Our aim was to report physician- and patient-reported outcomes of patients with localized breast cancer treated with moderate versus ultrahypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Between February 2018 and February 2020, patients with localized breast cancer (pT0-3 pN0-1 M0) were offered participation in a phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing adjuvant moderate hypofractionation (MHF) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions versus ultrahypofractionation (UHF) to 25 Gy in 5 fractions after BCS, with an optional simultaneously integrated boost. Toxicities, cosmesis, and quality of life were assessed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years from irradiation using validated metric tools. One hundred seven patients were randomized to MHF (n = 54) or UHF (n = 53) adjuvant WBI. The median follow-up was 42.8 months. Grade 2 radiation dermatitis was experienced by 4 patients (7.4%) in the MHF arm and 2 patients (3.7%) in the UHF arm at EOT (P = .726). No grade 3 or higher toxicities were observed. Deterioration of cosmesis by physician assessment was observed in 2 (6.7%) patients treated in the UHF arm and 1 (1.9%) patient treated in the MHF arm at EOT (P = .534), whereas at 3 months, only 1 (1.8%) patient treated in the MHF arm demonstrated deterioration of cosmesis (P = .315). At EOT, 91% and 94% of patients reported excellent/good cosmesis among those treated with MHF and UHF regimens, respectively (P = .550). At 3 months, more patients within the MHF arm reported excellent/good cosmesis compared with those in the UHF arm (100% vs 91%; P = .030). However, the difference in patient-reported cosmesis disappeared at the 1-, 2-, and 3-year time points. UHF WBI showed similar treatment-related late toxicities and similar provider-scored cosmesis compared with MHF radiation in patients treated adjuvantly after BCS.

Purpose/Objectives: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is commonly performed in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction. However, there are few reports on the toxicity of external beam irradiation (RT) for prostate cancer in patients after prior HoLEP. In this study, we evaluate the side effects and treatment outcomes of RT after HoLEP.Materials/Methods: Eighteen patients who had HoLEP and subsequently received RT for prostate cancer were included. Data collected included patient and disease characteristics, urinary function, and radiation dose. Acute and late urinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects were evaluated. Disease control and survival rates were calculated using Kaplan–Meier method.Results: Median follow‐up was 18 months (range: 4–46 months). Median prostate volume was 107 ml before HoLEP and 24 ml after HoLEP. Median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 17 (range: 5–32) before HoLEP. Median decline in IPSS score after HoLEP was 7 (range: −2–21). On uroflow study, peak flow rate, and post‐void residual were significantly improved after HoLEP. After radiation, peak flow rate and average flow rate showed a decline but remained significantly improved compared to pre‐HoLEP measurements. Maximum acute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) adverse events were 12 grade 1 and 3 grade 2 for GU, and 3 grade 1 for GI, respectively. Maximum late adverse events were 13 grade 1 and 2 grade 2 for GU, and all grade 0 for GI, respectively. At last follow‐up, there were 8 grade 1 and 1 grade 2 late GU, and 3 grade 1 late GI adverse events, respectively. There was no significant increase in urinary incontinence after RT compared to before RT. The 18‐month biochemical control, local control, distant control rates were 78%, 94%, and 80%, respectively.Conclusions: Patients who received RT as definitive treatment for prostate cancer after prior HoLEP had low risk of serious acute and late side effects. HoLEP can be safely performed and should be considered in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction and large prostate volume before RT.

This series reports long-term clinical outcomes of patients with salivary duct carcinoma (SDC), which is associated with a poor prognosis. Eighty-nine patients with SDC were treated with curative intent from February 5, 1971, through September 15, 2018. Kaplan-Meier and competing risk analyses were used to estimate locoregional control, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). Cox regression analyses of disease and treatment characteristics were performed to discover predictors of locoregional control, DMFS, and OS. Median follow-up was 44.1 months (range, 0.23-356.67). The median age at diagnosis was 66 years (interquartile range, 57-75). Curative surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy was performed in 73 patients (82%). Chemotherapy was delivered in 26 patients (29.2%). The 5-year local recurrence and distant metastasis rates were 27% and 44%, respectively, with death as a competing risk. Distant metastasis was associated with lymph node–positive disease (hazard ratio [HR], 3.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-7.23; P = .006), stage IV disease (HR, 4.78; 95% CI, 1.14-20.11; P = .033), perineural invasion (HR, 4.56; 95% CI, 1.74-11.97; P = .002), and positive margins (HR, 9.06; 95% CI, 3.88-21.14; P < .001). Median OS was 4.84 years (95% CI, 3.54-7.02). The 5-year OS was 42%. Reduced OS was associated with lymphovascular space invasion (HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.2-10.1; P = .022), perineural invasion (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.06-3.97; P = .033), positive margins (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-5.6; P = .011), N2 disease (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.03-3.43; P = .04), and N3 disease (HR, 11.76; 95% CI, 3.19-43.3; P < .001). In this single-institution, multicenter retrospective study, the 5-year survival was 42% in patients with SDC. Lymphovascular space invasion, lymph node involvement, and higher staging at diagnosis were associated with lower DMFS and OS.

Purpose: Planning target volume (PTV) expansion for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy is typically ≥5 mm. Recent clinical trials have proved the feasibility of a reduced margin of 2–3 mm for treatments on MRI-linac. We aim to study the minimum PTV margin needed using iterative cone-beam CT (iCBCT) as image guidance on conventional linacs. Materials/Methods: Fourteen patients who received post-prostatectomy irradiation (8 with an endorectal balloon and 6 without a balloon) were included in this study. Treatment was delivered with volumetric modulated radiation therapy (VMAT). Fractional dose delivery was evaluated in 165 treatment fractions. The bladder, rectal wall, femoral heads, and prostate bed clinical tumor volume (CTV) were contoured and verified on daily iCBCT. PTV margins (0 mm, 2 mm, and 4 mm) were evaluated on daily iCBCT. CTV coverage and OAR dose parameters were assessed with each PTV margin. Results: CTV D100% was underdosed with a 0 mm margin in 32% of fractions in comparison with 2 mm (6%) and 4 mm (6%) PTV margin (p ≤ 0.001). CTV D95% > 95% was met in 93–94% fractions for all PTV expansions. CTV D95% > 95% was achieved in more patients with an endorectal balloon than those without: 0 mm—90/91 (99%) vs. 63/74 (85%); 2 mm—90/91 (99%) vs. 65/75 (87%); 4 mm—90/90 (100%) vs. 63/73 (86%). There was no difference in absolute median change in CTV D95% (0.32%) for 0-, 2-, and 4 mm margins. The maximum dose remained under 108% for 100% (0 mm), 97% (2 mm), and 98% (4 mm) of images. Rectal wall maximum dose remained under 108% for 100% (0 mm), 100% (2 mm), and 98% (4 mm) of images. Conclusions: With high-quality iCBCT image guidance, PTV margin accounting for inter-fractional uncertainties can be safely reduced for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy. For fractionated radiotherapy, an isotropic expansion of 2 mm and 4 mm may be considered for margin expansion with and without the endorectal balloon. Future application for margin reduction needs to be further evaluated and considered with the advent of shorter post-prostatectomy radiation courses.

There are limited data regarding using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the postprostatectomy setting. Here, we present a preliminary analysis of a prospective phase II trial that aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of postprostatectomy SBRT for adjuvant or early salvage therapy. Between May 2018 and May 2020, 41 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria and were stratified into 3 groups: group I (adjuvant), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 0.2 ng/mL with high-risk features including positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, or extracapsular extension; group II (salvage), with PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL but < 2 ng/mL; or group III (oligometastatic), with PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL but < 2 ng/mL and up to 3 sites of nodal or bone metastases. Androgen deprivation therapy was not offered to group I. Androgen deprivation therapy was offered for 6 months for group II and 18 months for group III patients. SBRT dose to the prostate bed was 30 to 32 Gy in 5 fractions. Baseline-adjusted physician reported toxicities (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), patient reported quality-of-life (Expanded Prostate Index Composite, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System), and American Urologic Association scores were evaluated for all patients. The median follow-up was 23 months (range, 10-37). SBRT was adjuvant in 8 (20%) patients, salvage in 28 (68%), and salvage with the presence of oligometastases in 5 (12%) patients. Urinary, bowel, and sexual quality of life domains remained high after SBRT. Patients tolerated SBRT with no grade 3 or higher (3+) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities. The baseline adjusted acute and late toxicity grade 2 genitourinary (urinary incontinence) rate was 2.4% (1/41) and 12.2% (5/41). At 2 years, clinical disease control was 95%, and biochemical control was 73%. Among the 2 clinical failures, 1 was a regional node and the other a bone metastasis. Oligometastatic sites were salvaged successfully with SBRT. There were no in-target failures. Postprostatectomy SBRT was very well tolerated in this prospective cohort, with no significant effect on quality of life metrics postirradiation, while providing excellent clinical disease control.

Purpose: Post-operative prostate cancer patients are treated with full bladder instruction and the use of an endorectal balloon (ERB). We reassessed the efficacy of this practice based on daily image guidance and dose delivery using high-quality iterative reconstructed cone-beam CT (iCBCT). Methods: Fractional dose delivery was calculated on daily iCBCT for 314 fractions from 14 post-operative prostate patients (8 with and 6 without ERB) treated with volumetric modulated radiotherapy (VMAT). All patients were positioned using novel iCBCT during image guidance. The bladder, rectal wall, femoral heads, and prostate bed clinical tumor volume (CTV) were contoured and verified on daily iCBCT. The dose-volume parameters of the contoured organs at risk (OAR) and CTV coverage were assessed for the clinical impact of daily bladder volume variations and the use of ERB. Minimum bladder volume was studied, and a straightforward bladder instruction was explored for easy clinical adoption. Results: A “minimum bladder” contour, the overlap between the original bladder contour and a 15 mm anterior and superior expansion from prostate bed PTV, was confirmed to be effective in identifying cases that might fail a bladder constraint of V65% <60%. The average difference between the maximum and minimum bladder volumes for each patient was 277.1 mL. The daily bladder volumes varied from 62.4 to 590.7 mL and ranged from 29 to 286% of the corresponding planning bladder volume. The bladder constraint of V65% <60% was met in almost all fractions (98%). CTVs (D90%, D95%, and D98%) remained well-covered regardless of the absolute bladder volume daily variation or the presence of the endorectal balloon. Patients with an endorectal balloon showed smaller variation but a higher average maximum rectal wall dose (D0.03mL: 104.3% of the prescription) compared to patients without (103.3%). Conclusions: A “minimum bladder” contour was determined that can be easily generated and followed to ensure sufficient bladder sparing. Further analysis and validation are needed to confirm the utility of the minimal bladder contour. Accurate dose delivery can be achieved for prostate bed target coverage and OAR sparing with or without the use of ERB.