Stish, Bradley J.

PURPOSE Hot flashes are a common side effect reported by men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. We sought to determine whether oxybutynin could improve hot flash symptoms in men with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with prostate cancer receiving a stable regimen of ADT with at least 28 hot flashes per week were randomly assigned to receive either oxybutynin 2.5 mg twice daily, oxybutynin 5 mg twice daily, or matching placebo for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the change in patient-reported hot flash scores since baseline at 6 weeks. Additional outcomes included incidence of adverse events (AEs), changes since baseline in Hot Flash–Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS) scores, and patient-reported symptoms. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients were enrolled, with the 81 participants eligible for final analysis reporting an average of 10.1 (standard deviation [SD], 5.55) hot flashes per day and an average daily hot flash score of 18.2 (SD, 13.5) included in final analysis. On average, patients on the placebo arm, 2.5 mg oxybutynin arm, and 5 mg oxybutynin arm had reductions in hot flashes/day of 2.15, 4.77 ( P = .02), and 6.89 ( P < .001), respectively. Daily hot flash scores for placebo, 2.5 mg oxybutynin, and 5 mg oxybutynin reduced by an average of 4.85, 9.94 ( P = .07), and 13.95 ( P = .002) points, respectively. No treatment-related grade 3+ AEs occurred. HFRDIS total scores improved by 14.2 and 20.7 points in the 2.5 mg ( P = .042) and 5 mg ( P < .01) oxybutynin arms, respectively, compared with a 3.1-point improvement with placebo. CONCLUSION Oxybutynin is superior to a placebo for the management of ADT-associated hot flashes in men with prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT Purpose The natural history of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains understudied, with limited long‐term data from large cohorts inclusive of both salvage radiotherapy (SRT)‐treated and untreated patients. Herein, we sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with BCR and the impact of SRT on disease progression. Materials and Methods Patients undergoing RP who developed BCR (PSA ≥ 0.20 ng/mL) were included. Patients with BCR treated with SRT were compared to untreated patients using risk‐set matching with time‐dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was metastases, analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox models. The number needed to treat (NNT) with SRT to prevent progression was derived at 5 and 15 years. Results Among 6881 patients with BCR, 2109 received SRT. At a median follow‐up of 10.2 years, 1147 patients developed metastases. The median PSA at the time of SRT was 0.50 ng/mL. After 1:1 propensity score matching (2109 patients per cohort), SRT significantly reduced the risk of metastases at 5 (12.7% vs. 19.3%, p < 0.0001) and 15 years (28.6% vs. 31.5%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, SRT independently reduced metastasis risk (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.90, p = 0.002), translating to NNT of 23 and 15 at 5 and 15 years, respectively. Interaction analyses between SRT and nodal status ( p = 0.04) showed greater metastasis risk reduction in pN+ (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22–0.77, p = 0.005) compared to pN− disease (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67–0.97, p = 0.02). Conclusions Most patients with BCR post‐RP do not progress to metastasis. For those who do progress, SRT inarguably improves the oncologic outcomes in the BCR setting. However, careful patient selection and shared decision making should be encouraged in order to limit overtreatment and side effects.

PURPOSE Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) without androgen deprivation therapy for oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (omCSPC). Most patients with bone metastatic (BM) omCSPC recur with additional bone disease after MDT. We hypothesized the BM-targeting alpha-emitter radium-223 dichloride (Ra223) could target subclinical bone disease and delay progression. METHODS This is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label phase II RCT. Eligible men with recurrent omCSPC with ≥one bone metastasis (≤three on conventional imaging and/or ≤five on molecular imaging) were randomly assigned (1:1) to stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR) MDT alone or SABR MDT with Ra223 (six cycles). Primary end point was composite PFS. RESULTS From August 9, 2019, to March 2, 2023, 64 patients were randomly assigned, 33 to SABR MDT and 31 to SABR MDT/Ra223 balancing for key covariates. Most SABR MDT/Ra223 patients (87%) received six cycles of Ra223. The median PFS was 11.8 months with SABR MDT and 10.5 months with SABR MDT/Ra223 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.42 [95% CI, 0.79 to 2.56]; P = .24). Seven patients (11%) experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (no grade 4 or 5), 2 of 33 (6%) with SABR and 5 of 30 (17%) with SABR MDT/Ra223. Patients with high-risk (HiRi) pathogenic mutations in ATM , BRCA1/2 , RB1 , or TP53 had worse PFS (HR, 5.95 [95% CI, 1.83 to 19.3]; P = .003). Greater T-cell receptor (TCR) unique productive rearrangements were prognostic for improved PFS independent of the treatment arm (aHR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.96]; P = .04). CONCLUSION Adding Ra223 to SABR MDT in BM omCSPC does not delay progression of disease. We provide evidence for an HiRi mutational signature and TCR repertoire as prognostic biomarkers in omCSPC treated with SABR MDT, highlighting the importance of collecting biological correlates in RCTs for omCSPC.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare long-term patient-reported outcomes in bowel and urinary domains between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Patients with clinical T1–T2 prostate cancer receiving IMRT or IMPT at a tertiary cancer center from 2015–2018 were analyzed to determine the changes in the prospectively collected bowel function (BF), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and urinary incontinence (UI) domains of EPIC-26. The mean changes in EPIC-26 scores were evaluated from pretreatment to 24 months post-radiotherapy for each modality. A score change >50% of the baseline standard deviation was considered a clinically meaningful change. Results: A total of 82 patients treated with IMRT (52.2%) and 56 patients treated with IMPT (53.3%) completed the questionnaire at baseline and 24 months post-RT. There were no baseline differences in domain scores between treatment modalities. At 24 months post-radiotherapy, there was a significant and clinically meaningful decline in the BF mean score in the IMRT cohort (−4.52 (range −50, 29.17), p = 0.003), whereas the decline in BF score did not reach clinical relevance or significance (−1.88 (range −37.5, 50), p = 0.046) when accounting for the Bonferroni adjustment in the IMPT cohort. A higher proportion of patients treated with IMRT had a clinically relevant reduction in BF when compared with IMPT (47.37% vs. 25.93%, p = 0.017). The mean changes in the UI and UO scores of the IMRT and IMPT cohorts were neither statically significant nor clinically relevant. Conclusions: IMPT leads to a smaller decrease in BF than IMRT at 24 months post-RT, while there was no differential effect on UO and UI.

Radiologists play a key role in the management of renal masses, and it is important to understand the nonsurgical treatment options for solid renal masses, typical imaging findings after treatment, common complications, and methods to avoid pitfalls.

Abstract Unirradiated patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who undergo anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) have a predominant localized pattern of relapse, the significance of which is heightened in individuals with limited/localized disease before CART. This study reports on the outcomes of patients with R/R NHL and limited (&lt;5 involved sites) disease bridged with or without radiotherapy. A multicenter retrospective review of 150 patients with R/R NHL who received CART with &lt;5 disease sites before leukapheresis was performed. Bridging treatment, if any, was administered between leukapheresis and CART infusion. Study end points included relapse-free survival (RFS), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival. Before CART infusion, 48 patients (32%) received bridging radiotherapy (BRT), and 102 (68%) did not. The median follow-up was 21 months. After CART infusion, BRT patients had higher objective response (92% vs 78%; P = .046) and sustained complete response rates (54% vs 33%; P = .015). Local relapse in sites present before CART was lower in the BRT group (21% vs 46%; P = .003). BRT patients had improved 2-year RFS (53% vs 44%; P = .023) and 2-year EFS (37% vs 34%; P = .039) compared with patients who did not receive BRT. The impact of BRT was most prominent in patients who had ≤2 pre-CART involved disease sites, with 2-year RFS of 62% in patients who received BRT compared with 42% in those who did not (P = .002). BRT before CART for patients with limited (&lt;5 involved disease sites) R/R NHL improves response rate, local control, RFS, and EFS without causing significant toxicities.

Prostate cancer lung metastasis represents a clinical conundrum due to its implications for advanced disease progression and the complexities it introduces in treatment planning. As the disease progresses to distant sites such as the lung, the clinical management becomes increasingly intricate, requiring tailored therapeutic strategies to address the unique characteristics of metastatic lesions. This review seeks to synthesize the current state of knowledge surrounding prostate cancer metastasis to the lung, shedding light on the diverse array of clinical presentations encountered, ranging from subtle radiological findings to overt symptomatic manifestations. By examining the diagnostic modalities utilized in identifying this metastasis, including advanced imaging techniques and histopathological analyses, this review aims to provide insights into the diagnostic landscape and the challenges associated with accurately characterizing lung metastatic lesions in prostate cancer patients. Moreover, this review delves into the nuances of therapeutic interventions employed in managing prostate cancer lung metastasis, encompassing systemic treatments such as hormonal therapies and chemotherapy, as well as metastasis-directed therapies including surgery and radiotherapy.

AbstractBackgroundHigh dose rate brachytherapy is commonly used in the treatment of prostate cancer. Treatment planning is often performed under transrectal ultrasound (US) guidance, but brachytherapy needles can be challenging to digitize due to the presence of poor US conspicuity and imaging artifacts. The plan accuracy and quality, however, are dependent on the proper visualization of the needles with millimeter accuracy.PurposeThis work describes a technique for generating a color overlay of needle locations atop the grayscale US image. Prototype devices were developed to produce vibrations in the brachytherapy needles that generate a high contrast color Doppler (CD) signal that highlights the needle locations with superior contrast and reduced artifacts. Denoted by the acronym color VISION (Vibrationally Induced Shimmering for Identifying an Object's Nature), the technology has the potential to improve applicator conspicuity and facilitate automated applicator digitization.MethodsThree prototype vibrational devices with frequencies between 200–450 Hz were designed in‐house and evaluated with needle implants in a phantom and cadaveric male pelvis using: (1) an actuator attached to the front of a prostate needle template; (2) an actuator attached to the top of the needle template; and (3) a hand‐held actuator with a stylet, inserted directly into a needle's inner lumen. Acquired images were postprocessed in MATLAB to evaluate the potential for automated digitization.ResultsAll prototype devices produced localized shimmering in implanted brachytherapy needles in both the axial and sagittal planes. The template mounted actuators provided better vibrational coupling and ease of operation than the stylet prototype. The Michelson contrast, or visibility, of the shimmering CD signal was 100% compared with ≤40% for B‐mode imaging of a single needle. Proof‐of‐principle for automated applicator digitization using only the CD signal was demonstrated.ConclusionsThe color VISION prototype devices successfully coupled mechanical vibrations into brachytherapy needles to generate US CD shimmering and accurately highlight brachytherapy needle locations. The high contrast and natively registered signal are promising for future work to automate the needle digitization and provide a real‐time visual overlay of the applicator on the B‐mode US image.

Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated remarkable response rates in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Still, most patients eventually progress. Patterns of progression after ICIs are not well described and are essential to defining the role of local therapies in combination with ICIs. We identified patients who received ICIs for HL between 2013 and 2022. Fludeoxyglucose-18 positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) before initiating ICI and at progression on/after ICI were reviewed, and areas of active HL were recorded. An exploratory analysis of treatable progression included patients with ≤5 sites of disease on pre-ICI FDG-PET and progression only at pre-ICI sites. Ninety patients were identified; 69 had complete records, and of these, 32 (52%) had relapsed at ICI initiation, 17 (25%) were refractory, and 16 (23%) received ICI as first-line therapy. Forty-five of 69 patients had ≤5 sites of disease (limited) on pre-ICI FDG-PET. Patients with &gt;5 sites of disease had a higher risk of progression, and every site of disease &gt;5 sites conferred an additional 1.2x higher chance of progression. At a median follow-up of 4.0 years, 41 of 69 patients had progressed on/after ICIs (cumulative incidence 66.4%), and of these, 22 of 41 patients progressed only at pre-ICI sites (cumulative incidence 39.4%). In an exploratory analysis, the cumulative incidence of a treatable progression among 45 patients with limited disease was 34%. The cumulative incidence of any progression among this cohort was 58.9%. More than one-third of patients with limited disease before ICIs experienced progression only at pre-ICI sites of disease. These patients could be candidates for radiation during or after ICIs.

AbstractBackgroundWe sought to characterize and compare late patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC).MethodsThis multi‐institutional analysis included low‐ or intermediate‐risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient‐reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction.Results287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096).ConclusionsThis multi‐institutional analysis of low‐ or intermediate‐risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient‐reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.