resistant CaP

Prostate-specific antigen nadir and testosterone level at prostate-specific antigen failure following radiation and androgen suppression therapy for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer and the risk of all-cause and prostate cancer–specific mortality

BACKGROUND: Although both PSA nadir (PSAn) and testosterone levels at PSA failure are known prognostic factors in men undergoing radiation therapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer (PC), it is unclear whether their prognostic significance is independent or overlapping. METHODS: Seventy-five men treated with RT with or without 6 months of ADT for unfavorable-risk nonmetastatic PC enrolled in 2 prospective clinical trials between 1986 and 2001 formed the study cohort. Competing risks and Cox multivariable regression were used to assess whether low versus normal serum testosterone at the time of PSA failure and higher PSAn after initial therapy were independently associated with the risk of PC-specific (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) adjusting for PC prognostic factors. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 15.34 years (interquartile range, 6.66-16.88 years), there were 53 deaths (73.3%): 30 (56.6%) were from PC. Low testosterone at PSA failure was significantly associated with an increased risk of PCSM (adjusted HR [AHR], 7.77; 95% CI, 1.14-52.99; P =.04) and ACM (AHR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.01-8.96; P =.05), as was higher PSAn (PCSM AHR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; P \u3c.01; ACM AHR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07; P \u3c.01), although the prognostic significance of PSAn was only noted in men with a normal testosterone at PSA failure. CONCLUSIONS: Low testosterone level at PSA failure in high-risk patients with PC treated with RT is associated with increased PCSM and ACM risk. In men with normal testosterone levels at the time of PSA failure, an elevated PSAn was associated with worse PCSM and ACM risk. LAY SUMMARY: This study investigates whether the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir and normal versus low testosterone at the time of PSA failure provide mutually exclusive or overlapping prognostic information following treatment with radiation and androgen deprivation therapy for unfavorable-risk patients with prostate cancer using data from 2 prospective clinical trials. It was found that both provided prognostic information; however, higher PSA nadir was only found to be of prognostic significance in men with normal testosterone levels at PSA failure

ACR appropriateness criteria: Permanent source brachytherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE: To provide updated American College of Radiology (ACR) appropriateness criteria for transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal interstitial permanent source brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ACR appropriateness criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: Permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) is a treatment option for appropriately selected patients with localized prostate cancer with low to very high risk disease. PPB monotherapy remains an appropriate and effective curative treatment for low-risk prostate cancer patients demonstrating excellent long-term cancer control and acceptable morbidity. PPB monotherapy can be considered for select intermediate-risk patients with multiparametric MRI useful in evaluation of such patients. High-risk patients treated with PPB should receive supplemental external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) along with androgen deprivation. Similarly, patients with involved pelvic lymph nodes may also be considered for such combined treatment but reported long-term outcomes are limited. Computed tomography-based postimplant dosimetry completed within 60 days of PPB is essential for quality assurance. PPB may be considered for treatment of local recurrence after EBRT but is associated with an increased risk of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Updated appropriateness criteria for patient evaluation, selection, treatment, and postimplant dosimetry are given. These criteria are intended to be advisory only with the final responsibility for patient care residing with the treating clinicians

ACR Appropriateness Criteria for external beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer, part II of II

Purpose: To present the most updated American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria formed by an expert panel on the appropriate delivery of external beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer (in the definitive setting and post-prostatectomy) and to provide clinical variants with expert recommendations based on accompanying Appropriateness Criteria for target volumes and treatment planning. Methods and materials: The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a panel of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline development and revision process includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. Results: The panel summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the topic, including organ motion and localization methods, image guidance, and delivery techniques (eg, 3-dimensional conformal intensity modulation). The panel presents 7 clinical variants, including (1) a standard case and cases with (2) a distended rectum, (3) a large-volume prostate, (4) bilateral hip implants, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) prior prostatectomy, and (7) a pannus extending into the radiation field. Each case outlines the appropriate techniques for simulation, treatment planning, image guidance, dose, and fractionation. Numerical rating and commentary is given for each treatment approach in each variant. Conclusions: External beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature, these Appropriateness Criteria can aid clinicians in determining the appropriate treatment delivery and personalized approaches for individual patients