Radiation Facility Volume and Survival for Men With Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

Importance: Very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer is an aggressive substratum of high-risk prostate cancer, characterized by high prostate-specific antigen levels, high Gleason score, and/or advanced T category. Contemporary management paradigms involve advanced molecular imaging and multimodal treatment with intensified prostate-directed or systemic treatment-resources more readily available at high-volume centers. Objective: To examine radiation facility case volume and overall survival (OS) in men with VHR prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was performed from November 11, 2022, to March 4, 2023, analyzing data from US facilities reporting to the National Cancer Database. Patients included men diagnosed with nonmetastatic VHR prostate cancer by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (clinical T3b-T4 category, primary Gleason pattern 5, >4 cores with grade group 4-5, and/or 2-3 high-risk features) and treated with curative-intent radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy between January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2016. Exposures: Treatment at high- vs low-average cumulative facility volume (ACFV), defined as the total number of prostate radiotherapy cases at an individual patient's treatment facility from 2004 until the year of their diagnosis. The nonlinear association between a continuous ACFV and OS was examined through a Martingale residual plot; an optimal ACFV cutoff was identified that maximized the separation between high vs low ACFV via a bias-adjusted log rank test. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival was assessed between high vs low ACFV using Kaplan-Meier analysis with and without inverse probability score weighted adjustment and multivariable Cox proportional hazards. Results: A total of 25 219 men (median age, 71 [IQR, 64-76] years; 78.7% White) with VHR prostate cancer were identified, 6438 (25.5%) of whom were treated at high ACFV facilities. Median follow-up was 57.4 (95% CI, 56.7-58.1) months. Median OS for patients treated at high ACFV centers was 123.4 (95% CI, 116.6-127.4) months vs 109.0 (95% CI, 106.5-111.2) months at low ACFV centers (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, treatment at a high ACFV center was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95; P < .001). These results were also significant after inverse probability score weighted-based adjustment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with VHR prostate cancer who underwent definitive radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, facility case volume was independently associated with longer OS. Further studies are needed to identify which factors unique to high-volume centers may be responsible for this benefit.

Analysis of Radiation Facility Volume and Survival in Men With Lymph Node-Positive Prostate Cancer Treated With Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

Importance: Long-term control of node-positive (N1) prostate cancer, the incidence of which is increasing, is obtainable with aggressive treatment, and definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an increasingly preferred option. Caring for these patients is complex and may require resources more readily available at high-volume centers. Objective: To evaluate the association between radiation facility case volume and overall survival (OS) in men with N1 prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 1899 men diagnosed with T1N1M0 to T4N1M0 prostate cancer treated with curative-intent EBRT and ADT between January 2004 and December 2016 at US facilities reporting to the National Cancer Database. Data analysis was performed from March to June 2020. Exposures: Treatment at a center with high vs low average cumulative facility volume (ACFV), defined as the total number of prostate radiation cases at an individual patient's treatment facility from 2004 until the year of that patient's diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: OS was assessed between high- vs low-ACFV centers using the Kaplan-Meier method with and without propensity score-based weighted adjustment and multivariable Cox proportional hazards. The nonlinear association between continuous ACFV and OS was examined through a Martingale residual plot, and the optimal ACFV cutoff point that maximized the separation between high vs low ACFV was identified via a bias adjusted log rank test. Results: A total of 1899 men met inclusion criteria. The median (interquartile range) age was 66 (60-72) years, 1491 (78.5%) were White individuals, and 1145 (60.3%) were treated at nonacademic centers. The optimal ACFV cutoff point was 66.4 patients treated per year. The median OS for patients treated at high-ACFV vs low-ACFV centers was 111.1 (95% CI, 101.5-127.9) months and 92.3 (95% CI, 87.7-103.9) months, respectively (P = .01). On multivariable analysis, treatment at a low-ACFV center was associated with increased risk of death (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46, P = .03) compared with treatment at a high-ACFV center. These results persisted after propensity score-based adjustment. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found a significant association of facility case volume with long-term outcomes in men with N1 prostate cancer undergoing EBRT with ADT. Specifically, treatment at a facility with high radiation case volume was independently associated with longer OS. Further studies should focus on identifying which factors unique to high-volume centers may be responsible for this benefit.

Concomitant Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy with SBRT Boost for Unresectable Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase I Study.

OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is now the standard of care in medically inoperable stage I NSCLC, yielding high rates of local control. It is unknown whether SBRT can be safely utilized in the locally advanced NSCLC setting. This multi-institution phase I study evaluated the safety of 44 Gy of conventionally fractionated thoracic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy plus dose-escalated SBRT boost to both the primary tumor and involved mediastinal lymph nodes. The primary end point of this study was to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the SBRT boost. METHODS: Inclusion criteria included unresectable stage IIIA or IIIB disease, primary tumor 8 cm or smaller, and N1 or N2 lymph nodes 5 cm or smaller. Tumors were staged with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT), and four-dimensional CT simulation was used for radiation planning. The treatment schema was 44 Gy of thoracic radiation (2 Gy/d) with weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. A second CT simulation was obtained after 40 Gy had been delivered, and a SBRT boost was planned to the remaining gross disease at the primary site and involved mediastinal lymph nodes. Consolidation chemotherapy was given at the discretion of the treating medical oncologist. Four SBRT boost dose cohorts were tested: cohort 1 (9 Gy × 2), cohort 2 (10 Gy × 5), cohort 3 (6 Gy × 5), and cohort 4 (7 Gy × 5). Patients were treated in cohorts of three patients, and the Bayesian escalation with overdose control method was used to determine the MTD of the SBRT boost. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were defined as any grade 3 or higher toxicities within 30 days of treatment attributed to treatment, not including hematologic toxicity, or any grade 5 toxicity attributed to treatment. RESULTS: The study enrolled 19 patients from November 2012 to December 2016. There were four screen failures, and 15 patients were treated on study. There were no DLTs in dose cohort 1 (n = 3) and 2 (n = 6). DLT developed in one patient in dose cohort 3 (n = 3) and in 2 patients in dose cohort 4 (n = 3). The calculated MTD was 6 Gy × 5. The DLT observed at this dose level was a tracheoesophageal fistula; given this substantial toxicity, there was investigator reluctance to enroll further patients at this dose level. Thus, the calculated MTD was 6 Gy × 5; however, 10 Gy × 2 is thought to be a reasonable dose as well, given that no grade 5 toxicities occurred with that dose. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of a SBRT boost combined with 44 Gy of thoracic chemoradiation was 6 Gy × 5. A SBRT boost dose of 10 Gy × 2 could be considered safer, with no grade 3 or higher toxicities observed at this dose level during the follow-up period in this study.

Observations on prostate intrafraction motion and the effect of reduced treatment time using volumetric modulated arc therapy.

PURPOSE: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has allowed accurate delivery of prostate radiotherapy; Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) offers an advancement of this technique with possible dosimetric advantages and delivery in a shorter time than standard IMRT. We hypothesize that treatment duration is a controllable factor associated with intrafraction target motion. METHODS: Included patients were treated for localized prostate cancer using IMRT or VMAT (RapidArc, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Continuous motion data were monitored simultaneously using electromagnetic transponders (Calypso 4D Localization System, Calypso Medical Technologies, Inc, Seattle, WA). Displacements were recorded in the RL (right-left), SI (superior-inferior), and AP (anterior-posterior) directions at 10/second (Hz). Daily motion was reported as the mean (R̄̄) and 95th percentile (R95) displacement value for the entire session. Time effect was assessed by measuring daily displacement variables (R̄̄, R95) after each successive minute of treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were included, accounting for 1332 treatment sessions. Mean session time was 7.4 minutes (range, 0.5-37.2; interquartile range, 4.8-9.2). R̄̄ (0.06, 0.08, 0.11, 0.18) and R95 (0.14, 0.18, 0.23, 0.36) values (RL, SI, AP, 3-dimensional [3D], respectively) were evaluated for the entire cohort. Regression analysis showed treatment time to be the strongest predictor of observed displacements (P < .001 AP, SI, 3D; P < 0.05 RL). Ninety-five displacements increased continuously from 0.05 cm, 0.09 cm, 0.12 cm, and 0.16 cm after 1 minute to 0.21 cm, 0.20 cm, 0.29 cm, and 0.47 after 10 minutes (RL, SI, AP, and 3D). Mean session time for VMAT was 4.6 minutes compared to 8.4 minutes for IMRT (difference = 3.8 min, P < .0001); VMAT was associated with reduced motion for both (difference = 0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.07 cm) and (0.03, 0.04, 0.11, 0.12 cm) displacements. CONCLUSION: Our study is unique in exploring the role of session duration on intrafraction motion in the setting of electromagnetic transponders as well as VMAT. Our main results demonstrate that observed intrafraction prostate motion during radiotherapy is greater with increasing session time. Additionally, VMAT, due to shorter treatment sessions, resulted in significant reduction (30%-40%) in intrafraction displacements.