Rosenthal, Seth A.

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.

Background In prostate cancer, end points that reliably portend prognosis and treatment benefit (surrogate end points) can accelerate therapy development. Although surrogate end point candidates have been evaluated in the context of radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation (AD), potential surrogates under long-term (24 month) AD, a proven therapy in high-risk localized disease, have not been investigated. Materials and Methods In the NRG/RTOG 9202 randomized trial (N = 1,520) of short-term AD (4 months) versus long-term AD (LTAD; 28 months), the time interval free of biochemical failure (IBF) was evaluated in relation to clinical end points of prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS). Survival modeling and landmark analysis methods were applied to evaluate LTAD benefit on IBF and clinical end points, association between IBF and clinical end points, and the mediating effect of IBF on LTAD clinical end point benefits. Results LTAD was superior to short-term AD for both biochemical failure (BF) and the clinical end points. Men remaining free of BF for 3 years had relative risk reductions of 39% for OS and 73% for PCSS. Accounting for 3-year IBF status reduced the LTAD OS benefit from 12% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.98) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.07). For PCSS, the LTAD benefit was reduced from 30% (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.82) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.22). Among men with BF, by 3 years, 50% of subsequent deaths were attributed to prostate cancer, compared with 19% among men free of BF through 3 years. Conclusion The IBF satisfied surrogacy criteria and identified the benefit of LTAD on disease-specific survival and OS. The IBF may serve as a valid end point in clinical trials and may also aid in risk monitoring after initial treatment.

3 Background: Previous reports suggested that AAT when combined with salvage RT following RP in patients may improve prostate cancer control outcomes. Methods: Post-RP patients with pT3pN0 or with pT2pN0 and positive margins who had or developed elevated PSA levels from 0.2 to 4.0 ng/ml were randomized on a phase III, double-blind, trial of RT + placebo (64.8 Gy in 36 fractions of 1.8 Gy) vs. RT + AAT (24 months bicalutamide, 150 mg daily) during and after RT. The primary end-point was overall survival. Trial design required 725 patients and provided 80% power to detect a reduction in death rate by at least 28.5% and a 1-sided significance level of 0.046. Results: From 3/98 to 3/03, 761 eligible patients (median age 65) were randomized to RT + AAT (384) or RT + placebo (377). 248 patients (33%) were pT2pN0 and 513 (67%) were pT3pN0. 671 (88%) had a PSA nadir after RP of < 0.5 ng/ml. 649 (85%) had an entry PSA value of <1.6, 112 patients (15%) had an entry PSA of 1.6-4. Median follow up was 12.6 years. Actuarial overall survival at 10 years was 82% for RT plus AAT and 78% for RT + placebo and a hazard ratio of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.58-0.98) with a 1-sided p value of 0.018 (2-sided p = 0.036). The 12-year incidence of PC central-reviewed deaths were 2.3% for RT + AAT and 7.5% for RT + placebo ( p< 0.001).The cumulative incidence of metastatic PC at 12 years was less in the RT + AAT arm, 14% (51 patients), vs. 23% (83 patients) in the RT + placebo arm (p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses of the relative benefits of the addition of AAT to RT are planned and will be presented. Late grade III and IV toxicity were similar in the AAT and placebo arms. The combined grade III and IV toxicities for RT + AAT and RT + placebo were: bladder 7.0% vs. 6.7%, bowel 2.7% vs. 1.6%. Gynecomastia differed significantly by treatment arm, 70% vs. 11%. Conclusions: 24 months of AAT using 150mg bicalutamide daily during and after salvage RT significantly improved long term overall survival and reduced the incidence of metastatic PC and PC death. Support: NCI grants U10CA21661, U10CA180868, U10CA180822, and U10CA37422 and AstraZeneca. Clinical trial information: NCT00002874.

PURPOSE: To compare the local/regional control, survival, and toxicity of combined-modality therapy using high-dose (64.8 Gy) versus standard-dose (50.4 Gy) radiation therapy for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 236 patients with clinical stage T1 to T4, N0/1, M0 squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma selected for a nonsurgical approach, after stratification by weight loss, primary tumor size, and histology, were randomized to receive combined-modality therapy consisting of four monthly cycles of fluorouracil (5-FU) (1,000 mg/m 2 /24 hours for 4 days) and cisplatin (75 mg/m 2 bolus day 1) with concurrent 64.8 Gy versus the same chemotherapy schedule but with concurrent 50.4 Gy. The trial was stopped after an interim analysis. The median follow-up was 16.4 months for all patients and 29.5 months for patients still alive. RESULTS: For the 218 eligible patients, there was no significant difference in median survival (13.0 v 18.1 months), 2-year survival (31% v 40%), or local/regional failure and local/regional persistence of disease (56% v 52%) between the high-dose and standard-dose arms. Although 11 treatment-related deaths occurred in the high-dose arm compared with two in the standard-dose arm, seven of the 11 deaths occurred in patients who had received 50.4 Gy or less. CONCLUSION: The higher radiation dose did not increase survival or local/regional control. Although there was a higher treatment-related mortality rate in the patients assigned to the high-dose radiation arm, it did not seem to be related to the higher radiation dose. The standard radiation dose for patients treated with concurrent 5-FU and cisplatin chemotherapy is 50.4 Gy.

PurposeTo determine whether prolonged androgen suppression (AS) duration before radiotherapy improves survival and disease control in prostate cancer.Patients and MethodsOne thousand five hundred seventy-nine men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of AS followed by radiotherapy with an additional 8 weeks of concurrent AS (16 weeks total) or to 28 weeks of AS followed by radiotherapy with an additional 8 weeks of AS (36 weeks total). The trial sought primarily to detect a 33% reduction in the hazard of prostate cancer death in the 28-week assignment. Time-to-event end points are reported for up to 10 years of follow-up.ResultsThere were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics of 1,489 eligible patients with follow-up. For the 8- and 28-week assignments, 10-year disease-specific survival rates were 95% (95% CI, 93.3% to 97.0%) and 96% (95% CI, 94.6% to 98.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; P = .45), respectively, and 10-year overall survival rates were 66% (95% CI, 62.0% to 69.9%) and 67% (95% CI, 63.0% to 70.8%; HR, 0.95; P = .62), respectively. For the 8- and 28-week assignments, 10-year cumulative incidences of locoregional progression were 6% (95% CI, 4.3% to 8.0%) and 4% (95% CI, 2.5% to 5.7%; HR, 0.65; P = .07), respectively; 10-year distant metastasis cumulative incidences were 6% (95% CI, 4.0% to 7.7%) and 6% (95% CI, 4.0% to 7.6%; HR, 1.07; P = .80), respectively; and 10-year prostate-specific antigen–based recurrence cumulative incidences were 27% (95% CI, 23.1% to 29.8%) and 27% (95% CI, 23.4% to 30.3%; HR, 0.97; P = .77), respectively.ConclusionExtending AS duration from 8 weeks to 28 weeks before radiotherapy did not improve outcomes. A lower than expected prostate cancer death rate reduced ability to detect a between-group difference in disease-specific survival. The schedule of 8 weeks of AS before radiotherapy plus 8 weeks of AS during radiotherapy remains a standard of care in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PurposeTo determine whether increased duration of radiation therapy (RT) and overall treatment (RX) time has a detrimental effect in anal cancer.Patients and MethodsData from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 87-04 and RTOG 98-11 trials were combined to form three treatment groups: RT/fluorouracil (FU)/mitomycin (n = 472), RT/FU/cisplatin (n = 320), and RT/FU (n = 145). Cox proportional hazards models were used with the following variables: RT duration, RT intensity, RX duration, treatment group, age, sex, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), T stage, N stage, and RT dose.ResultsIn the univariate analysis, there was a significant association between RX duration and colostomy failure (CF; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.14; P = .02), local failure (HR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.03; P = .005), locoregional failure (HR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.98; P = .003), and time to failure (HR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.79; P = .007). The significance of RX duration was maintained after adjusting for treatment group. In multivariate modeling there was a trend toward an association between RX duration and CF (HR = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.50; P = .06) and a statistically significant association with local failure (HR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.34 to 2.87; P = .0006). Age, sex, KPS, T stage, N stage, and RT dose, but not RT duration, RT intensity, or RX duration, were found to be statistically significant predictors of OS and colostomy-free survival.ConclusionTotal treatment time, but not duration of radiation therapy, seems to have a detrimental effect on local failure and colostomy rate in anal cancer. Induction chemotherapy may contribute to local failure by increasing total treatment time.