A brief review of low-dose rate (LDR) and high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost for high-risk prostate

For patients with unfavorable or high-risk prostate cancer, dose escalated radiation therapy leads to improved progression free survival but attempts to deliver increased dose by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone can be limited by late toxicities to nearby genitourinary and gastrointestinal organs at risk. Brachytherapy is a method to deliver dose escalation in conjunction with EBRT with a potentially improved late toxicity profile and improved prostate cancer related outcomes. At least three randomized controlled trials have demonstrated improved biochemical control with the addition of either low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy to EBRT, although only ASCENDE-RT compared brachytherapy to dose-escalated EBRT but did report an over 50% improvement in biochemical failure with a LDR boost. Multiple single institution and comparative research series also support the use of a brachytherapy boost in the DE-EBRT era and demonstrate excellent prostate cancer specific outcomes. Despite improved oncologic outcomes with a brachytherapy boost in the high-risk setting, the utilization of both LDR, and HDR brachytherapy use is declining. The acute genitourinary toxicities when brachytherapy boost is combined with EBRT, particularly a LDR boost, are of concern in comparison to EBRT alone. HDR brachytherapy boost has many physical properties inherent to its rapid delivery of a large dose which may reduce acute toxicities and also appeal to the radiobiology of prostate cancer. We herein review the evidence for use of either LDR or HDR brachytherapy boost for high-risk prostate cancer and summarize comparisons between the two treatment modalities

The clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score is associated with metastasis after radiation therapy and provides guidance on when to forgo combined androgen deprivation therapy with dose-escalated radiation

PURPOSE: The clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which combines the University of California, San Francisco\u27s Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) and the cell cycle progression (CCP) molecular score, has been validated to be prognostic of disease progression for men with prostate cancer. This study evaluated the ability of the CCR score to prognosticate the risk of metastasis in men receiving dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study included men with localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk prostate cancer (N = 741). Patients were treated with dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. The primary outcome was time to metastasis. RESULTS: The CCR score prognosticated metastasis with a hazard ratio (HR) per unit score of 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.89; P \u3c .001). The CCR score better prognosticated metastasis than NCCN risk group (CCR, P \u3c .001; NCCN, P = .46), CAPRA score (CCR, P = .002; CAPRA, P = .59), or CCP score (CCR, P \u3c .001; CCP, P = .59) alone. In bivariable analyses, CCR score remained highly prognostic when accounting for ADT versus no ADT (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.61-2.96; P \u3c .001), ADT duration as a continuous variable (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.79; P \u3c .001), or ADT given at or below the recommended duration for each NCCN risk group (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.69-2.86; P \u3c .001). Men with CCR scores below or above the multimodality threshold (CCR score, 2.112) had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7% and 21.24%, respectively. Men with below-threshold scores receiving RT alone had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7%, and for men receiving RT plus ADT, the 10-year risk of metastasis was also 3.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The CCR score accurately and precisely prognosticates metastasis and adds clinically actionable information relative to guideline-recommended therapies based on NCCN risk in men undergoing dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. For men with scores below the multimodality threshold, adding ADT may not significantly reduce their 10-year risk of metastasis

Lessons learned from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico: Practical measures to mitigate the impact of a catastrophic natural disaster on radiation oncology patients

PURPOSE: Although the wind, rain, and flooding of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico abated shortly after its landfall on September 20, 2017, the disruption of the electrical, communications, transportation, and medical infrastructure of the island was unprecedented in scope and caused lasting harm for many months afterward. A compilation of recommendations from radiation oncologists who were in Puerto Rico during the disaster, and from a panel of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) cancer experts was created. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists throughout Puerto Rico collaborated and improvised to continue treating patients in the immediate aftermath of the storm and as routine clinical operations were restored gradually. Empirical lessons from the experience of radiation therapy administration in this profoundly altered context of limited resources, impaired communication, and inadequate transportation were organized into a recommended template, applicable to any radiation oncology practice. ASTRO disease-site experts provided evidence-guidelines for mitigating the impact of a 2- to 3-week interruption in radiation therapy. RESULTS: Practical measures to mitigate the medical impact of a disaster are summarized within the framework of Prepare, Communicate, Operate, Compensate. Specific measures include the development of an emergency operations plan tailored to specific circumstances, prospective coordination with other radiation oncology clinics before a disaster, ongoing communications with emergency management organizations, and routine practice of alternate methods to disseminate information among providers and patients. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations serve as a starting point to assist any radiation oncology practice in becoming more resiliently prepared for a local or regional disruption from any cause. Disease-site experts provide evidence-based guidelines on how to mitigate the impact of a 2- to 3-week interruption in radiation therapy for lung, head and neck, uterine cervix, breast, and prostate cancers through altered fractionation or dose escalation