Wong, William W.

Aim/Objectives/Background: The goal of therapy with unsealed radiopharmaceutical sources is to provide either cure or significant prolongation of disease-specific survival, and effective reduction and/or prevention of adverse disease-related symptoms or untoward events while minimizing treatment-associated side effects and complications. Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is an alpha particle–emitting isotope used for targeted bone therapy. This practice parameter is intended to guide appropriately trained and licensed physicians performing therapy with radium-223. Such therapy requires close cooperation and communication between the physicians who are responsible for the clinical management of the patient and those who administer radiopharmaceutical therapy and manage the attendant side effects. Adherence to this parameter should help to maximize the efficacious use of radium-223, maintain safe conditions, and ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Methods: This practice parameter was developed according to the process described on the American College of Radiology (ACR) website (“The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards,” www.acr.org/ClinicalResources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the American College of Nuclear Medicine (ACNM), the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI). All these societies contributed to the development of the practice parameter and approved the final document. Results: This practice parameter addresses the many factors which contribute to appropriate, safe, and effective clinical use of radium-223. Topics addressed include qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, specifications of patient examination and treatment; documentation, radiation safety, quality control/improvement, infection control, and patient education. Conclusions: This practice parameter is intended as a tool to guide clinical use of radium-223 with the goal of facilitating safe and effective medical care based on current knowledge, available resources and patient needs. The sole purpose of this document is to assist practitioners in achieving this objective.

e17587 Background: Radium (Ra)-223 has become the cornerstone treatment in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with bone metastases. Ra-223 has been shown to suppress abnormal bone formation by inducing DNA double-strand breaks in tumor cells. This can reduce skeletal-related events, as well as improve survival and quality of life. Studies have indicated mutations that regulate DNA damage response in prostate cancer as susceptible to PARP inhibitors and platinum-based therapies. This study aims to evaluate mCRPC response to Ra-223 stratified by tumor genomics. Methods: This is a retrospective study of mCRPC patients who received Ra-223 and genetic testing within the Mayo Clinic database (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota). Patient demographics, genetic mutations, treatment responses in terms of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and survival were assessed. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from time of first radium treatment. Results: 239 mCRPC patients treated with Ra-223 were identified. Germline and/or somatic genetic sequencing was available in 50 patients, who had a median age of 61 years at time of diagnosis and 68 years at time of Ra-223 treatment. Median Gleason score at time of diagnosis was 8.0. 100% of patients received prior androgen deprivation therapy. 72% received prior docetaxel, and 18% received prior cabazitaxel. Notable mutations included TP53 (45.2%), TMPRSS2-ERG (28.6%), PTEN (26.2%), BRCA1/2 (14.3%), ATM (9.3%), CDK12 (7.1%), and Rb (4.9%). TMPRSS2-ERG was the second most commonly found mutation, with median OS 12.7 mo versus 15.4 mo in patients without TMPRSS2-ERG mutations (p = 0.099). In patients with CDK12 mutations (2 of 28 tested positive), PFS was 10.4 mo versus 5.6 mo in patients without CDK12 mutations (p = 0.157). The assessment of ALP and PSA response to radium treatment stratified by genetic mutation did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Among mCRPC patients treated with Ra-223 at Mayo Clinic, TMPRSS2-ERG was the second most commonly found genetic mutation and had observed worse survival outcomes that approached statistical significance. Prospective studies and increased sample sizes are needed to determine the impact of genetic mutations in response to Ra-223.

6108 Background: This pilot study evaluated whether providing clinicians with patient(pt) QOL results and symptom management pathways linked to QOL domains at the time of clinical appointment would result in improvement in QOL and treatment (tx) satisfaction. The objective was to obtain preliminary effect size estimates and logistical evidence for design of a larger, definitive trial. Methods: Oncology pts receiving 5-7 weeks of radiotherapy (RT) electronically completed QOL assessments (LASA) at baseline and biweekly prior to seeing clinicians. Was It Worth It (WIWI) and Interpersonal Patient-Provider Relationship (IPPRS) were measured at tx end. Pt endpoints (pro-rated primary endpoint LASA area under the curve (AUC), LASA changes from baseline, and WIWI responses) and clinician endpoints (IPPRS) were compared between the control group (Phase 1: no QOL feedback) and the intervention group (Phase 2: QOL feedback) via Wilcoxon, Chi-square and Fisher Exact tests. There was 80% power to detect a 10 point difference in average AUC. Results: 148 pts enrolled (79 Phase 1, 69 Phase 2) from 11/28/2008 to 09/20/2011 (sites GI (27%), Lung (22%) and Head and Neck (52%)). 68% received RT and chemo. There were consistently moderate effect sizes observed but no statistically significant differences in any AUC nor end of tx change from baseline scores. 20% fewer pts in phase 2 reported clinical deficits in overall QOL (pain). In pts receiving 7 weeks of RT, end of tx average overall QOL, mental well-being (WB), physical WB and pain severity were significantly better in Phase 2 pts. WIWI results showed 76% found participation worthwhile, 95% would participate again, and 92% would recommend the study to others. No differences between groups were found in communication between clinicians and pts (IPPRS). Conclusions: Preliminary estimates indicate potentially clinically significant improvements of moderate effect size in mental and physical WB and pain severity when clinicians received QOL real time with symptom management pathways. Further study is warranted in larger trial setting.

5023 Background: Skeletal-related events (SREs) drive morbidity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In the ALSYMPCA study, Radium-223 (Ra223) was found to palliate pain in addition to prolonging survival and reducing SREs. Earlier onset of pain relief was noted when zoledronic acid (ZA) was administered within 24-48 hours of samarium; we evaluated whether the timing of bone supportive therapy (BST) affected pain palliation fromRa223. Methods: We identified patients who received Ra223 at University of Southern California or Mayo Clinic Arizona. Data extracted: Ra223 administration dates, pain scores, pain medications, ZA or denosumab administration dates, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels, prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, and concurrent prostate cancer therapy. Patients were evaluable for pain response if they had at least 2 pain scores documented before and after Ra223 with pain medication use data. Pain response was defined as > 2 point decrease in pain on a 10 point scale; flare was defined as > 2 point increase followed by return to baseline or lower. Results: Of 65 patients, 20 had baseline pain score > 0 and 34 were evaluable. Median #doses Ra223 was 5 (range 2-6). 18 patients received concurrent abiraterone (abi) or enzalutamide (enza), 16 did not. Pain response occurred in 6/6 (100%) patients who received BST within 1 month prior to first Ra223 dose and 4/8 (50%) patients who did not receive BST. Pain flare occurred in 6/21 patients (29%) without BST and 2/13 (15%) with BST. 6/10 (60%) patients with pain response had ALP decline but there was no consistent pattern of ALP changes in patients with flare. 8/8 patients with pain response had no PSA decline (6 increased, 2 stable). 6/12 (50%) and 2/22 (9%) patients on abi/enza had pain response and flare respectively, and 4/8 (50%) and 6/19 (32%) patients without concurrent abi/enza had response/flare. Conclusions: BST within 1 month prior to first Ra223 may be associated with increased likelihood of pain palliation and may prevent pain flare. PSA/ALP changes do not predict pain response. Concurrent use of abi/enza does not increase the likelihood of pain response and may decrease the likelihood of flare.

Purpose We propose a robust treatment planning model that simultaneously considers proton range and patient setup uncertainties and reduces high linear energy transfer (LET) exposure in organs at risk (OARs) to minimize the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) dose in OARs for intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Our method could potentially reduce the unwanted damage to OARs. Methods We retrospectively generated plans for 10 patients including two prostate, four head and neck, and four lung cancer patients. The “worst‐case robust optimization” model was applied. One additional term as a “biological surrogate (BS)” of OARs due to the high LET‐related biological effects was added in the objective function. The biological surrogate was defined as the sum of the physical dose and extra biological effects caused by the dose‐averaged LET. We generated nine uncertainty scenarios that considered proton range and patient setup uncertainty. Corresponding to each uncertainty scenario, LET was obtained by a fast LET calculation method developed in‐house and based on Monte Carlo simulations. In each optimization iteration, the model used the worst‐case BS among all scenarios and then penalized overly high BS to organs. The model was solved by an efficient algorithm (limited‐memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno) in a parallel computing environment. Our new model was benchmarked with the conventional robust planning model without considering BS. Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the dose assuming a fixed RBE of 1.1 and BS for tumor and organs under nominal and uncertainty scenarios were compared to assess the plan quality between the two methods. Results For the 10 cases, our model outperformed the conventional robust model in avoidance of high LET in OARs. At the same time, our method could achieve dose distributions and plan robustness of tumors assuming a fixed RBE of 1.1 almost the same as those of the conventional robust model. Conclusions Explicitly considering LET in IMPT robust treatment planning can reduce the high LET to OARs and minimize the possible toxicity of high RBE dose to OARs without sacrificing plan quality. We believe this will allow one to design and deliver safer proton therapy.

AbstractThis work is to show which is more relevant to cause local failures (LFs) due to patient setup uncertainty between the planning target volume (PTV) underdosage and the potential target underdosage subject to patient setup uncertainties in head and neck (H&N) cancer treated with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Thirteen LFs in 10 H&N patients treated by VMAT were analyzed. Measures have been taken to minimize the chances of insufficient target delineation for these patients and the patients were clinically determined to have LF based on the PET/CT scan results by an experienced radiologist and then reviewed by a second experienced radiation oncologist. Two methods were used to identify the possible locations of LF due to underdosage: (a) examining the standard VMAT plan, in which the underdosed volume in the nominal dose distribution (UVN) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses from PTVs, and (b) plan robustness analysis, in which in addition to the nominal dose distribution, six perturbed dose distributions were created by translating the CT iso‐center in three cardinal directions by the PTV margin. The coldest dose distribution was represented by the minimum of the seven doses in each voxel. The underdosed volume in the coldest dose distribution (UVC) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the coldest dose distribution from the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the nominal dose distribution. UVN and UVC were subsequently examined for spatial association with the locations of LF. The association was tested using the binominal distribution and the Fisher's exact test of independence. We found that of 13 LFs, 11 were associated with UVCs (P = 0.011), while three were associated with UVNs (P = 0.99). We concluded that the possible target underdosage due to patient setup uncertainties appeared to be a more relevant factor associated with LF in VMAT for H&N cancer than the compromised PTV coverage at least for the patients included in this study.

442 Background: For patients with advanced or locally recurrent (LR) renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the role of intra-operative radiation therapy (IORT) remains controversial. We analyzed outcomes in a multi-institutional cohort of patients with RCC who received IORT. Methods: Between 1985 and 2010, 98 patients were treated with IORT for advanced or LR RCC at 9 institutions. We collected demographic, clinical, treatment, and outcomes data for all patients. Overall (OS), disease specific (DSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate Cox hazards regression was used to test significance. Results: IORT was delivered at nephrectomy for advanced disease (28%) or during resection of LR RCC in the renal fossa (72%). 69% of patients were male and mean age at RCC diagnosis was 57. At initial nephrectomy, primary T-stage was 17% T1, 12% T2, 55% T3, and 16% T4. Prior to IORT, 87% had visibly complete surgical resection of tumor. Mean IORT dose delivered was 14.7Gy (range 9-20Gy). Average post-op hospitalization was 10.7 days. Median follow-up after IORT was 1.6 years. OS at 1 and 5 years after IORT was 69% and 37% for advanced patients and 94% and 55% for LR patients, respectively. DFS at 1 and 5 years was 72% and 39% for advanced patients and 96% and 52% for LR patients, respectively. DSS at 1 and 5 years was 72% and 41% for advanced patients and 96% and 60% for LR patients, respectively. For the entire cohort, higher IORT dose (HR 1.3, p < 0.001), positive initial node status (HR 2.9-3.6, p < 0.01), and presence of sarcomatoid features (HR 3.7-6.9, p < 0.05) had a significant association with decreased OS, DFS and DSS. Patients who received adjuvant systemic therapy after IORT showed decreased DSS (HR 2.4, p = 0.03). When analyzing LR tumors alone, positive margin (HR 2.6, p = 0.01) was associated with decreased OS. Conclusions: We report on the largest known cohort of patients with RCC managed with IORT and we have identified factors associated with survival. Outcomes in our cohort with LR RCC treated with local resection and IORT compare favorably to similar groups treated with resection alone suggesting improved DSS may be possible with IORT.