Bekelman, Justin E.

Abstract Objectives: In the RadComp randomized trial, we compared radiation dose to cardiac substructures in patients treated with proton versus photon radiation therapy (RT) ; evaluated changes in cardiac-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes from baseline to 6 months following RT; and determined associations between radiation dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters and changes in cardiac-specific HRQOL. Methods: The study cohort included patients with locally advanced breast cancer enrolled on RadComp who completed treatment per protocol, had available radiation DVH metrics for all cardiac substructures, and completed both the baseline and at least one follow-up cardiac-specific HRQOL over the 6 months post-RT. Cardiac-specific HRQOL measures included PROMIS fatigue, PRO-CTCAE shortness of breath (SOB) (severity and interference with daily activities), and PRO-CTCAE chest pain, chest tightness, and angina (frequency, severity, and interference). Detailed dose volume histograms (DVH) for cardiac substructures included the whole heart, left ventricle (LV), right ventricle (RV), left atrium (LA), right atrium (RA), and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were derived. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare dose distributions between photon and proton RT. Associations between DVH metrics and HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using repeated-measures linear regression via generalized estimating equations with an independent working correlation structure. All models were adjusted for RT type, age, cardiovascular risk factors, surgery type, laterality, ethnicity, education, timepoint, and race. Additional stratified analyses was performed according to laterality (right versus left + bilateral). Results: Across 1160 RadComp participants, RT exposure to cardiac substructures differed significantly between proton and photon RT and by laterality. Median mean heart dose was lower with protons, 0.9 Gy (Q1, Q3 0.49, 1.46), compared to photons 2.83 Gy (Q1, Q3 1.49, 4.52) (p< 0.001), and lower for right-sided disease, 0.91 Gy (Q1, Q3 0.44, 1.55), compared to left and bilateral 1.99 Gy (Q1, Q3 1.11, 3.63) (p<0.001). Similarly, for the LAD, LA, LV, and RA, mean proton dose was significantly lower (p<0.001). However, for the whole heart, RA, and RV, maximum doses to small-volume parameters and dose to 0.03cc were higher with proton RT. PRO-CTCAE measures of HRQOL were generally favorable at all timepoints across all participants, and grade ≥3 toxicity was rare (≤5.5%) for all measures. The PROMIS Fatigue T-Score increased from baseline (median 49 [Q1, Q3 46, 57]) to end of RT (55 [Q1, Q3 49, 63]), and returned to baseline levels at 6 months (p<0.001). While there were no significant differences in PRO-CTCAE SOB severity (p=0.24) and interference (p=0.11) over time, PRO-CTCAE chest pain worsened compared to pre-RT with respect to frequency (p<0.001), severity (p<0.001), and interference (p=0.008). However, the absolute changes were small. No DVH metrics were significantly associated with any cardiac-specific HRQOL outcomes. Stratification by laterality yielded similar results. Conclusions: Proton RT generally conferred significantly lower doses to the heart and cardiac substructures compared to photon RT. HRQOL outcomes were favorable across all participants, with fatigue returning to baseline, no change in SOB parameters, and a slight worsening of chest pain outcomes over 6 months following RT. Cardiac-specific HRQOLs appear not to be significantly affected by RT dose to cardiac substructures within the first 6 months post-RT. Other organs at risk that could also impact cardiac HRQOL endpoints, longer follow-up, and major cardiac events will be evaluated in future analyses. Citation Format: J. L. Wright, K. Ko, W. Kenworthy, W. Bosch, L. Braunstein, G. Freedman, E. Gillespie, R. Jimenez, S. Pugh, H. Lu, M. Pankuch, N. Remmes, W. Straube, W. Zou, E. Berlin, L. Fang, S. MacDonald, N. Taunk, J. Kim, A. Thukral, A. Taghian, M. Mishra, R. Mutter, V. Croog, D. Boggs, J. Urbanic, N. Ohri, A. Chawla, T. Meier, L. Rosen, M. Fegundes, O. Cahlon, K. Hoffman, A. Ferriozzi, J. Bekelman, A. Lin, B. Ky. Associations Between Cardiac Radiation Dose Volume Metrics and Cardiac Specific Health Related Quality of Life for Patients with Breast Cancer Randomized to Proton versus Photon Radiation on the RadComp Trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr RF6-04.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel’s discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

2022 Background: Studies have suggested superior outcomes for patients with cancer treated at National Cancer Institute (NCI) and academic hospitals, leading some to advocate for complex cancer care to be delivered at regional referral centers. However, growing demand at such centers may exceed their capacity to provide timely treatment, which could be detrimental to patient outcomes. We evaluated the relationship between hospital type, the average annual growth rate in patient volume (PV), and time to treatment initiation (TTI) trends. Methods: We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing initial treatment for a new diagnosis of cancer (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, melanoma, bladder, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, renal, uterine or pancreatic) in 2007-2016. The exposure was hospital type (NCI, academic, community or integrated network). The primary outcome was TTI over time. We estimated both the average annual growth rate for PV and adjusted TTI trends by hospital type using linear mixed effects models, including a hospital type-by-time interaction and, when modeling TTI, a patient volume-by-time interaction. Results: We identified 4,218,577 patients treated at 1351 hospitals (49% at 897 community, 23% at 177 academic, 14% at 50 NCI and 14% at 227 integrated network hospitals). Over the study period, PV grew by 40% at NCI and 25% at academic hospitals, compared to 8% at community hospitals (p-value for trend both < 0.001). Meanwhile, mean TTI increased by 3.2 days at community, remained stable at academic (+0.3 days) and decreased by 4.3 days at NCI hospitals (p-value for trend both < 0.001 vs community). A higher annual PV growth rate was associated with a statistically but not clinically significant TTI increase (0.05 days for each 100 patient/year increase in the growth rate, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with newly diagnosed cancer are increasingly receiving treatment at NCI and academic hospitals. While TTI at NCI and academic hospitals is longer than in the community, PV growth has been possible without delaying cancer treatment. Further study is needed to determine whether continued growth at this rate is sustainable. [Table: see text]

Purpose In April 2017, the American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology released a joint evidence-based practice guideline on clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline except for two recommendations on cryosurgery. The two recommendations covering cryosurgery were not endorsed because the panel found that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of cryotherapy in this setting. Recommendations The ASCO Expert Panel endorsed all but two of the original guideline recommendations as written and offered a series of discussion points to guide practice.

Objective To test the association between hospital type and performance of candidate quality measures for treatment of muscle‐invasive bladder cancer ( MIBC ) using a large national tumour registry. Proposed quality measures include receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, timely treatment, adequate lymph node dissection, and continent urinary diversion. Patients and Methods Using the N ational C ancer D atabase, patients with stage ≥ II urothelial carcinoma treated with radical cystectomy ( RC ) from 2003 to 2010 were identified. Hospitals were grouped by type and annual RC volume: community, comprehensive low volume ( CLV ), comprehensive high volume ( CHV ), academic low volume ( ALV ), and academic high volume ( AHV ) groups. Logistic regression models were used to test the association between hospital group and performance of quality measures, adjusting for year, demographic, and clinical/pathological characteristics; generalised estimating equations were fitted to the models to adjust for clustering at the hospital level. Results In all, 23 279 patients underwent RC at community (12.4%), comprehensive ( CLV 38%, CHV 5%), and academic ( ALV 17%, AHV 28%) hospitals. While only 0.8% (175) of patients met all four quality criteria, 61% of patients treated at AHV hospitals met two or more quality metric indicators compared with ALV (45%), CHV (44%), CLV (38%), and community (37%) hospitals ( P < 0.001). After adjustment, patients were more likely to receive two or more quality measures when treated at AHV (odds ratio [ OR ] 2.4, confidence interval [ CI ] 2.0–2.9), ALV ( OR 1.3, CI 1.1–1.6), and CHV ( OR 1.3, CI 1.03–1.7) hospitals compared with community hospitals. Conclusions Patients undergoing RC at AHV hospitals were more likely to meet quality criteria. However, performance remains low across hospital types, highlighting the opportunity to improve quality of care for MIBC .