Keole, Sameer R.

Abstract Background Craniopharyngioma is a histologically benign tumor of the suprasellar region for which survival is excellent but quality of life is often poor secondary to functional deficits from tumor and treatment. Standard therapy consists of maximal safe resection with or without radiation therapy. Few prospective trials have been performed, and response assessment has not been standardized. Methods The Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) committee devised consensus guidelines to assess craniopharyngioma response prospectively. Results Magnetic resonance imaging is the recommended radiologic modality for baseline and follow-up assessments. Radiologic response is defined by 2-dimensional measurements of both solid and cystic tumor components. In certain clinical contexts, response to solid and cystic disease may be differentially considered based on their unique natural histories and responses to treatment. Importantly, the committee incorporated functional endpoints related to neuro-endocrine and visual assessments into craniopharyngioma response definitions. In most circumstances, the cystic disease should be considered progressive only if growth is associated with acute, new-onset or progressive functional impairment. Conclusions Craniopharyngioma is a common pediatric central nervous system tumor for which standardized response parameters have not been defined. A RAPNO committee devised guidelines for craniopharyngioma assessment to uniformly define response in future prospective trials.

AbstractBackgroundThe objective of this study was to report acute changes in patient‐reported quality of life (PRQOL) using the 26‐item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC‐26) questionnaire in a prospective study using hypofractionated intensity‐modulated proton beam therapy (H‐IMPT) targeting the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes for high‐risk or unfavorable intermediate‐risk prostate cancer.MethodsFifty‐five patients were enrolled. H‐IMPT consisted of 45 GyE to the pelvic lymph nodes and 67.5 GyE to the prostate and seminal vesicles in 25 fractions. PRQOL was assessed with the urinary incontinence (UI), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and bowel function (BF) domains of EPIC‐26 questionnaire. Mean changes in domain scores were analyzed from pretreatment to the end of treatment and 3 months posttreatment. A clinically meaningful change (or minimum important change) was defined as a score change > 50% of the baseline standard deviation.ResultsThe mean scores of UO, UI, and BF at baseline were 84.6, 91.1, and 95.3, respectively. At the end of treatment, there were statistically significant and clinically meaningful declines in UO and BF scores (−13.5 and −2.3, respectively), while the decline in UI score was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful (−13.7). A clinically meaningful decline in UO, UI, and BF scores occurred in 53.5%, 22.7%, and 73.2% of the patients, respectively. At 3 months posttreatment, all three mean scores showed an improvement, with fewer patients having a clinically meaningful decline in UO, UI, and BF scores (18.4%, 20.5%, and 45.0%, respectively). There was no significant reduction in the mean UO and UI scores compared to baseline, although the mean BF score remained lower than baseline and the difference was clinically meaningful.ConclusionsUO, UI, and BF scores of PRQOL declined at the end of H‐IMPT. UO and UI scores showed improvement at 3 months posttreatment and were similar to the baseline scores. However, BF score remained lower at 3 months posttreatment with a clinically meaningful decline.

AbstractPurpose/ObjectivesHolmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is commonly performed in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction. However, there are few reports on the toxicity of external beam irradiation (RT) for prostate cancer in patients after prior HoLEP. In this study, we evaluate the side effects and treatment outcomes of RT after HoLEP.Materials/MethodsEighteen patients who had HoLEP and subsequently received RT for prostate cancer were included. Data collected included patient and disease characteristics, urinary function, and radiation dose. Acute and late urinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects were evaluated. Disease control and survival rates were calculated using Kaplan–Meier method.ResultsMedian follow‐up was 18 months (range: 4–46 months). Median prostate volume was 107 ml before HoLEP and 24 ml after HoLEP. Median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 17 (range: 5–32) before HoLEP. Median decline in IPSS score after HoLEP was 7 (range: −2–21). On uroflow study, peak flow rate, and post‐void residual were significantly improved after HoLEP. After radiation, peak flow rate and average flow rate showed a decline but remained significantly improved compared to pre‐HoLEP measurements. Maximum acute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) adverse events were 12 grade 1 and 3 grade 2 for GU, and 3 grade 1 for GI, respectively. Maximum late adverse events were 13 grade 1 and 2 grade 2 for GU, and all grade 0 for GI, respectively. At last follow‐up, there were 8 grade 1 and 1 grade 2 late GU, and 3 grade 1 late GI adverse events, respectively. There was no significant increase in urinary incontinence after RT compared to before RT. The 18‐month biochemical control, local control, distant control rates were 78%, 94%, and 80%, respectively.ConclusionsPatients who received RT as definitive treatment for prostate cancer after prior HoLEP had low risk of serious acute and late side effects. HoLEP can be safely performed and should be considered in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction and large prostate volume before RT.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Craniopharyngioma (CP) is a histologically benign tumor of the pituitary stalk that accounts for 4% of pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Given its location, CP often causes neuro-endocrine, hypothalamic, and vision dysfunction. Standard therapy consists of maximally safe resection +/- radiation therapy (RT). Medical management, including intra-cystic therapy, may have utility in certain contexts. Survival after CP is excellent, but quality of life is often poor secondary to functional deficits from the tumor and/or treatment. Few prospective CP trials have been performed, and response assessment has not been standardized. METHODS: The Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) committee, formed of international experts in relevant subspecialties, devised consensus guidelines from published literature and/or expert opinion to assess CP response in prospective clinical trials. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the recommended radiological modality for baseline and follow-up CP assessment. Computed tomography can be useful for identification of calcification in the initial diagnostic work-up. The committee defined specific standard MRI-based sequences focused on comprehensive evaluation of the suprasellar space. Radiologic CP response is defined by two-dimensional measurements of both solid and cystic tumor components. Three-dimensional measurements are also encouraged in prospective trials. In certain clinical contexts, response of solid and cystic disease may be differentially considered based on their unique natural histories and responses to treatment (including transient cyst growth during or after RT). Importantly, the committee incorporated functional endpoints related to neuro-endocrine and visual assessments into CP response definitions. In most circumstances, cystic disease should be considered progressive only if growth is associated with acute, new-onset or progressive functional impairment. CONCLUSION: CP is a common pediatric CNS tumor for which standardized response parameters have not been defined. A RAPNO committee devised guidelines for baseline and longitudinal assessments of CP to uniformly define response in future prospective trials.

Abstract Background Radium (Ra)‐223 is an established treatment option for patients with metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have symptomatic bone metastases without soft tissue disease. Studies have indicated genetic aberrations that regulate DNA damage response (DDR) in prostate cancer can increase susceptibility to treatments such as poly ADP‐ribose polymerase 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) and Tulane Cancer Center. Patient demographics, genetic aberrations, treatment responses in terms of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), and survival were assessed. Primary end points were ALP and PSA response. Secondary end points were progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from time of first radium treatment. Results One hundred and twenty‐seven mCRPC patients treated with Ra‐223 had germline and/or somatic genetic sequencing. The median age at time of diagnosis and Ra‐223 treatment was 61.0 and 68.6 years, respectively. Seventy‐nine (62.2%) had Gleason score ≥ 8 at time of diagnosis. 50.4% received prior docetaxel, and 12.6% received prior cabazitaxel. Notable alterations include TP53 (51.7%), BRCA 1/2 (15.0%), PTEN (13.4%), ATM (11.7%), TMPRSS2‐ERG (8.2%), RB deletion (3.4%), and CDK12 (1.9%). There was no significant difference in ALP or PSA response among the different genetic aberrations. Patients with a TMPRSS2‐ERG mutation exhibited a trend toward lower OS 15.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.0−NR) versus 26.8 months (95% CI 20.9−35.1). Patients with an RB deletion had a lower PFS 6.0 months (95% CI 1.28−NR) versus 9.0 months (95% CI 7.3−11.1) and a lower OS 13.9 months (95% CI 5.2−NR) versus 26.5 months (95% CI 19.8−33.8). Conclusions Among mCRPC patients treated with Ra‐223 at Mayo Clinic and Tulane Cancer Center, we did not find any clear negative predictors of biochemical response or survival to treatment. TMPRSS2‐ERG and RB mutations were associated with a worse OS. Prospective studies and larger sample sizes are needed to determine the impact of genetic aberrations in response to Ra‐223.

248 Background: Hypofractionated prostate cancer radiation has showed similar results in several prior phase III studies (PCG GU 003, PACE-B, and Hypo PC RT). However, prospective phase II-III clinical trial data testing 5 tx after prostatectomy is scarce. Methods: Between 2018 and 2019, 41 patients were treated after postprostatectomy for high risk features. 5 patients were treated adjuvantly, 36 for salvage including 8 with oligometastatic disease. Indications for adjuvant RT included a PSA < 0.2 and +margins, SVI, or EPE. Salvage RT was offered for PSA ≥0.2. Oligometastatic RT for patients with ≤5 RT targets. Staging included C11 PET for all cases. Total dose to the prostate bed was 30-32 Gy in 5tx QOD with IMRT, conebeam IGRT, and MRI registration. All salvage patients received ADT for 6 months and oligometastatic patients for 18 months. Dose to the metastatic sites was 30 in 5tx QOD. Of the 41 patients 8 also received SBRT to the sites of oligometastatic disease. We looked at clinical outcomes defining biochemical failure as a PSA > 0.2 after treatment, baseline adjusted CTC AE V5.0, baseline adjusted patient reported toxicities (PRO CTC AE), QOL (EPIC, PROMIS), and AUA was used for all cases. Results: Median follow up was 23 months (range 10-37). Pre-RT T stage was T2-T3b, with 47% being T3a-b; Pre RT Median PSA of 0.4 (range < 0.1-1.9); Median GS 8 (6-9); and (+) margins in 48.8%. Sites of oligometastatic disease radiated included the LN and bone. Treatment related AE were grade 0-1 in all cases, except for one patient with G2 GU incontinence. Overall QOL remained high during follow including Promis 10 overall, mental, and physical scores; urinary bother, irritative/obstructive, and AUA scores; bowel overall, bowel bother, and bowel function scores; and overall sexual, sexual function, and sexual bother scores remained at baseline levels during follow up. Only hormonal overall, hormonal function, and hormonal bother had lower scores at 3 months that recovered by 12 months in patients treated with ADT for 6 months and by 24 months in patients treated with ADT for 18 months. A total of 3 clinical failure have been seen; 2 patients with regional failures alone; and one with axial skeleton bony failures for 93% clinical control at median follow up of 23 months. All 3 patients with clinical failure were salvaged successfully with SBRT and all patients remain disease free at last follow up. A total 5 patients with raising PSAs alone have been seen. All patients have been re-staged with C11 PET. No failures in the prostate bed or previously radiated sites have been seen. Conclusions: Toxicity for RT over 5tx is lower than expected with only one case of grade 2 urinary incontinence. QOL scores remained high during follow up, minor changes in hormonal scores were seen during ADT, but recovered after. 30-32 Gy over 5 tx provided 100% control in radiated targets and metastatic sites. Clinical trial information: NCT03570827.

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.

Aim/Objectives/Background: The American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) have jointly developed the following practice parameter for proton beam radiation therapy. Proton radiotherapy is the application of a high-energy proton beam to a patient in a clinical setting with therapeutic intent. Proton radiotherapy may permit improved therapeutic ratios with lower doses to sensitive normal structures and greater dose to target tumor tissues. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify published articles regarding clinical outcomes, reviews, quality assurance methodologies, and guidelines and standards for proton radiation therapy. Selected articles are referenced in the text. The following recommendations are based on firsthand experiences of multiple clinical authorities who employ proton therapy and have been peer reviewed by experts at different practicing institutions. Results: This practice parameter is developed to serve as a tool in the appropriate application of this evolving technology in the care of cancer patients or other patients with conditions where radiation therapy is indicated. It addresses clinical implementation of proton radiation therapy, including personnel qualifications, quality assurance standards, indications, and suggested documentation. Conclusions: This practice parameter is a tool to guide technical use of proton therapy and does not assess the relative clinical indication of proton radiotherapy when compared with other forms of radiotherapy, but to focus on the best practices required to deliver proton therapy safely and effectively, when clinically indicated. Costs of proton treatments are high, and the economic costs of proton radiotherapy may also need to be considered.