Rectal endoscopy findings following stereotactic body radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treating prostate cancer with SBRT could potentially minimize radiation proctitis by reducing high-dose rectal irradiation. In addition, it offers the potential radiobiologic benefits of hypofractionation. This study reports the endoscopic changes and the associated clinical rectal toxicity in these patients. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients treated from 2008-2011 for localized prostate cancer who had rectal endoscopy following SBRT. SBRT was delivered either as primary treatment in 5 fractions of 7-7.25 Gy, or as an initial boost in 3 fractions of 6.5 Gy followed by conventionally fractionated radiotherapy to 45-50.4 Gy. Endoscopic changes were graded using the Vienna Rectoscopy Score (VRS). Rectal toxicity was graded via CTCAEv.4. Rectal quality of life (QOL) was assessed via the bowel domain of the EPIC-26 questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with a median 23 months follow-up were analyzed. Thirty-five patients completed SBRT monotherapy and 16 patients received SBRT as a boost to conventionally fractionated IMRT. The median interval from SBRT to rectal endoscopy was 13 months. Endoscopy revealed VRS Grade 1-2 telangiectasias for 10 patients and VRS Grade 1-2 mucosal edema for 12 patients. No rectal ulcerations, strictures or necrosis were observed. Grade 1-2 late rectal bleeding occurred in 10 patients. There were no CTCAEv.4 Grade ≥3 toxicities. Mean EPIC bowel scores decreased from a baseline value of 96.9 to 82.3 at 1-month, but subsequently increased to 91.0 at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort that is skewed towards patients with rectal complaints, the rate and severity of endoscopic changes following SBRT is low. Rectal toxicity and QOL were comparable to patients treated with other radiation modalities. Prospective trials examining the endoscopic outcomes following SBRT for prostate cancer are needed for confirmation of the findings of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Georgetown Institutional Review Board has approved this retrospective study (IRB 2009-510).

The impact of the lung allocation score on short-term transplantation outcomes: a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: The lung allocation score restructured the distribution of scarce donor lungs for transplantation. The algorithm ranks waiting list patients according to medical urgency and expected benefit after transplantation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the lung allocation score on short-term outcomes after lung transplantation. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed with data from 5 academic medical centers. Results of patients undergoing transplantation on the basis of the lung allocation score (May 4, 2005 to May 3, 2006) were compared with those of patients receiving transplants the preceding year before the lung allocation score was implemented (May 4, 2004, to May 3, 2005). RESULTS: The study reports on 341 patients (170 before the lung allocation score and 171 after). Waiting time decreased from 680.9 +/- 528.3 days to 445.6 +/- 516.9 days (P < .001). Recipient diagnoses changed with an increase in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and a decrease in emphysema and cystic fibrosis (P = .002). Postoperatively, primary graft dysfunction increased from 14.1% (24/170) to 22.9% (39/171) (P = .04) and intensive care unit length of stay increased from 5.7 +/- 6.7 days to 7.8 +/- 9.6 days (P = .04). Hospital mortality and 1-year survival were the same between groups (5.3% vs 5.3% and 90% vs 89%, respectively; P > .6) CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter retrospective review of short-term outcomes supports the fact that the lung allocation score is achieving its objectives. The lung allocation score reduced waiting time and altered the distribution of lung diseases for which transplantation was done on the basis of medical necessity. After transplantation, recipients have significantly higher rates of primary graft dysfunction and intensive care unit lengths of stay. However, hospital mortality and 1-year survival have not been adversely affected.