Citations

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.

Purpose: To report the outcomes of patients with favorable risk oropharyngeal cancer that underwent adjuvant radiation therapy with omission of the primary site from the clinical target volume (CTV). Material/Methods: A retrospective study of 40 patients treated with transoral surgery (TOS) followed by neck only radiation using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with exclusion of the primary site. For all patients, a CTV of the primary surgical bed was contoured to obtain the estimated incidental dose to the primary site. Results: Median follow-up was 51 months (range, 13-155 months). The median radiation therapy (RT) dose to the neck was 6000 cGy (range, 5400-6400 cGy). The mean incidental dose to the primary tonsillar site was 4320 cGy (SD ± 480 cGy) and to the primary base of tongue site was 4060 cGy (SD ± 420 cGy). There were no local failures and only 1 regional failure, resulting in 97.5% locoregional control rate at 4 years. Two patients developed distant metastases, without evidence of locoregional recurrence, for a 4-year overall survival rate of 97%. Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that mucosal sparing RT after TOS in favorable risk oropharyngeal cancer patients may provide comparable oncologic and improved functional outcomes compared to conventional treatment in selected patients.

Objective: To identify differences in terms of quality of life, the American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUA), or adverse events (AEs) among patients with prostate cancer treated with either standard fractionation or hypofractionation proton-beam therapy. Materials and Methods: Patients were prospectively randomized to receive 38 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 5 treatments (n=49) or 79.2 Gy RBE in 44 treatments (n=33). All patients had low-risk prostate cancer and were treated with proton therapy using fiducial markers and daily image guidance. Results: Median follow-up for both groups was 18 months; 33 patients had follow-up of 2 years or longer. Baseline median (range) AUA was 4.7 (0 to 13) for the 38 Gy RBE arm and 4.8 (0 to 17) for the 79.2 Gy RBE arm. We observed no difference between the groups regarding the Expanded Prostate Index Composite urinary, bowel, or sexual function scores at 3, 6, 12, 18, or 24 months after treatment. The only significant difference was the AUA score at 12 months (8 for the 38 Gy RBE arm vs. 5 for the 79.2 Gy RBE arm; P=0.04); AUA scores otherwise were similar between groups. No grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in either arm. Conclusions: Patients treated with proton therapy in this randomized trial tolerated treatment well, with excellent quality-of-life scores, persistent low AUA, and no grade 3 or higher AEs on either arm. We showed no apparent clinical difference in outcomes with hypofractionated proton-beam therapy compared with standard fractionation on the basis of this interim analysis.