Morris, Lindsay K.

In this study, we investigated whether radiomics features from pre-treatment positron emission tomography (PET) images could be used to predict disease progression in patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer treated with definitive proton or x-ray radiotherapy. Machine learning models were built using a dataset from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (n = 72) and tested on a dataset from Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona (n = 22). A total of 71 clinical and radiomics features were considered. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to identify the top 2 clinical and top 20 radiomics features that were significantly different between progression and progression-free patients. Two dimensionality reduction methods were used to define two feature sets (manually filtered or machine-driven). A forward feature selection scheme was conducted on each feature set to build models of increased complexity (number of input features from 1 to 6) and evaluate model robustness and overfitting. The machine-driven features had superior performance and were less prone to overfitting compared to the manually filtered features. The four-variable Gaussian Naïve Bayes model using the ‘Radiation Type’ clinical feature and three machine-driven features achieved a training accuracy of 79% and testing accuracy of 77%. These results demonstrate that radiomics features can provide risk stratification beyond HPV-status to formulate individualized treatment and follow-up strategies.

BackgroundPatients with high‐risk prostate cancer (HRPC) have multiple accepted treatment options. Because there is no overall survival benefit of one option over another, appropriate treatment must consider patient life expectancy, quality of life, and cost.MethodsThe authors compared quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost effectiveness among treatment options for HRPC using a Markov model with three treatment arms: (1) external‐beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivered with 20 fractions, (2) EBRT with 23 fractions followed by low‐dose‐rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost, or (3) radical prostatectomy alone. An exploratory analysis considered a simultaneous integrated boost according to the FLAME trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01168479).ResultsTreatment strategies were compared using the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER). EBRT with LDR brachytherapy boost was a cost‐effective strategy (ICER, $20,929 per QALY gained). These results were most sensitive to variations in the biochemical failure rate. However, the results still demonstrated cost effectiveness for the brachytherapy boost paradigm, regardless of any tested parameter ranges. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBRT with LDR brachytherapy was favored in 52% of 100,000 Monte Carlo iterations. In an exploratory analysis, EBRT with a simultaneous integrated boost was also a cost‐effective strategy, resulting in an ICER of $62,607 per QALY gained; however, it was not cost effective compared with EBRT plus LDR brachytherapy boost.ConclusionsEBRT with LDR brachytherapy boost may be a cost‐effective treatment strategy compared with EBRT alone and radical prostatectomy for HRPC, demonstrating high‐value care. The current analysis suggests that a reduction in biochemical failure alone can result in cost‐effective care, despite no change in overall survival.

Abstract BACKGROUND Intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) demonstrates superior dose distribution over volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for sparing organs‐at‐risk (OARs) in ipsilateral radiotherapy. To determine a clinical benefit, assessment of patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) and physician‐reported toxicities alongside a dosimetric analysis is needed. METHODS Plans were analyzed for dosimetric differences. PROs were compared for patients undergoing ipsilateral curative‐intent radiotherapy for tonsil and salivary gland cancers with VMAT or IMPT from 2015 to 2020. Physician‐reported toxicities were compared. RESULTS In 40 patients, IMPT was associated with decreased dose to multiple OARs and less deterioration in the following PROs: pain, swallowing function, dry mouth, sticky saliva, sensory change, cough, speech, feeling ill, and social eating. Physician‐reported toxicities demonstrated less oral pain. CONCLUSION IMPT is associated with decreased dose to OARs and less patient‐reported acute deterioration in multiple head and neck domains. A strong consideration for IMPT in ipsilateral head and neck patients with cancer is warranted.