Vargas, Carlos

513 Background: The PCG registry is a multicenter registry for patients receiving proton therapy for various malignancies. The current abstract reviews the outcomes for patients receiving postoperative proton therapy for resected pancreatic cancer. Methods: From March, 2013 to August,2016 18 patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma received postoperative proton therapy. The current study reviews the pretreatment characteristics and outcomes of these patients. Results: Median age -70 years (range 52 to 79); Males 12, Females 6; pT Stage -T2–4, T3–13, T4–1; N Stage -N1–12, N0–6; Margin Status -Close-8, Positive-4, Negative-6; Surgical approach -open-16, laparoscopic 2; Operations performed: standard pancreaticoduodenectomy-11, pylorus sparing pancreaticoduodenectomy-4, total pancreatectomy-1; Pancreaticoduodenectomy with portal vein reconstruction –1; Pancreaticoduodenectomy with irreversible electroporation. Median lymph nodes taken-16.50 (range 3 to 72); Median lymph nodes positive-1.5 (range 0 to 7); PNI positive-9, PNI negative-2, PNI unknown-4; LVI positive-7, LVI negative-6, LVI unknown-5; Median tumor size –3.1cm (range 2.2 to 6.2); Median dose delivered –50.51Gy(RBE) (range 27.88 to 54.00); Median treatment duration –38 calendar days (range 25 to 48); One patient died during treatment. One additional patient demonstrated grade 3 toxicity (anorexia, nausea, diarrhea). Only one patient’s treatment was protracted by more than 5 days. Median available follow up is 1.1 years (range 0.07 to 3.4 years); 2 year survival 37%. Conclusions: Postoperative proton therapy after pancreatectomy was well tolerated without treatment interruption or severe toxicity.

e16555 Background: The ProtecT trial underscores the importance of treatment in men with prostate cancer and life expectancies > 10 years and the validity of radiation therapy (RT). RT can be given with photons or protons (PT). To address the controversy of which is better, clinical outcomes of photon-based intensity modulated RT (IMRT) and PT cohorts from 2 institutions were directly compared. Methods: Under respective IRB approvals, data from 2 cohorts were analyzed. The first was 301 men treated with ultrasound image guided IMRT from 2000-05 to 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions. The second was 1214 men treated with fiducial image guided PT from 2006-10 to 78 CGE in 39 fractions. Median age and followup were 74 y and 7.2 y for IMRT and 66 y and 5.6 y for PT. Hormone therapy (ADT) was used with IMRT and PT, respectively, in 3% and 7% of low-risk patients, 25% and 9.9% of intermediate-risk, and 91% and 57.8% of high-risk. Comparative endpoints were age-stratified 5-year (5Y) survival (OS), ≥ grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and urologic (GU) toxicity, and 5Y freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP). Results: There was a lower prevalence of GI (1.3% vs 0.1%, p = 0.0065) and GU (4.3% vs 0.1%, p < 0.0001) toxicity at last follow-up in the PT group. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, OS rates were 90.8% and 88.7% in men ≥75 (p = 0.4083). In men < 75, OS rates were 91.6% and 97.5% in the IMRT and PT low-risk patients (p = 0.003), 92.1% and 95.5% in the IMRT and PT intermediate-risk (p = 0.0535), and 92.0% and 90.0% (p = 0.4975) in the IMRT and PT high-risk. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, respectively, FFBP rates were 92.2% and 98.9% for low-risk patients (p < 0.0001), 87.3% and 94.5% for intermediate-risk patients(p = 0.0226), and 80.3% and 74.4% for high-risk patients (p = 0.5154). Conclusions: In this retrospective comparison of outcomes in cohorts of men treated with IMRT and PT for prostate cancer, FFBP rates were better with PT for men with low- and intermediate-risk disease and similar in men with high-risk disease despite longer and more frequent use of ADT in the IMRT cohort. This study underscores the difficulty of comparing retrospective series, with differences noted in age, RT dose, and ADT use between cohorts. However, the magnitude of improvement with PT is intriguing and warrants prospective testing.

48 Background: The purpose of this study is to identify differences in toxicity, quality of life (QOL), and dosimetric endpoints among patients with low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma treated with either standard fractionation or hypofractionation proton-beam therapy. Methods: We analyzed the results of the first 75 patients treated in our phase III trial comparing 38Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 5 fractions (fx) (n = 46) vs. 79.2Gy (RBE) in 44 fx. (n = 29). All patients had low-risk prostate cancer and were treated with proton radiation using fiducial markers and daily image guidance. We evaluated American Urological Association (AUA) Symptom Index, adverse events (AEs), and Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) domains at pretreatment and 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36 and 48 months. Doses to the prostate were selected based on similar long term effects to normal tissue based on an α/β = 3.5 for an EQD2 of 76Gy. Results: The median follow-up was 36 months for both groups; 23 (30%) patients reached a follow-up of 48 months. We observed a small difference in AUA score (3.2 vs. 8.6, p = 0.002) at 1-year favoring the 79.2Gy arm. AUA scores were not statistically different at 18 months and after. Similarly, EPIC Urinary symptoms favored the 79.2Gy arm at 1 year (92.3 vs. 84.5, p = 0.009) and 18 months (92.3 vs. 85.3, p = 0.03); bother scores were not significantly different at any other time points. G2 or higher GU toxicity was similar between arms (p = 0.8). No differences in EPIC Bowel symptoms, EPIC Sexual symptoms, or bowel G2 or higher toxicities were seen. One death was observed in the 38Gy arm due to an unrelated case of multiple myeloma. The bladder V80 (79.2Gy arm, p = 0.04) and V39 (38Gy arm, p = 0.05) were predictive for G2 or higher GU AE. There was no association observed between rectal dose and G2 or higher rectal toxicity. Conclusions: Patients treated in the hypofractionated and standard arms tolerated treatment well. A small and temporary difference in the GU domain was seen favoring the standard arm. As predicted long term effects on the GU domain and bowel were similar for both arms, suggesting that the α/β is similar to 3.5 for long term effects. Clinical trial information: 01230866.

389 Background: The liver is one of the most radiosensitive organs, making radiation therapy (RT) for liver tumors extremely challenging. RT is appropriate only for a minority of liver patients with limited tumor burden; a reduction in the prescribed radiation dose may be needed to lower the probability of radiation-induced liver disease especially in the presence of cirrhosis. Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers less dose to the liver than photon therapy and is expected to reduce toxicity while also permitting safe dose escalation for some patients with liver tumors. Methods: The Proton Collaborative Group REG001-09 trial (NCT01255748) prospectively collects data for PBT patients with a variety of cancer types. To better understand treatment details and outcomes associated with liver PBT, patients enrolled on the PCG registry trial from 5 institutions who received liver PBT for any cancer between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Results: A total of 43 liver cancer patients were included, most with hepatocellular carcinoma (48.8%) or cholangiocarcinoma (25.6%). The vast majority did not have surgery at any time (86%). Most were treatment naive prior to PBT; 2 previously had RT and 8 had prior chemotherapy (mostly cholangiocarcinoma patients). The median total prescribed PBT dose was 58.05 Gy(RBE) (range 21.7-67.5). The median number of prescribed fractions was 15 (range 12-37). PBT was delivered to only the liver in 90.7% of patients; inclusion of lymph nodes was rare. Uniform scanning was used in 26 (72.1%) and pencil beam scanning in 2 patients (4.7%); the delivery technique used for the remaining patients was unknown (23.2%). With median follow up of 4.4 months (range 1.3-17.9), 3 patients (7%) had an intrahepatic recurrence, 2 patients (4.6%) developed distant metastasis, and 10 patients (23.3%) died. No grade 3 or higher toxicity was reported although 17 patients (39.5%) had grade 2 toxicity predominantly fatigue, anorexia, nausea, or vomiting. Conclusions: Although longer follow up is needed to assess late toxicities as well as disease control, early outcomes from the PCG registry trial for liver cancer patients shows that predominantly hypofractionated PBT has a very favorable acute toxicity profile.