PURPOSE: We report the clinical outcomes of a randomized trial comparing prophylactic whole-pelvic nodal radiotherapy to prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) in high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: This phase III, single center, randomized controlled trial enrolled eligible patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for node-negative prostate adenocarcinoma, with estimated nodal risk ≥ 20%. Randomization was 1:1 to PORT (68 Gy/25# to prostate) or whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT, 68 Gy/25# to prostate, 50 Gy/25# to pelvic nodes, including common iliac) using computerized stratified block randomization, stratified by Gleason score, type of androgen deprivation, prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis, and prior transurethral resection of the prostate. All patients received image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and minimum 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy. The primary end point was 5-year biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: From November 2011 to August 2017, a total of 224 patients were randomly assigned (PORT = 114, WPRT = 110). At a median follow-up of 68 months, 36 biochemical failures (PORT = 25, WPRT = 7) and 24 deaths (PORT = 13, WPRT = 11) were recorded. Five-year BFFS was 95.0% (95% CI, 88.4 to 97.9) with WPRT versus 81.2% (95% CI, 71.6 to 87.8) with PORT, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.52; P < .0001). WPRT also showed higher 5-year DFS (89.5% v 77.2%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.73; P = .002), but 5-year OS did not appear to differ (92.5% v 90.8%; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.05; P = .83). Distant metastasis-free survival was also higher with WPRT (95.9% v 89.2%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.82; P = .01). Benefit in BFFS and DFS was maintained across prognostic subgroups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic pelvic irradiation for high-risk, locally advanced prostate cancer improved BFFS and DFS as compared with PORT, but OS did not appear to differ.

Introduction: The present study identifies the prognostic factors influencing oral cancers in a large cohort of patients treated at a single institute. Materials and Methods: This is an audit of 1180 patients treated from 1990 to 2004 in the service setting with prospective data collection. Patients were treated with radical radiotherapy or were planned for surgery and post operative radiotherapy (PORT). None of the patients received postoperative concurrent chemoradiation. For analysis, patients were divided into Group 1 and Group 2 based on the oral cavity subsite. Results: Of the entire cohort, 810 patients had tumors of the Gingivo-alveolo-buccal complex, lip and hard palate (Group 1) and 370 patients had primaries in tongue and floor of mouth (Group 2). Three year locoregional control for the entire cohort was 58%. The three year local control (LC), locoregional control (LRC) and disease free survival (DFS) for PORT group were 74%, 65% and 60%, respectively, with pathological nodal status, perinodal extension and cut margin status showing statistical significance (P <0.001). In the definitive radiotherapy group, the three year LC, LRC and DFS were 34%, 31% and 30%, respectively, with age, T stage, nodal status and stage being significant. Group 1 patients showed significantly better LC, LRC and DFS than Group 2 patients for the entire cohort. Conclusion: The results indicate superior outcomes with PORT particularly in advanced stages of oral cancer and inferior outcomes in tongue and floor of mouth subsites. There is scope for improving outcomes by adopting treatment intensification strategies.

CCHN and assess their correlation and influence of tobacco use on patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The p16 and HPV status of 170 patients of SCCHN treated with curative chemoradiotherapy was determined using immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction, respectively, and further correlated with their demographic characteristics. In addition, genotyping of HPV-positive samples was performed. Survival outcomes were analyzed and compared for both p16 positive (p16 +ve) and p16 negative (p16 −ve) population. The influence of tobacco use on outcomes was assessed. RESULTS: p16 expression was observed in 20% (34/170) cases whereas HPV positivity was detected in 39.4% (67/170) of SCCHN patients with HPV16 being the most common (91%) subtype. About 73.5% patients were p16 +ve among the tobacco users in this cohort (83.5%). Interestingly, p16 positivity was significantly associated with nonusers of tobacco (P = 0.02) and younger females (P = 0.06). The p16 +ve and p16 −ve groups did not exhibit a significant difference in the 5-year cause-specific survival (CSS) (79% vs. 72.2%), disease-free survival (DFS) (78.3% vs. 68.3%, P = 0.5), and locoregional control (LRC) (82.2% vs. 71.5%, P = 0.4). However, the outcome analyses in tobacco nonusers revealed a definite large improvement in CSS (P = 0.08) and a trend toward improvement in DFS (P = 0.15) and LRC (P = 0.11) in the p16 +ve versus the p16 −ve groups. CONCLUSION: The low prevalence of p16 positivity (20%) and dual HPV and p16 positivity (38.8%) in the studied Indian cohort indicates the low utility of p16 as a surrogate for HPV in the background of high tobacco burden. The outcomes are largely improved in a small subset of SCCHN cases comprising p16 +ve tobacco nonusers....