A Phase 1 Trial of Salvage Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer After Brachytherapy.
NCT03253744 is a phase 1 trial with the primary objective to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of salvage stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with local prostate cancer recurrence after brachytherapy. Additional objectives included biochemical control and imaging response.
This trial was initially designed to test 3 therapeutic dose levels (DLs): 40 Gy (DL1), 42.5 Gy (DL2), and 45 Gy (DL3) in 5 fractions. Intensity modulation was used to deliver the prescription dose to the magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific membrane antigen-based positron emission tomography imaging-defined gross tumor volume while simultaneously delivering 30 Gy to an elective volume defined by the prostate gland. This phase 1 trial followed a 3+3 design with a 3-patient expansion at the MTD. Toxicities were scored until trial completion at 2 years post-SBRT using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Escalation was halted if 2 dose limiting toxicities occurred, defined as any persistent (>4 days) grade 3 toxicity occurring within the first 3 weeks after SBRT or any grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) or grade 4 gastrointestinal toxicity thereafter.
Between August 2018 and January 2023, 9 patients underwent salvage SBRT and were observed for a median of 22 months (Q1-Q3, 20-43 months). No grade 3 to 5 adverse events related to study treatment were observed; thus, no dose limiting toxicities occurred during the observation period. Escalation was halted by amendment given excellent biochemical control in DL1 and DL2 in the setting of a high incidence of clinically significant late grade 2 GU toxicity. Therefore, the MTD was considered 42.5 Gy in 5 fractions (DL2). One- and 2-year biochemical progression-free survival were 100% and 86%, representing a single patient in the trial cohort with biochemical failure (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] nadir + 2.0) at 20 months posttreatment.
The MTD of salvage SBRT for the treatment of intraprostatic radiorecurrence after brachytherapy was 42.5 Gy in 5 fractions producing an 86% 2-year biochemical progression-free survival rate, with 1 poststudy failure at 20 months. The most frequent clinically significant toxicity was late grade 2 GU toxicity.
Patel KR
，Rydzewski NR
，Schott E
，Cooley-Zgela T
，Ning H
，Cheng J
，Salerno K
，Huang EP
，Lindenberg L
，Mena E
，Choyke P
，Turkbey B
，Citrin DE
... -
《-》
Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of high-dose rate brachytherapy for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
High-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) plays an important role in the treatment of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive treatment. The objective of this study is to summarize the efficacy and toxicity of HDR-BT in these patients.
We performed a systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE from inception to July 2023. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) in different subgroups, and the secondary endpoint was gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. A semi-automated tool (WebPlotDigitizer) and a new Shiny application combined with R software (R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; https://www.R-project.org/ ) helped to reconstruct survival curves.
Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis, including 1447 patients. A total of 761 patients from 13 studies were included in survival reconstruction, and the median RFS time was 61.2 months (57.6-72.0 months). The estimated 2‑, 3‑, and 5‑year rates were 75.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72.8 ~ 79.2%), 66.7% (95% CI 63.0 ~ 70.5%), and 52.3% (95% CI 47.5 ~ 57.4%), respectively. Whole-gland irradiation with multiple fractions (≥ 2 F) resulted in better RFS compared with focal gland irradiation with fewer fractions (1 F mostly; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.77, p < 0.0001). According to the different median time from primary treatment to salvage therapy (TRS) and median age at recurrence, short median TRS (56-67.2 months vs. 70-120 months; HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.68-0.40; p < 0.0001) and younger median age (60-70 years vs. 71-75 years; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.74; p < 0.0001) were positive factors for RFS. The cumulative incidences estimated for grade ≥ 3 acute and late GU toxicities were 1% (95% CI 0 ~ 1%) and 5% (95% CI 4 ~ 7%), respectively. Three patients (3/992) experienced grade ≥ 3 late GI toxicity, and no cases of grade ≥ 3 acute GI toxicity were reported.
HDR-BT has a high safety profile and good RFS benefit for salvage treatment of radiorecurrent prostate cancer. In terms of RFS, whole-gland irradiation with multiple fractions seems to be better than focal gland irradiation with fewer fractions, while short TRS and younger age are good prognostic factors. In view of the low level of evidence in the included studies and the large heterogeneity of each study, these conclusions still need to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.
Shen B
，Liu J
，Wu D
，Guo J
... -
《-》
Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment.
Surgery is a common treatment option in oral cavity cancer (and less frequently in oropharyngeal cancer) to remove the primary tumour and sometimes neck lymph nodes. People with early-stage disease may undergo surgery alone or surgery plus radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy/biotherapy, or a combination of these. Timing and extent of surgery varies. This is the third update of a review originally published in 2007.
To evaluate the relative benefits and harms of different surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers.
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 9 February 2022.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities, for primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx.
Our primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, locoregional recurrence, and recurrence; and our secondary outcomes were adverse effects of treatment, quality of life, direct and indirect costs to patients and health services, and participant satisfaction. We used standard Cochrane methods. We reported survival data as hazard ratios (HRs). For overall survival, we reported the HR of mortality, and for disease-free survival, we reported the combined HR of new disease, progression, and mortality; therefore, HRs below 1 indicated improvement in these outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
We identified four new trials, bringing the total number of included trials to 15 (2820 participants randomised, 2583 participants analysed). For objective outcomes, we assessed four trials at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and eight at unclear risk. The trials evaluated nine comparisons; none compared different surgical approaches for excision of the primary tumour. Five trials evaluated elective neck dissection (ND) versus therapeutic (delayed) ND in people with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes. Elective ND compared with therapeutic ND probably improves overall survival (HR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.83; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 883 participants; moderate certainty) and disease-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70; I2 = 12%; 5 trials, 954 participants; moderate certainty), and probably reduces locoregional recurrence (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 458 participants; moderate certainty) and recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 633 participants; moderate certainty). Elective ND is probably associated with more adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.54; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 746 participants; moderate certainty). Two trials evaluated elective radical ND versus elective selective ND in people with oral cavity cancer, but we were unable to pool the data as the trials used different surgical procedures. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival (pooled measure not estimable; very low certainty). We are unsure if there is a difference in effect on disease-free survival (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.11; 1 trial, 104 participants; very low certainty) or recurrence (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.33; 1 trial, 143 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference between the interventions in terms of adverse events (1 trial, 148 participants; low certainty). Two trials evaluated superselective ND versus selective ND, but we were unable to use the data. One trial evaluated supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND in 332 participants. We were unable to use any of the primary outcome data. The evidence on adverse events was very uncertain, with more complications, pain, and poorer shoulder function in the modified radical ND group. One trial evaluated sentinel node biopsy versus elective ND in 279 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; low certainty), disease-free survival (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; low certainty), or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; low certainty). The trial provided no usable data for recurrence, and reported no adverse events (very low certainty). One trial evaluated positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy) in 564 participants. There is probably no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; moderate certainty) or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; moderate certainty). One trial evaluated surgery plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone and provided very low-certainty evidence of better overall survival in the surgery plus radiotherapy group (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.59; 35 participants). The data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and had multiple protocol violations. In terms of adverse events, subcutaneous fibrosis was more frequent in the surgery plus radiotherapy group, but there were no differences in other adverse events (very low certainty). One trial evaluated surgery versus radiotherapy alone for oropharyngeal cancer in 68 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions for overall survival (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.46; low certainty) or disease-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.22; low certainty). For adverse events, there were too many outcomes to draw reliable conclusions. One trial evaluated surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy versus chemotherapy. We were unable to use the data for any of the outcomes reported (very low certainty).
We found moderate-certainty evidence based on five trials that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary oral cavity tumour is superior to therapeutic neck dissection, with increased survival and disease-free survival, and reduced locoregional recurrence. There was moderate-certainty evidence from one trial of no difference between positron emission tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy versus planned neck dissection in terms of overall survival or locoregional recurrence. The evidence for each of the other seven comparisons came from only one or two studies and was assessed as low or very low-certainty.
Worthington HV
，Bulsara VM
，Glenny AM
，Clarkson JE
，Conway DI
，Macluskey M
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
