Importance: Very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer is an aggressive substratum of high-risk prostate cancer, characterized by high prostate-specific antigen levels, high Gleason score, and/or advanced T category. Contemporary management paradigms involve advanced molecular imaging and multimodal treatment with intensified prostate-directed or systemic treatment-resources more readily available at high-volume centers. Objective: To examine radiation facility case volume and overall survival (OS) in men with VHR prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was performed from November 11, 2022, to March 4, 2023, analyzing data from US facilities reporting to the National Cancer Database. Patients included men diagnosed with nonmetastatic VHR prostate cancer by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (clinical T3b-T4 category, primary Gleason pattern 5, >4 cores with grade group 4-5, and/or 2-3 high-risk features) and treated with curative-intent radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy between January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2016. Exposures: Treatment at high- vs low-average cumulative facility volume (ACFV), defined as the total number of prostate radiotherapy cases at an individual patient's treatment facility from 2004 until the year of their diagnosis. The nonlinear association between a continuous ACFV and OS was examined through a Martingale residual plot; an optimal ACFV cutoff was identified that maximized the separation between high vs low ACFV via a bias-adjusted log rank test. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival was assessed between high vs low ACFV using Kaplan-Meier analysis with and without inverse probability score weighted adjustment and multivariable Cox proportional hazards. Results: A total of 25 219 men (median age, 71 [IQR, 64-76] years; 78.7% White) with VHR prostate cancer were identified, 6438 (25.5%) of whom were treated at high ACFV facilities. Median follow-up was 57.4 (95% CI, 56.7-58.1) months. Median OS for patients treated at high ACFV centers was 123.4 (95% CI, 116.6-127.4) months vs 109.0 (95% CI, 106.5-111.2) months at low ACFV centers (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, treatment at a high ACFV center was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95; P < .001). These results were also significant after inverse probability score weighted-based adjustment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with VHR prostate cancer who underwent definitive radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, facility case volume was independently associated with longer OS. Further studies are needed to identify which factors unique to high-volume centers may be responsible for this benefit.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the impact of radiotherapy (RT) among women aged≥70 years with T1-2N0 estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked data.
METHODS: The study included 3432 women, 2850 of whom received and 582 of whom did not receive RT after breast-conserving surgery. Outcomes were estimated by the cumulative incidence method and compared with the Gray test. The Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard regression models were used to assess the impact of RT and other variables.
RESULTS: Women who received RT were more commonly aged < 75 years (42% vs 16%), had T1 tumors (78% vs 65%), ductal carcinoma histology (91% vs 88%), a Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index of 0 (41% vs 25%), and had received chemotherapy (29% vs 12%). The 5-year cumulative incidence of mastectomy and breast cancer-specific death for patients who received versus those did not receive adjuvant RT was 4.9% and 8.3% versus 10.8% and 24.1%, respectively (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, the omission of RT was found to be an independent predictor of an increased risk of mastectomy (hazard ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-3.49). Among women aged≥80 years or with T1N0 tumors, the mastectomy incidence with or without receipt of RT was 3.4% vs. 6.9%, and 5.3% vs 7.7%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjuvant RT after breast-conserving surgery in older women with T1-2N0 estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer is associated with a reduced incidence of future mastectomy and breast cancer death. The magnitude of benefit may be small for women aged ≥80 years or those with T1 tumors.
Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) have minimal expression of PD-L1, a biomarker for PD-1 therapy efficacy. Radiotherapy (RT) has been shown to increase PD-L1 expression pre-clinically. We examined the expression of PD-L1, pre- and post-RT, in 46 Stage II-III STS patients treated with pre-operative RT (50–50.4 Gy in 25–28 fractions) followed by resection. Five additional patients who did not receive RT were utilized as controls. PD-L1 expression on biopsy and resection samples was evaluated by immunochemistry using the anti PD-L1 monoclonal antibody (E1L3 N clone; Cell Signaling). Greater than 1% membranous staining was considered positive PD-L1 expression. Changes in PD-L1 expression were analyzed via the Fisher exact test. Kaplan-Meier statistics were used to correlate PD-L1 expression to distant metastases (DM) rate. The majority of STS were T2b (87.0%), high-grade (80.4%), undifferentiated pleomorphic histology (71.7%), and originated from the extremities (84.6%). Zero patients demonstrated PD-L1 tumor expression pre-RT. Post-RT, 5 patients (10.9%) demonstrated PD-L1 tumor expression (p = 0.056). Tumor associated macrophages (TAM) expression of PD-L1 increased after RT: 15.2% to 45.7% (p = 0.003). Samples from controls demonstrated no baseline (0%) or change in tumor PD-L1 expression. Freedom from DM was lower for patients with PD-L1 TAM expression post-RT (3 years: 49.7% vs. 87.8%, log-rank p = 0.006); TAM PD-L1 positivity remained an independent predictor for DM on multivariate analyses (Hazard ratio–0.16, 95% confidence interval: 0.034–0.721, p = 0.042). PD-L1 expression on human STS tumor and TAM appears to elevate after pre-operative RT. Expression of PD-L1 on TAM after RT was associated with a higher rate of DM.
Background: Prior studies contrasting oncoplastic reduction (OCR) to traditional lumpectomy have validated oncoplastic reduction surgery with similar survival and oncological outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if there was a significant difference in the time to initiation of radiation therapy after OCR in comparison with the standard breast-conserving therapy (lumpectomy). Methods: The patients included were from a database of breast cancer patients who all underwent postoperative adjuvant radiation after either OCR or lumpectomy at a single institution between 2003 and 2020. Patients who experienced delays in radiation for nonsurgical reasons were excluded. Comparisons were made between the groups in the time to radiation and complication rates. Results: A total of 487 patients underwent breast-conserving therapy, with 220 having undergone OCR and 267 lumpectomy patients. There was no significant difference in days to radiation between patient cohorts (60.5 OCR, 56.2 lumpectomy, P = 0.059). There was a significant difference in the number of complications between OCR and lumpectomy patients (20.4% OCR, 2.2% lumpectomy, P < 0.001). However, of patients who had complications, there was no significant difference in the number of days to radiation (74.3 OCR, 69.3 lumpectomy, P = 0.732). Conclusions: Compared with lumpectomy, OCR was not associated with an increased time to radiation but was associated with higher complications. Statistical analysis did not reveal surgical technique or complications to be independent, significant predictors of increased time to radiation. Surgeons should be aware that although complications may remain higher in OCR, this does not necessarily translate to delays in radiation.
With limited high-level evidence, we carried out a comparative effectiveness study for the effect of proton beam therapy (PBT) on overall survival compared to external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT) among patients with localized prostate cancer using a national database. PBT was associated with a significant overall survival benefit compared to EBRT and had a similar performance as BT.
Background:
There are few comparative outcomes data regarding the therapeutic delivery of proton beam therapy (PBT) versus the more widely used photon-based external-beam radiation (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT). We evaluated the impact of PBT on overall survival (OS) compared to EBRT or BT on patients with localized prostate cancer.
Patients and Methods:
The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for 2004–2015. Men with clinical stage T1–3, N0, M0 prostate cancer treated with radiation, without surgery or chemotherapy, were included. OS, the primary clinical outcome, was fit by Cox proportional hazard model. Propensity score matching was implemented for covariate balance.
Results:
There were 276,880 eligible patients with a median follow-up of 80.9 months. A total of 4900 (1.8%) received PBT, while 158,111 (57.1%) received EBRT and 113,869 (41.1%) BT. Compared to EBRT and BT, PBT patients were younger and were less likely to be in the high-risk group. On multivariable analysis, compared to PBT, men had worse OS after EBRT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51–1.96) or BT (adjusted HR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21–1.58). After propensity score matching, the OS benefit of PBT remained significant compared to EBRT (HR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32–2.04) but not BT (adjusted HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.93–1.48). The improvement in OS with PBT was most prominent in men ≤ 65 years old with low-risk disease compared to other subgroups (interaction P < .001).
Conclusion:
In this national data set, PBT was associated with a significant OS benefit compared to EBRT, and with outcomes similar to BT. These results remain to be validated by ongoing prospective trials.
Background: Scalp angiosarcomas (SA) are rare, representing <1% of soft tissue sarcomas. The optimal management of these tumors is unknown, with management based on small case series. We sought to assess the impact of different therapies on overall survival (OS), the practice patterns nationally, and identify factors associated with OS for non-metastatic scalp angiosarcomas. Methods: A prospectively maintained database was used to identify non-metastatic scalp angiosarcomas who received some form of definitive therapy. Logistics regression, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional-hazard models were utilized. Results: A total of 589 patients met study entry criteria with a median follow-up of 4.2 years. The majority (482 patients, 81.8%) had upfront definitive resection and an additional 317 patients (65.8%) received postoperative radiation. Of the 107 patients who didn't have surgery, the majority (65 patients, 60.7%) received definitive radiation and 42 patients (39.3%) received radiation and chemotherapy. One-year and five-year survival estimates for patients not receiving definitive surgery were 68.0% (95%CI: 57.5–76.4) and 18.0% (95%CI: 10.2–27.5) respectively compared to 78.2% (95%CI: 74.0–81.9) and 34.1% (95%CI: 28.9–39.3) for patients receiving definitive surgery (p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, age ≥65 years, tumor size ≥5 cm, and not receiving definitive surgery was associated with worse OS. Conclusions: The majority of patients with non-metastatic scalp angiosarcomas had upfront definitive surgery, with a subsequent improvement in OS, including when accounting for other patient and tumor factors. Postoperative radiation was frequently given. Our large series confirmed age and tumor size as prognostic factors for this rare disease.
Purpose: Treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT) is the nonsurgical standard-of-care for patients with high- or very high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PC), but the optimal timing between ADT and RT initiation is unknown. We evaluate the influence of timing between ADT and RT on outcomes in patients with HR-PC using a large national cancer database. Methods and Materials: Data for patients with clinical T1-T4 N0, M0, National Cancer Comprehensive Network HR-PC who were treated with definitive external RT (≥60 Gy) and ADT starting either before or within 14 days after RT start were extracted from the National Cancer Database (2004-2015). Patients were grouped on the basis of ADT initiation: (1) >11 weeks before RT, (2) 8 to 11weeks before RT, and (3) <8 weeks before RT. Kaplan-Meier, propensity score matching, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards were performed to evaluate overall survival (OS). Results: With a median follow-up of 68.9 months, 37,606 patients with HR-PC were eligible for analysis: 13,346 (35.5%) with >11 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT, 11,456 (30.5%) with 8 to 11 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT; and 12,804 (34%) patients with <8 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT. The unadjusted 10-year OS rates for >11 weeks, 8 to 11 weeks, and <8 weeks neoadjuvant ADT groups were 49.9%, 51.2%, and 46.9%, respectively (P =.002). On multivariable and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses, there was a significant OS advantage for patients in the 8 to 11 weeks neoadjuvant ADT group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.95; P <.001) but not the >11 weeks group. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant ADT initiation 8 to 11 weeks before RT is associated with significantly improved OS compared with shorter neoadjuvant ADT duration. Although prospective validation is warranted, this analysis is the largest retrospective study suggesting an influence of timing between ADT and RT initiation in HR-PC.
Purpose: Although the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay has been validated to assess the risk of distant recurrence in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients, the relationship between RS and the risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if RS is associated with LRR in breast cancer patients and whether this relationship varies based on the type of local treatment [mastectomy or breast-conserving therapy (BCT)].
Methods: 163 consecutive estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients at our institution had an RS generated from the primary breast tumor between August 2006 and October 2009. Patients were treated with lumpectomy and radiation (BCT) (n = 110) or mastectomy alone (n = 53). Patients were stratified using a pre-determined RS of 25 and then grouped according to local therapy type.
Results: Median follow-up was 68.2 months. Patients who developed an LRR had stage I or IIA disease, >2 mm surgical margins, and received chemotherapy as directed by RS. While an RS > 25 did not predict for a higher rate of LRR, an RS > 24 was associated with LRR in our subjects. Among mastectomy patients, the 5-year LRR rate was 27.3 % in patients with an RS > 24 versus 10.7 % (p = 0.04) in those whose RS was ≤24. RS was not associated with LRR in patients who received BCT.
Conclusions: Breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy for tumors that have an RS > 24 are at high risk of LRR and may benefit from post-mastectomy radiation.
Background: The optimal management of patients with stage IV soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity (STSE) with distant metastases at diagnosis is unclear due to limited evidence and heterogeneity of current practice patterns. National guidelines have recommended surgical management of the primary site (SP) with or without radiotherapy (R), chemotherapy (C), and metastasectomy (M). Methods: In the National Cancer Database (NCDB), patients with initially metastatic STSE who received definitive SP from 2004 to 2014 were identified. Survival distributions were estimated and compared using the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank tests, and covariates were compared using Chi-square tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA). Propensity score analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting was used. Results: Overall, 1124 patients were included, with a median age of 55 years (range 18–90). Utilization of SP+M increased over time from 18.8% in 2004–2006, to 33.3% in 2007–2009, to 47.9% in 2010–2014 (p = 0.024). The addition of M to SP was associated with superior 5-year overall survival (OS) at 30.8% (SP+M+/−C+/−R) compared with 18.2% for those treated with non-surgical adjuvant therapies (SP+/−C+/−R) and 12.6% for SP alone (p < 0.0001). Positive surgical margins were noted in 24.1% of patients and was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio 1.44, p < 0.001) on multivariable analysis. Conclusions: This is the first known study utilizing a large database to explore practice patterns and outcomes for patients with metastatic STSE receiving definitive SP. Utilization of metastasectomy increased in the study period and was associated with longer survival compared with SP alone. These hypothesis-generating data warrant additional study.