Locally advanced adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinomas of the cervix compared to squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix in gynecologic oncology group trials of cisplatin-based chemoradiation

OBJECTIVE: Conflicting results have been reported for adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas of the cervix with respect to their response to therapy and prognosis. The current study sought to evaluate impact of adeno- and adenosquamous histology in the randomized trials of primary cisplatin-based chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer. METHODS: Patients with adeno- and adenosquamous cervical carcinomas were retrospectively studied and compared to squamous cell carcinomas in GOG trials of chemoradiation. RESULTS: Among 1671 enrolled in clinical trials of chemoradiation, 182 adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas were identified (10.9%). A higher percentage of adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas were stage IB2 (27.5% versus 20.0%) and fewer had stage IIIB (21.4% versus 28.6%). The mean tumor size was larger for squamous than adeno- and adenosquamous. Adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas were more often poorly differentiated (46.2% versus 26.8%). When treated with radiation therapy alone, the 70 patients with adeno- and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix showed a statistically poorer overall survival (p=0.0499) compared to the 647 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. However, when treated with radiation therapy with concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy, the 112 patients with adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas had a similar overall survival (p=0.459) compared the 842 patients with squamous cell carcinoma. Adverse effects to treatment were similar across histologies. CONCLUSION: Adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas of the cervix are associated with worse overall survival when treated with radiation alone but with similar progression-free and overall survival compared to squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix when treated with cisplatin based chemoradiation

Single Institutional Experience of Stereotactic Radiosurgery Alone for First Brain Metastatic Event and Salvage of Second Brain Metastatic Event in a Community Setting with Review of the Literature

PurposeTo document survival for patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone for brain metastases either at initial presentation or for salvage in conjunction with other known prognostic factors in a single institutional community setting with comparison to current literature.MethodsAll patients treated for brain metastases with SRS between October 2006 and October 2013 were reviewed. We identified 91 patients treated with SRS alone for first brain metastatic event (FBME) and 87 patients treated with SRS for second brain metastatic event (SBME). We excluded the 14 patients treated with SRS for both FBME and SBME to satisfy the independence assumption for comparison of groups. Patient demographics, including age, gender, primary cancer type, presence of extracranial metastases, number of brain metastases, initial site of metastases (brain vs. other), recursive partitioning analysis (RPA), and Karnofsky Performance status (KPS) were documented.ResultsThere were no significant differences in overall survival for patients treated with SRS for FBME compared with SBME (log-rank p = 0.9347). Univariate and multivariable Cox regression modeling revealed KPS (p = 0.0003) and RPA (p = 0.0143) were the only independent prognostic factors for survival. Specifically, patients with RPA 1 had a 61% decreased risk of death compared to those with RPA 3. Patients with RPA 2 had a 33% decreased risk of death compared to those with RPA 3. The 1-year survival rate was 36.5% for patients with RPA1, 33.3% for those with RPA 2, and 17.1% for those with RPA 3. Patients with KPS 90–100 had a 62% decreased risk of death compared to those with KPS < 70. The 1-year survival rate for patients KPS 90–100, 70–80, and <70 were 60.7, 24.6, and 16.7%, respectively.ConclusionNo difference in survival was noted for FBME and SBME with performance status, the single most important prognostic factor following SRS. Aggressive treatment should be considered for patients with good performance status regardless if presenting with FBME or SBME. Our results are consistent with single, multi-institutional, and randomized trials after literature review

Is age a prognostic biomarker for survival among women with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiation? An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary data analysis

Objective To determine the effect of age on completion of and toxicities following treatment of local regionally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) on Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Phase I–III trials. Methods An ancillary data analysis of GOG protocols 113, 120, 165, 219 data was performed. Wilcoxon, Pearson, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for univariate and multivariate analysis. Log rank tests were used to compare survival lengths. Results One-thousand-three-hundred-nineteen women were included; 60.7% were Caucasian, 15% were age 60–70 years and an additional 5% were >70; 87% had squamous histology, 55% had stage IIB disease and 34% had IIIB disease. Performance status declined with age (p = 0.006). Histology and tumor stage did not significantly differ., Number of cycles of chemotherapy received, radiation treatment time, nor dose modifications varied with age. Notably, radiation protocol deviations and failure to complete brachytherapy (BT) did increase with age (p = 0.022 and p 50 for all-cause mortality (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01–1.04) was found, but no association between age and disease specific mortality was found. Conclusion This represents a large analysis of patients treated for LACC with chemo/radiation, approximately 20% of whom were >60 years of age. Older patients, had higher rates of incomplete brachytherapy which is not explained by collected toxicity data. Age did not adversely impact completion of chemotherapy and radiation or toxicities

Propensity Score Matched Comparison of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy vs Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Survival Analysis from the National Cancer Database

PurposeNo direct comparisons between extreme hypofractionation and conventional fractionation have been reported in randomized trials for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The goal of this study is to use a propensity score matched (PSM) analysis with the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for the comparison of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for organ confined prostate cancer.MethodsMen with localized prostate cancer treated with radiation dose ≥72 Gy for IMRT and ≥35 Gy for SBRT to the prostate only were abstracted from the NCDB. Men treated with previous surgery, brachytherapy, or proton therapy were excluded. Matching was performed to eliminate confounding variables via PSM. Simple 1–1 nearest neighbor matching resulted in a matched sample of 5,430 (2,715 in each group). Subset analyses of men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 10, GS = 7, and GS > 7 yielded matched samples of 1,020, 2,194, and 247, respectively.ResultsNo difference in survival was noted between IMRT and SBRT at 8 years (p = 0.65). Subset analyses of higher risk men with PSA > 10 or GS = 7 histology or GS > 7 histology revealed no difference in survival between IMRT and SBRT (p = 0.58, p = 0.68, and p = 0.62, respectively). Variables significant for survival for the matched group included: age (p < 0.0001), primary payor (p = 0.0001), Charlson/Deyo Score (p = 0.0002), PSA (p = 0.0013), Gleason score (p < 0.0001), and use of hormone therapy (p = 0.02).ConclusionUtilizing the NCDB, there is no difference in survival at 8 years comparing IMRT to SBRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Subset analysis confirmed no difference in survival even for intermediate- and high-risk patients based on Gleason Score and PSA