Advantages and limitations of navigation-based multicriteria optimization (MCO) for localized prostate cancer IMRT planning

Efficacy of inverse planning is becoming increasingly important for advanced radiotherapy techniques. This study's aims were to validate multicriteria optimization (MCO) in RayStation (v2.4, RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) against standard intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) optimization in Oncentra (v4.1, Nucletron BV, the Netherlands) and characterize dose differences due to conversion of navigated MCO plans into deliverable multileaf collimator apertures. Step-and-shoot IMRT plans were created for 10 patients with localized prostate cancer using both standard optimization and MCO. Acceptable standard IMRT plans with minimal average rectal dose were chosen for comparison with deliverable MCO plans. The trade-off was, for the MCO plans, managed through a user interface that permits continuous navigation between fluence-based plans. Navigated MCO plans were made deliverable at incremental steps along a trajectory between maximal target homogeneity and maximal rectal sparing. Dosimetric differences between navigated and deliverable MCO plans were also quantified. MCO plans, chosen as acceptable under navigated and deliverable conditions resulted in similar rectal sparing compared with standard optimization (33.7 ± 1.8Gy vs 35.5 ± 4.2Gy, p = 0.117). The dose differences between navigated and deliverable MCO plans increased as higher priority was placed on rectal avoidance. If the best possible deliverable MCO was chosen, a significant reduction in rectal dose was observed in comparison with standard optimization (30.6 ± 1.4Gy vs 35.5 ± 4.2Gy, p = 0.047). Improvements were, however, to some extent, at the expense of less conformal dose distributions, which resulted in significantly higher doses to the bladder for 2 of the 3 tolerance levels. In conclusion, similar IMRT plans can be created for patients with prostate cancer using MCO compared with standard optimization. Limitations exist within MCO regarding conversion of navigated plans to deliverable apertures, particularly for plans that emphasize avoidance of critical structures. Minimizing these differences would result in better quality treatments for patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radiotherapy using MCO plans.

Drugs affecting the renin-angiotensin system and survival from cancer: a population based study of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer patient cohorts

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly prescribed to the growing number of cancer patients (more than two million in the UK alone) often to treat hypertension. However, increased fatal cancer in ARB users in a randomized trial and increased breast cancer recurrence rates in ACEI users in a recent observational study have raised concerns about their safety in cancer patients. We investigated whether ACEI or ARB use after breast, colorectal or prostate cancer diagnosis was associated with increased risk of cancer-specific mortality.

Methods: Population-based cohorts of 9,814 breast, 4,762 colorectal and 6,339 prostate cancer patients newly diagnosed from 1998 to 2006 were identified in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and confirmed by cancer registry linkage. Cancer-specific and all-cause mortality were identified from Office of National Statistics mortality data in 2011 (allowing up to 13 years of follow-up). A nested case–control analysis was conducted to compare ACEI/ARB use (from general practitioner prescription records) in cancer patients dying from cancer with up to five controls (not dying from cancer). Conditional logistic regression estimated the risk of cancer-specific, and all-cause, death in ACEI/ARB users compared with non-users.

Results: The main analysis included 1,435 breast, 1,511 colorectal and 1,184 prostate cancer-specific deaths (and 7,106 breast, 7,291 colorectal and 5,849 prostate cancer controls). There was no increase in cancer-specific mortality in patients using ARBs after diagnosis of breast (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.06 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84, 1.35), colorectal (adjusted OR = 0.82 95% CI 0.64, 1.07) or prostate cancer (adjusted OR = 0.79 95% CI 0.61, 1.03). There was also no evidence of increases in cancer-specific mortality with ACEI use for breast (adjusted OR = 1.06 95% CI 0.89, 1.27), colorectal (adjusted OR = 0.78 95% CI 0.66, 0.92) or prostate cancer (adjusted OR = 0.78 95% CI 0.66, 0.92).

Conclusions: Overall, we found no evidence of increased risks of cancer-specific mortality in breast, colorectal or prostate cancer patients who used ACEI or ARBs after diagnosis. These results provide some reassurance that these medications are safe in patients diagnosed with these cancers.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer; Breast cancer; Prostate cancer; Mortality; Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers

Beta-blocker usage and prostate cancer survival:A nested case-control study in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink cohort

Background: Recent laboratory and epidemiological evidence suggests that beta-blockers could inhibit prostate cancer progression. Methods: We investigated the effect of beta-blockers on prostate cancer-specific mortality in a cohort of prostate cancer patients. Prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2006 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Database and confirmed by cancer registries. Patients were followed up to 2011 with deaths identified by the Office of National Statistics. A nested case-control analysis compared patients dying from prostate cancer (cases) with up to three controls alive at the time of their death, matched by age and year of diagnosis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using conditional logistic regression. Results: Post-diagnostic beta-blocker use was identified in 25% of 1184 prostate cancer-specific deaths and 26% of 3531 matched controls. There was little evidence (P=0.40) of a reduction in the risk of cancer-specific death in beta-blocker users compared with non-users (OR=0.94 95% CI 0.81, 1.09). Similar results were observed after adjustments for confounders, in analyses by beta-blocker frequency, duration, type and for all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Beta-blocker usage after diagnosis was not associated with cancer-specific or all-cause mortality in prostate cancer patients in this large UK study.

Repackaging Prostate Cancer Support Group Research Findings: An e-KT Case Study

n the context of psychosocial oncology research, disseminating study findings to a range of knowledge “end-users” can advance the well-being of diverse patient subgroups and their families. This article details how findings drawn from a study of prostate cancer support groups were repackaged in a knowledge translation website—www.prostatecancerhelpyourself.ubc.ca—using Web 2.0 features. Detailed are five lessons learned from developing the website: the importance of pitching a winning but feasible idea, keeping a focus on interactivity and minimizing text, negotiating with the supplier, building in formal pretests or a pilot test with end-users, and completing formative evaluations based on data collected through Google™ and YouTube™ Analytics. The details are shared to guide the e-knowledge translation efforts of other psychosocial oncology researchers and clinicians.

The late effects of cancer and cancer treatment:a rapid review

This paper aims to synthesize literature about the definition, prevalence, onset and treatments associated with late effects. A rapid review was conducted using Google Scholar to identify reviews related to the late effects of adult-onset cancers. Papers were included if they provided a definition of late effects and/or presented a review of late effects as a result of adult-onset cancers in patients aged 18 years or older. Reviews related to nonmelanoma skin cancer were excluded. Reviews focusing on late effects in survivors of childhood-onset cancers (younger than 18 years) were ineligible for inclusion in the review. A total of 16 reviews were identified. Between 0% and 100% of survivors experienced a range of physical, psychological and social late effects. The onset of physical late effects was defined broadly as 'months or years' after treatment, whereas psychological late effects were defined as occurring at the end of treatment or similarly to physical late effects as 'months or years' after treatment. Few reviews provided an operational definition of late effects, and the onset of late effects was not often reported. Thus, reviews may have included the acute and long-term effects of cancer treatment. Evidence regarding causes, prevalence, and onset was incomplete for many late effects. Understanding the cause and onset of late effects is important in order to provide timely interventions to reduce the risk of late effect development in cancer patients.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

The primary objective of this review is to evaluate the effects of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments). Patients who have received treatments such as cranial radiation for central nervous system tumours or metastases are not the focus of this review and will be excluded.

A second objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for improving non-cognitive outcomes e.g. quality of life among this population.

Thirdly, we will extract and analyse data regarding the duration of intervention effects.

Fourthly, we will examine each study to identify safety as an outcome and incorporate information on intervention safety where possible. Evidence for the review will be based on data from randomised trials.