Cost and Toxicity Comparisons of Two IMRT Techniques for Prostate Cancer: A Micro-Costing Study and Weighted Propensity Score Analysis Based on a Prospective Study

International audienceBackground Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has become the standard treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Two techniques of rotational IMRT are commonly used in this indication: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT). To the best of our knowledge, no study has compared their related costs and clinical effectiveness and/or toxicity in prostate cancer. We aimed to assess differences in costs and toxicity between VMAT and HT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer with pelvic irradiation. Material and Methods We used data from the “RCMI pelvis” prospective multicenter study (NCT01325961) including 155 patients. We used a micro-costing methodology to identify cost differences between VMAT and HT. To assess the effects of the two techniques on total actual costs per patient and on toxicity we used stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results The mean total cost for HT, €2019 3,069 (95% CI, 2,885–3,285) was significantly higher than the mean cost for VMAT €2019 2,544 (95% CI, 2,443–2,651) (p <.0001). The mean ± SD labor and accelerator cost for HT was €2880 (± 583) and €1978 (± 475) for VMAT, with 81 and 76% for accelerator, respectively. Acute GI and GU toxicity were more frequent in VMAT than in HT (p = .021 and p = .042, respectively). Late toxicity no longer differed between the two groups up to 24 months after completion of treatment. Conclusion Use of VMAT was associated with lower costs for IMRT planning and treatment than HT. Similar stabilized long-term toxicity was reported in both groups after higher acute GI and GU toxicity in VMAT. The estimates provided can benefit future modeling work like cost-effectiveness analysis

Outcome According to Elective Pelvic Radiation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Randomized Trial

International audiencePURPOSE:The role of pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in the management of prostate cancer is controversial. This study analyzed the role of pelvic radiation therapy (RT) on the outcome in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients included in the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Genitales (GETUG) 12 trial.METHODS AND MATERIALS:Patients with a nonpretreated high-risk localized prostate cancer and a staging lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned to receive either goserelin every 3 months for 3 years and 4 cycles of docetaxel plus estramustine or goserelin alone. Local therapy was administered 3 months after the start of systemic treatment. Performance of pelvic ENI was left to the treating physician. Only patients treated with primary RT were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS).RESULTS:A total of 413 patients treated from 2002 to 2006 were included, of whom 358 were treated using primary RT. A total of 208 patients received pelvic RT and 150 prostate-only RT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, Gleason score, or T stage did not differ according to performance of pelvic RT; pN+ patients more frequently received pelvic RT than pN0 patients (P<.0001). Median follow-up was 8.8 years. In multivariate analysis, bPFS was negatively impacted by pN stage (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.52 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78-3.54], P<.0001), Gleason score 8 or higher (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.03-1.93], P=.033) and PSA higher than 20 ng/mL (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.02-1.96], P=.038), and positively impacted by the use of chemotherapy (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.48-0.9], P=.009). There was no association between bPFS and use of pelvic ENI in multivariate analysis (HR: 1.10 [95% CI: 0.78-1.55], P=.60), even when analysis was restricted to pN0 patients (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.59-1.31], P=.53). Pelvic ENI was not associated with increased acute or late patient reported toxicity.CONCLUSIONS:This unplanned analysis of a randomized trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of pelvic ENI on bPFS in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients

Clinical and genetic landscape of treatment naive cervical cancer: Alterations in PIK3CA and in epigenetic modulators associated with sub-optimal outcome

International audienceBACKGROUND: There is a lack of information as to which molecular processes, present at diagnosis, favor tumour escape from standard-of-care treatments in cervical cancer (CC). RAIDs consortium (www.raids-fp7.eu), conducted a prospectively monitored trial, [BioRAIDs (NCT02428842)] with the objectives to generate high quality samples and molecular assessments to stratify patient populations and to identify molecular patterns associated with poor outcome.METHODS: Between 2013 and 2017, RAIDs collected a prospective CC sample and clinical dataset involving 419 participant patients from 18 centers in seven EU countries. Next Generation Sequencing has so far been carried out on a total of 182 samples from 377 evaluable (48%) patients, allowing to define dominant genetic alterations. Reverse phase protein expression arrays (RPPA) was applied to group patients into clusters. Activation of key genetic pathways and protein expression signatures were tested for associations with outcome.FINDINGS: At a median follow up (FU) of 22 months, progression-free survival rates of this FIGO stage IB1-IV population, treated predominantly (87%) by chemoradiation, were65•4% [CI95%: 60•2-71.1]. Dominant oncogenic alterations were seen in PIK3CA (40%), while dominant suppressor gene alterations were seen in KMT2D (15%) and KMT2C (16%). Cumulative frequency of loss-of-function (LOF) mutations in any epigenetic modulator gene alteration was 47% and it was associated with PIK3CA gene alterations in 32%. Patients with tumours harboring alterations in both pathways had a significantly poorer PFS. A new finding was the detection of a high frequency of gains of TLR4 gene amplifications (10%), as well as amplifications, mutations, and non-frame-shift deletions of Androgen receptor (AR) gene in 7% of patients. Finally, RPPA protein expression analysis defined three expression clusters.INTERPRETATION: Our data suggests that patient population may be stratified into four different treatment strategies based on molecular markers at the outset. FUND: European Union's Seventh Program grant agreement No 304810

Corrigendum to ‘clinical and genetic landscape of treatment naive cervical cancer: Alterations in PIK3CA and in epigenetic modulators associated with sub-optimal outcome’ (EBioMedicine (2019) 43 (253–260), (S2352396419302142), (10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.03.069))

The authors wish to clarify that the authors Aljosa Mandic, Katarina Koprivsek, and Goran Malenkovic are also affiliated with Faculty of Medicine Novi Sad, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, as well as Gynecologic Oncology Department Clinic for Operative Oncology, Institute of Oncology of Vojvodina, Serbia