Morris, Christopher G.

LBA5012 Background: There is a critical evidence gap on the relative benefits and harms of proton therapy (PT) compared with photon-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Herein we report early results from COMPPARE, a non-randomized comparative study of outcomes with PT and IMRT in prostate cancer. Methods: Between 2018-2022, 2524 patients from 51 facilities (28 PT and 23 IMRT) enrolled in COMPPARE, including 1501 treated with PT and 1023 treated with IMRT, and were followed prospectively. Treatment naïve patients with localized prostate cancer except those with very high-risk disease were eligible. Treatment was pragmatic with daily standard fractionation (1.8-2.1 Gy) and moderate hypofractionation (2.4-3.1 Gy) permitted. Use of rectal spacers and androgen deprivation were at physician discretion. Patient-reported quality of life data and treatment team-reported toxicity and disease control outcomes were collected at baseline and pre-specified time intervals via VisionTreeOptimalCare; treatment planning and delivery data were collected via the Advanced Treatment Consortium. We analyzed 1404 PT patients and 939 IMRT patients. We report the early primary endpoint of the study, a comparison of patient reported bowel urgency and bowel frequency at 2-years using the EPIC tool, and the secondary endpoints of 2-year CTCAE v5 ≥ grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity outcomes and 3-year freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP) results reported by the study teams. Results: Study sample size was targeted at 1,500 PT patients and 1,000 IMRT patients, and median follow-up time was 4.0 years. The primary endpoint and secondary toxicity 2-year endpoints focused on the alternative hypothesis of PT superiority. All results include inverse probability of treatment weighting. Using generalized linear mixed effects models, we found there to be no significant difference in EPIC bowel urgency scores (p = 0.324) or bowel frequency scores (p = 0.514) between PT and IMRT cohorts over time up to the 2-year endpoint. For grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity, the 2-year cumulative incidence was 5.2% for PT and 5.6% for IMRT. Gray’s Test for competing risks showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-1.28, p = 0.6] for PT versus IMRT. The exploratory non-inferiority endpoint of 3-year FFBP was 98.0% for PT and 97.9% for IMRT, and Gray’s Test showed a HR of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.52-1.71, p = 0.90). Conclusions: Analysis of early results of COMPPARE show no significant differences between PT and IMRT in patient reported bowel frequency and urgency, grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicity, or FFBP. Assessment of long-term disease control, late toxicity and secondary malignancy will require longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT03561220 .

AbstractBackgroundPediatric esthesioneuroblastoma (EN) can infiltrate skull base anatomy, presenting challenges due to high radiation doses and pediatric tissue sensitivity. This study reports outcomes of pediatric EN treated with proton radiotherapy (PT).ProcedureUsing an IRB‐approved prospective outcomes registry, we evaluated patient, tumor, and treatment‐related variables impacting disease control and toxicity in pediatric nonmetastatic EN treated with modern multimodality therapy, including PT.ResultsFifteen consecutive patients (median age 16) comprising Kadish stage B (n = 2), C (n = 9), and D (n = 4) tumors were assessed, including six with intracranial involvement, four with cranial nerve deficits, and four with cervical lymphadenopathy. Before radiation, two had subtotal and 13 had gross total resections (endoscopic or craniofacial). Two underwent neck dissection. Eleven received chemotherapy before radiation (n = 5), concurrent with radiation (n = 4), or both (n = 2). Median total radiation dose (primary site) was 66 Gy/CGE for gross disease and 54 Gy/CGE (cobalt Gray equivalent) for microscopic disease. Median follow‐up was 4.8 years. No patients were lost to follow‐up. Five‐year disease‐free and overall survival rates were 86% (no local or regional recurrences). Two patients developed vertebral metastases and died. Two required a temporary feeding tube for oral mucositis/dysphagia. Late toxicities included symptomatic retinopathy, major reconstructive surgery, cataracts, chronic otitis media, chronic keratoconjunctivitis, hypothyroidism, and in‐field basal cell skin cancer.ConclusionsA multimodality approach for pediatric EN results in excellent local control. Despite the moderate‐dose PT, serious radiation toxicity was observed; further dose and target volume reductions may benefit select patients. Longer follow‐up and comparative data from modern photon series are necessary to fully characterize any relative PT advantage.

AbstractData comparing outcomes in prostate cancer and factors affecting treatment choice are sparse. To inform the design of a comparative effectiveness clinical trial, we engaged patients in developing a 28‐question survey about decision making on treatment and research participation and dispersed it among men greater than or equal to 50 years of age. The 1046 respondents ranked long‐term clinical outcomes as most important in making treatment decisions, specific functional outcomes as slightly less important, and duration, location, and cost of treatment as least important. Treatment choice was strongly impacted by side effect profile. Responses to whether the subject would agree to participation in a randomized trial between two types of radiation with minimal differences in outcomes were “yes” in 15%, “no” in 39%, and “undecided” in 46%. Responses to whether the subject would agree to participation in a randomized trial between two treatment durations with similar outcomes were yes in 36%, no in 24%, and undecided in 40%. Findings suggest many potential patients have strong treatment preferences and are averse to randomization, particularly when outcomes of importance may be affected. Patient engagement in study design and novel nonrandomized trial designs may offer a path to increase clinical trial success.

Abstract Background Out‐of‐field neutron dissemination during double‐scattered proton therapy has raised concerns of increased second malignancies, disproportionally affecting pediatric patients due to the proportion of body exposed to scatter dose and inherent radiosensitivity of developing tissue. We sought to provide empiric data on the incidence of early second tumors. Methods Between 2006 and 2019, 1713 consecutive children underwent double‐scattered proton therapy. Median age at treatment was 9.1 years; 371 were ≤3 years old. Thirty‐seven patients (2.2%) had tumor predisposition syndromes. Median prescription dose was 54 Gy (range 15–75.6). Median follow‐up was 3.3 years (range 0.1–12.8), including 6587 total person‐years. Five hundred forty‐nine patients had ≥5 years of follow‐up. A second tumor was defined as any solid neoplasm throughout the body. Results Eleven patients developed second tumors; the 5‐ and 10‐year cumulative incidences were 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4–1.9%) and 3.1% (95% CI, 1.5–6.2%), respectively. Using age‐ and gender‐specific data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, the standardized incidence ratio was 13.5; the absolute excess risk was 1.5/1000 person‐years. All but one patient who developed second tumors were irradiated at ≤5 years old ( p < .0005). There was also a statistically significant correlation between patients with tumor predisposition syndromes and second tumors ( p < .0001). Excluding patients with tumor predisposition syndromes, 5‐ and 10‐year rates were 0.6% (95% CI, 0.2–1.7%) and 1.7% (95% CI, 0.7–4.0%), respectively, with all five malignant second tumors occurring in the high‐dose region. Conclusion Second tumors are rare within the decade following double‐scattered proton therapy, particularly among children irradiated at >5 years old and those without tumor predisposition syndrome.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) is an effective treatment for localized gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas unresponsive to antibiotic therapy; however, irradiating the stomach can result in significant radiation to the heart, a risk factor for cardiac disease. We analyzed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to evaluate outcomes related to cardiac disease among patients treated with RT for stage I gastric MALT. Materials and Methods: We identified adult patients treated between 1993 and 2014. The relationship between treatment modality (RT, chemotherapy, combination, and no treatment) and overall survival (OS), mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue-specific survival (MSS), non-mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue-specific survival (non-MSS), and cardiac-specific survival (CSS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazards analyses. Results: A total of 2996 patients (median follow-up, 5.6 y) were analyzed: 27.5% had received RT alone, 12.1% chemotherapy alone, 3.9% chemoradiotherapy, and 56.5% no/unknown treatment (including antibiotic therapy). Compared with RT alone, patients who received chemotherapy alone exhibited worse OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32-2.10; P<0.001) and MSS (HR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.36-3.23; P=0.001). Although CSS appeared worse in patients who received chemotherapy (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.92-2.66; P=0.10), it was not statistically significant. When comparing orbital and gastric MALT patients, there was no significant difference in CSS (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.31; P=0.38). Conclusions: RT improved survival among patients with stage I gastric MALT without increasing the risk of cardiac death. Those with gastric MALT exhibited similar CSS to those with orbital MALT. Although we cannot analyze nonfatal cardiac toxicity, these results suggest that, absent antibiotic therapy, RT should remain first-line treatment for early-stage gastric MALT.

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.