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

Low-dose aspirin and survival in men with prostate cancer: a study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Purpose: Aspirin use is associated with reduced risk of, and death from, prostate cancer. Our aim was to determine whether low-dose aspirin use after a prostate cancer diagnosis was associated with reduced prostate cancer-specific mortality.

Methods: A cohort of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients (1998–2006) was identified in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (confirmed by cancer registry linkage). A nested case–control analysis was conducted using conditional logistic regression to compare aspirin usage in cases (prostate cancer deaths) with up to three controls (matched by age and year of diagnosis).

Results: Post-diagnostic low-dose aspirin use was identified in 52 % of 1,184 prostate cancer-specific deaths and 39 % of 3,531 matched controls (unadjusted OR 1.51, 95 % CI 1.19, 1.90; p < 0.001). After adjustment for confounders including treatment and comorbidities, this association was attenuated (adjusted OR 1.02 95 % CI 0.78, 1.34; p = 0.86). Adjustment for estrogen therapy accounted for the majority of this attenuation. There was also no evidence of dose–response association after adjustments. Compared with no use, patients with 1–11 prescriptions and 12 or more prescriptions had adjusted ORs of 1.07 (95 % CI 0.78, 1.47; p = 0.66) and 0.97 (95 % CI 0.69, 1.37; p = 0.88), respectively. There was no evidence of a protective association between low-dose aspirin use in the year prior to diagnosis and prostate cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR 1.04 95 % CI 0.89, 1.22; p = 0.60).

Conclusion: We found no evidence of an association between low-dose aspirin use before or after diagnosis and risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality, after potential confounders were accounted for, in UK prostate cancer patients.

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 effect of warfarin therapy on breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer survival: a population-based cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

PURPOSE: Pre-clinical studies suggest that oral anticoagulant agents, such as warfarin, may inhibit metastases and potentially prolong survival in cancer patients. However, few population-based studies have examined the association between warfarin use and cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS: Using prescribing, cause of death, and cancer registration data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, four population-based cohorts were constructed, comprising breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 1 January 1998, and the 31 December 2010. Comparing pre-diagnostic warfarin users to non-users, multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS: Overall, 16,525 breast, 12,902 colorectal, 12,296 lung, and 12,772 prostate cancers were included. Pre-diagnostic warfarin use ranged from 2.4 to 4.7 %. There was little evidence of any strong association between warfarin use pre-diagnosis and cancer-specific mortality in prostate (adjusted HR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.84-1.26), lung (adjusted HR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.96-1.16), breast (adjusted HR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.62-1.07), or colorectal (adjusted HR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.77-1.01) cancer patients. Dose-response analyses did not reveal consistent evidence of reductions in users of warfarin defined by the number of prescriptions used and daily defined doses.

CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence of associations between pre-diagnostic use of warfarin and cancer-specific mortality in lung, prostate, breast, or colorectal cancer patients.

Efficacy and safety of radium-223 dichloride in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases, with or without previous docetaxel use: A prespecified subgroup analysis from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial

Background: Primary results from the phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial showed that radium-223 dichloride (radium-223), a targeted α-emitter, improved overall survival compared with placebo and was well tolerated in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases. We did a prespecified subgroup analysis from ALSYMPCA to assess the effect of previous docetaxel use on the efficacy and safety of radium-223. 

Methods: In the phase 3, randomised, double-blind ALSYMPCA trial, patients with symptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, at least two symptomatic bone metastases, no known visceral metastases, and who were receiving best standard of care were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive six injections of radium-223 (50 kBq/kg intravenously) or matching placebo, with one injection given every 4 weeks. Patients had either received previous docetaxel treatment or were unsuitable for or declined docetaxel; previous docetaxel use (yes or no) was a trial stratification factor. We investigated the effect of previous docetaxel use on radium-223 treatment for the primary endpoint of overall survival, the main secondary efficacy endpoints, and safety. Efficacy analyses were done for the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses were done for the safety population. The trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00699751. 

Findings: Randomisation took place between June 12, 2008, and Feb 1, 2011. 526 (57%) of 921 randomly assigned patients had received previous docetaxel treatment (352 in the radium-223 group and 174 in the placebo group) and 395 (43%) had not (262 in the radium-223 group and 133 in the placebo group). Radium-223 prolonged median overall survival compared with placebo, irrespective of previous docetaxel use (previous docetaxel use, hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·56-0·88; p=0·002; no previous docetaxel use, HR 0·69, 0·52-0·92; p=0·01). The benefit of radium-223 compared with placebo was seen in both docetaxel subgroups for most main secondary efficacy endpoints; risk for time to time to first symptomatic skeletal event was reduced with radium-223 versus placebo in patients with previous docetaxel use, but the difference was not significant in those with no previous docetaxel use. 322 (62%) of 518 patients previously treated with docetaxel had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 205 (54%) of 383 patients without docetaxel. Patients who had previously been treated with docetaxel had a higher incidence of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia with radium-223 than with placebo (31 [9%] of 347 patients vs five [3%] of 171 patients), whereas the incidence was similar between treatment groups among patients with no previous docetaxel use (seven [3%] of 253 patients vs one [1%] of 130 patients). The incidences of grade 3-4 anaemia and neutropenia were similar between the radium-223 and placebo groups within both docetaxel subgroups. 

Interpretation: Radium-223 is effective and well tolerated in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases, irrespective of previous docetaxel use. 

Funding: Algeta ASA and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Interactions of a non-thermal atmospheric pressure plasma effluent with PC-3 prostate cancer cells

The effect of a radio-frequency driven, microscale non thermal atmospheric pressure plasma jet operated in helium with vol. 0.3% molecular oxygen gas admixture, on PC-3 prostate cancer cells has been investigated. The viability of cells exposed to the plasma was found to decrease with increasing plasma exposure time, with apoptosis through caspase and PARP cleavage being observed. High concentrations of nitrite and nitrate were detected in growth media exposed to the plasma and were found to increase in a time dependent manner post exposure. This indicates a slow release of reactive nitrogen species into the growth media, which is likely to influence cellular response to plasma exposure.

A population-based study of adverse physical effects following prostate cancer treatments: Results from the PiCTure (Prostate cancer treatment – your experience) study

Background:

Men and clinicians need reliable population based information when making decisions about investigation and treatment of prostate cancer. In the absence of clearly preferred treatments, differences in outcomes become more important.

Aim:

To investigate rates of adverse physical effects among prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis by treatment, and estimate population burden.

Methods:

A cross sectional, postal survey to 6,559 survivors (all ages) diagnosed with primary, invasive prostate cancer (ICD10-C61), identified in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland via cancer registries. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, treatments received and adverse physical effects (impotence, urinary incontinence, bowel problems, breast changes, libido loss, hot flashes, fatigue) experienced ‘ever’ and ‘current’ i.e. at questionnaire completion. Physical effect levels were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis for all prostate cancer survivors. Bonferroni corrections were applied to account for multiple comparisons.

Results:

Adjusted response rate 54%, (n=3,348). 75% reported at least one current physical effect (90% ever), with 29% reporting at least three. These varied by treatment. Current impotence was reported by 76% post-prostatectomy, 64% post-external beam radiotherapy with hormone therapy, with average for all survivors of 57%. Urinary incontinence (overall current level: 16%) was highest post-prostatectomy (current 28%, ever 70%). 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no current adverse physical effects; however 43% reported current impotence and 8% current incontinence. Current hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more commonly by patients on hormone therapy.

Conclusions:

This study provides evidence that adverse physical effects following prostate cancer represent a significant public health burden; an estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor with a current adverse physical effect. This information should facilitate investigation and treatment decision-making and follow-up care of patients.

Patient-reported 'ever had' and 'current' long term physical symptoms following prostate cancer treatments

OBJECTIVE: To document prostate cancer patient reported 'ever experienced' and 'current' prevalence of disease specific physical symptoms stratified by primary treatment received.
PATIENTS: 3,348 prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis.
METHODS: Cross-sectional, postal survey of 6,559 survivors diagnosed 2-15 years ago with primary, invasive PCa (ICD10-C61) identified via national, population based cancer registries in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, primary treatments and physical symptoms (impotence/urinary incontinence/bowel problems/breast changes/loss of libido/hot flashes/fatigue) experienced 'ever' and at questionnaire completion ("current"). Symptom proportions were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis. Bonferroni corrections were applied for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: Adjusted response rate 54%; 75% reported at least one 'current' physical symptom ('ever':90%), with 29% reporting at least three. Prevalence varied by treatment; overall 57% reported current impotence; this was highest following radical prostatectomy (RP)76% followed by external beam radiotherapy with concurrent hormone therapy (HT); 64%. Urinary incontinence (overall 'current' 16%) was highest following RP ('current'28%, 'ever'70%). While 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no 'current' symptoms; 43% reported 'current' impotence and 8% 'current' incontinence. 'Current' hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more often by patients on HT.
CONCLUSION: Symptoms following prostate cancer are common, often multiple, persist long-term and vary by treatment. They represent a significant health burden. An estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor currently experiencing an adverse physical symptom. Recognition and treatment of physical symptoms should be prioritised in patient follow-up. This information should facilitate men and clinicians when deciding about treatment as differences in survival between radical treatments is minimal.

Long-term health-related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors varies by primary treatment. Results from the PiCTure (Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience) study

PURPOSE: Men are living longer with prostate cancer. In a two-country study, we investigated the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of prostate cancer survivors up to 18 years post-diagnosis.

METHODS: Postal questionnaires were administered in 2012 to 6559 prostate cancer (ICD10 C61) survivors 2-18 years post-diagnosis, identified through population-based cancer registries in Ireland. HRQoL was measured using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. HRQoL, functional and symptom scores were compared by primary treatment(s) using multiple linear regression.

RESULTS: Fifty-four percent responded (n = 3348). After controlling for socio-demographic and clinical factors, global HRQoL varied significantly by primary treatment (p < 0.001); compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), survivors who received androgen deprivation therapy alone (ADT; p < 0.001) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without concurrent ADT (p = 0.001) had significantly lower global HRQoL. The global HRQoL of men who received brachytherapy (p = 0.157), EBRT with concurrent ADT (p = 0.940) or active surveillance/watchful waiting (p = 0.388) was not significantly different from men treated with RP. There were statistically and clinically significant differences in general (fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea, financial difficulties) and disease-specific symptoms (sexual, urinary, bowel, ADT) by primary treatment. Fatigue and insomnia scores were high for survivors in all treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer survivors' long-term HRQoL varied with primary treatment.

IMPLICATIONS OF CANCER SURVIVORS: Population-based information regarding statistically and clinically significant treatment effects on long-term global HRQoL, symptom burden and functionality should be provided during treatment decision-making. Screening for symptoms and utilising interventions during long-term follow-up may improve survivors' HRQoL.