Davis, Brian J.

Objectives: This practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), and American Radium Society (ARS). Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) uses various imaging modalities to maximize the accuracy and precision of radiation treatment delivery. Methods: This practice parameter was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters–Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Results: This practice parameter for IGRT addresses qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, clinical IGRT implementation, documentation, quality control and improvement, safety, and patient education. Since the publication of the ACR–ASTRO Practice Parameter in 2019, there is now more clarity as to what criteria and parameters need to be documented in the medical record, a better appreciation of the large amount of imaging data, how to interpret such data, as well as the complex interactions of multiple systems in the implementation of IGRT. Conclusions: This practice parameter assists practitioners in the clinical use of IGRT. IGRT should complement and be used in combination with other quality assurance processes. IGRT is a rapidly evolving field, and practitioners should have a thorough understanding of its strengths and potential limitations.

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.

387 Background: Level 1 evidence supports treatment of high-risk and node positive PCa using 4-9 weeks of radiotherapy (RT) combined with 18-36 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP). While effective, some cancers recur, and this prolonged treatment is associated with inconvenience and variable morbidity. We aimed to determine whether the biological synergy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with a 6-month combination of ADT, AAP, and the PARP inhibitor niraparib, could enable a shorter intensified, yet safe and effective, therapeutic alternative. Methods: ASCLEPIuS (NCT04194554) is a multicenter investigator-initiated phase I/II trial in high-risk or node positive, homologous recombination unselected, PCa. Patients received 6 months of ADT, AAP, niraparib and SBRT to the prostate (37.5-40 Gy) +/- pelvic lymph nodes (25 Gy). Focal prostate/nodal boosting was permitted. The phase I primary endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of niraparib using the time-to-event continuous reassessment method (3 dose levels: 100 mg and 200 mg held during SBRT, or 200 mg concurrent with SBRT). Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were any persistent grade 4+ hematologic toxicity or any grade 3+ rectal/urinary toxicity at least possibly related to treatment as assessed by CTCAE v5.0. Patient reported quality of life (QOL) was assessed with the EPIC-26 short form. Linear mixed models were used to compare scores over time. Results: Accrual began in Nov. 2020 with a transition from phase I to phase II in May 2023 after enrolling 54 men. Median follow-up of the phase I cohort is 12.1 months (IQR 9.4-18.9), 80% (n=43) had Grade Group 4-5, median PSA was 17 ng/mL (range, 1-73), 15% (n=8) had cN+ disease, and 76% (n=41) received nodal RT. There were 0 DLTs to date, no grade 3+ rectal or urinary toxicities, and 5 serious adverse events at least possibly attributable to study treatment (anemia, non-rectal gastrointestinal, syncope, infection, musculoskeletal). The most common grade 3 toxicities were hypertension (n = 11, 21%) and leukopenia (n=6, 11%). Transient dose reductions or holds of AAP or niraparib occurred in 10 and 11 patients, respectively. There were no statistically significant declines in patient reported urinary QOL at 6- or 12-months post-treatment compared to baseline (all p >0.15). A transient decline in bowel QOL at 6-months occurred (p<0.01), which improved by 12-months (p=0.16). Conclusions: Our phase I findings support the short-term safety and tolerability of the combination of SBRT to the prostate and nodes, ADT, AAP, and niraparib at an MTD of 200 mg in men with high-risk or node positive PCa. Our trial completed phase II enrollment in May 2024, and longer-term safety, efficacy, and genomic correlations will be presented in the future. Clinical trial information: NCT04194554 .

129 Background: Few studies have explored the use of focal therapies to address select sites of resistant disease in men receiving 177-Lu-PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Our institutional practice is to offer SBRT for patients with up to 5 sites of oligoprogression or non-responding lesions while undergoing 177Lu-PSMA-617 (every 6 weeks for 6 cycles total). This is determined by PSMA or choline PET imaging during the course of 177Lu-PSMA-617. Herein, we evaluated the safety of adding target SBRT during treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Methods: This retrospective single institution analysis was conducted via systematic chart review to evaluate for adverse events during or after treatment. Grading of treatment-related adverse events was conducted using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0 (CTCAE v5). Results: Thirty-one patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617 with 51 sites of oligoprogressive or non-responding metastatic disease were treated with SBRT. The median number of sites treated was 1 (range 1-4). Most patients received SBRT immediately after cycle 6 (32%) or after cycle 3 or 4 (42%). Bone was the most commonly treated site of disease (90%) with the majority (54%) of bone sites being spine or sacrum, followed by lymph nodes (10%). Ultimately, 84% of patients completed all 6 cycles of 177Lu-PSMA-617 (range 4-6). The median follow-up time was 19.1 months (IQR 15.5-22.4) after 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy start. A total of 2 patients experienced a pathologic fracture within the SBRT treatment field that could possibly be related to radiotherapy. One patient experienced a grade 2 neuropathy which may have been related to radiation therapy. Other potential adverse events are listed (Table). Conclusions: Our data demonstrates a low rate of significant toxicity with the use SBRT during treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Further study is indicated to determine the oncologic efficacy and potential late side effects of this treatment strategy. Adverse events. Event All Grades Grade > 3 Any Adverse Event 104 2 Anemia 29 (94%) 0 Low Platelets 11 (35.5%) 1 (3.2%) Any Pathologic Fracture 7 (22.5%) 1 (3.2%) Possible SBRT-related Pathologic Fracture 2 (6.5%) 1 (3.2%) Bone Pain Flare 3 (9.6%) 0 Neuropathy 1 (3.2%) 0

424 Background: Advances in prostate cancer (PC) care have led to a 98% 10-year survival rate. Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) is the primary method of follow-up after definitive radiotherapy (RT), with benign PSA ‘bounce’ occurring in up to 30% of patients, causing uncertainty and anxiety. Distinguishing between PSA bounce and biochemical recurrence (BCR) remains challenging. The Phoenix Criteria is the standard definition of BCR since 2006, defined as PSA nadir + 2 ng/dl, but does not consider patient specific information. Our study aims to explore factors associated with bounce and BCR and develop a predictive tool to differentiate between these two events. Methods: PC patients who received RT at our institution between 2006 and 2022 were identified, including only patients with a PSA increase during follow-up. Exclusion criteria included palliative RT, prostatectomy, or insufficient follow-up information. Patients’ clinical data was collected, and PSA increase was classified as bounce or BCR. Variables were compared using Kruskal Wallis or Chi-square. Multivariate logistic regression was performed in the subset of patients with absolute PSA value >2 (n= 581). Results: Of 1783 patients reviewed due to PSA rise after treatment, 694 met the inclusion criteria. There were 213 (30.7%) with PSA bounce and 481 (69.3%) with recurrence. Prior to meeting the Phoenix Criteria, 20 (4.2%) had biopsy-proven recurrence and 18 (3.7%) imaging-proven recurrence. The median delta PSA was 0.8 ng/mL for bounce vs 5 ng/mL for recurrence (p<0.001). The median time from treatment to event was 14.4 months for bounce vs 45.3 months for BCR (p<0.001). Recurrence was significantly associated (p<0.001) with older age at diagnosis, N1 stage, higher risk category, Gleason score, and higher baseline PSA. In the subgroup of patients without ADT, recurrence was associated with a lower median first PSA post-RT (1.9 vs. 2.4, p=0.046) and a lower median nadir before event (0.6 vs. 1.8, p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression achieved an accuracy of 0.94, with a sensitivity of 0.83, specificity of 0.98, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97. Conclusions: Our results highlight significant differences in clinical factors between bounce and recurrence in post-RT patients. The multivariate logistic regression differentiated the events with 94% accuracy for patients with a rising PSA value >2 subgroup. We highlight the possible improvement that could be accomplished by personalizing a PSA threshold for recurrence versus the Phoenix definition. This tool offers patients and providers a highly specific tool to differentiate between PSA recurrence and bounce, and may reduce stress and unnecessary testing, or help diagnosis recurrence faster. Next steps include prospective validation of the model to assess the impact on clinical practice costs, patient experience, and cancer outcomes.

Objective To define the natural history, patterns of recurrence and treatment modalities for local prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence following radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT), and to investigate factors that could predict metastasis‐free survival (MFS) in this unique patient population. Methods We queried a prospectively maintained PCa registry to identify men developing in‐field recurrence (IFR) following RP and RT from 2008 to 2021 at a single institution. IFR was defined as biopsy‐proven recurrent PCa or the presence of persistent positron emission tomography‐avid lesions in the prior radiation field without evidence of metastasis. Cox regression was conducted to determine predictors of MFS. Kaplan–Meier methods were used to calculate MFS, cancer‐specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) for patients in three primary therapy categories: cryoablation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, and surveillance. Results Of 4575 patients from our registry, 108 (2.3%) with IFR were identified. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to IFR from salvage treatment was 78 (50–126) months. A total of 29 patients (26%) were managed with cryoablation, 23 (21%) with ADT, and 28 (25%) with surveillance. The median (IQR) follow‐up was 76 (48–100) months. There were no statistically significant differences in MFS ( P = 0.67) or OS ( P = 0.07) among the three primary treatment cohorts. Patients treated with ADT or cryoablation had longer CSS compared to patients managed with surveillance ( P = 0.047). Conclusions We found that IFR may present years after completion of primary treatment for PCa. While curative management strategies may be attempted, local and distant metastatic recurrence is common and often requires systemic therapy.

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.

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.

AbstractBackgroundProstate cancer (PCa) parenchymal brain metastases are uncommon and troubling observations in the course of the disease. Our study aims to evaluate the prevalence of brain metastases among PCa patients while reporting various therapeutic modalities, clinical features, and oncological outcomes.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 34 patients with parenchymal brain metastasis out of 4575 patients using a prospectively maintained database that contains clinicopathologic characteristics of PCa patients between January 2012 and December 2021. Based on the three treatment modalities used, the patients were divided into three groups: stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and systemic therapy alone. The Kaplan–Meier curve was used to calculate overall survival [OS] probability and the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to compare between groups.ResultsAt the time of brain metastasis diagnosis, the median age was 66 years, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) was 2.2 (0.1–26.6) ng/ml and the median (IQR) months from initial PCa diagnosis to brain metastasis development was 70.8 (27.6–100.9). The median (IQR) primary Gleason score was 8 (7–9) and over a median (IQR) follow‐up time of 2.2 (1.2–16.5) months, 76.5% (n = 26) of the patients died. Thirteen (38.2%) patients had solitary lesion, whereas 21 (61.8%) had ≥2 lesions. The lesions were supratentorial in 19 (55.9%) patients, infratentorial in six (17.6%), and both sides in nine (26.5%). Among all 34 patients, 10 (29.4%) were treated with SRS, seven (20.6%) with WBRT, and 17 (50%) with systemic therapy alone. OS varied greatly between the three treatment modalities (log‐rank test, p = 0.049). Those who were treated with SRS and WBRT had better OS compared with patients who were treated with systemic therapy alone (hazard ratio: 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.16–0.86, p = 0.022).ConclusionsIn our single‐institutional study, we confirmed that PCa brain metastasis is associated with poor survival outcomes and more advanced metastatic disease. Furthermore, we found that SRS and WBRT for brain metastasis in patients with recurrent PCa appear to be associated with improved OS as compared with systemic therapy alone and are likely secondary to selection bias.

BackgroundPatients with high‐risk prostate cancer (HRPC) have multiple accepted treatment options. Because there is no overall survival benefit of one option over another, appropriate treatment must consider patient life expectancy, quality of life, and cost.MethodsThe authors compared quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost effectiveness among treatment options for HRPC using a Markov model with three treatment arms: (1) external‐beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivered with 20 fractions, (2) EBRT with 23 fractions followed by low‐dose‐rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost, or (3) radical prostatectomy alone. An exploratory analysis considered a simultaneous integrated boost according to the FLAME trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01168479).ResultsTreatment strategies were compared using the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER). EBRT with LDR brachytherapy boost was a cost‐effective strategy (ICER, $20,929 per QALY gained). These results were most sensitive to variations in the biochemical failure rate. However, the results still demonstrated cost effectiveness for the brachytherapy boost paradigm, regardless of any tested parameter ranges. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBRT with LDR brachytherapy was favored in 52% of 100,000 Monte Carlo iterations. In an exploratory analysis, EBRT with a simultaneous integrated boost was also a cost‐effective strategy, resulting in an ICER of $62,607 per QALY gained; however, it was not cost effective compared with EBRT plus LDR brachytherapy boost.ConclusionsEBRT with LDR brachytherapy boost may be a cost‐effective treatment strategy compared with EBRT alone and radical prostatectomy for HRPC, demonstrating high‐value care. The current analysis suggests that a reduction in biochemical failure alone can result in cost‐effective care, despite no change in overall survival.