Technical advances in radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning and delivery have substantially changed RT concepts for primary prostate cancer (PCa) by (i) enabling a reduction of treatment time, and by (ii) enabling safe delivery of high RT doses. Several studies proposed a dose–response relationship for patients with primary PCa and especially in patients with high-risk features, as dose escalation leads to improved tumor control. In parallel to the improvements in RT techniques, diagnostic imaging techniques like multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and positron-emission tomography targeting prostate-specific-membrane antigen (PSMA-PET) evolved and enable an accurate depiction of the intraprostatic tumor mass for the first time. The HypoFocal-SBRT study combines ultra-hypofractionated RT/stereotactic body RT, with focal RT dose escalation on intraprostatic tumor sides by applying state of the art diagnostic imaging and most modern RT concepts. This novel strategy will be compared with moderate hypofractionated RT (MHRT), one option for the curative primary treatment of PCa, which has been proven by several prospective trials and is recommended and carried out worldwide. We suspect an increase in relapse-free survival (RFS), and we will assess quality of life in order to detect potential changes.

Background: Radiotherapy (RT) is an established, potentially curative treatment option for all risk constellations of localized prostate cancer (PCA). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and dose-escalated RT can further improve outcome in high-risk (HR) PCA. In recent years, shorter RT schedules based on hypofractionated RT have shown equal outcome. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a highly conformal RT technique enabling ultra-hypofractionation which has been shown to be safe and efficient in patients with low- and intermediate-risk PCA. There is a paucity of data on the role of SBRT in HR PCA. In particular, the need for pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) needs to be addressed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to analyze the available data on observed toxicities, ADT prescription practice, and oncological outcome to shed more light on the value of SBRT in HR PCA. Methods: We searched the PubMed and Embase electronic databases for the terms “prostate cancer” AND “stereotactic” AND “radiotherapy” in June 2020. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Results: After a rigorous selection process, we identified 18 individual studies meeting all selection criteria for further analyses. Five additional studies were included because their content was judged as relevant. Three trials have reported on prostate SBRT including pelvic nodes; 2 with ENI and 1 with positive pelvic nodes only. The remaining studies investigated SBRT of the prostate only. Grade 2+ acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity was between 12% and 46.7% in the studies investigating pelvic nodes irradiation and ranged from 0% to 89% in the prostate only studies. Grade 2+ chronic GU toxicity was between 7% and 60% vs. 2% and 56.7%. Acute gastrointestinal (GI) grade 2+ toxicity was between 0% to 4% and 0% to 18% for studies with and without pelvic nodes irradiation, respectively. Chronic GI grade 2+ toxicity rates were between 4% and 50.1% vs. 0% and 40%. SBRT of prostate and positive pelvic nodes only showed similar toxicity rates as SBRT for the prostate only. Among the trials that reported on ADT use, the majority of HR PCA patients underwent ADT for at least 2 months; mostly neoadjuvant and concurrent. Biochemical control rates ranged from 82% to 100% after 2 years and 56% to 100% after 3 years. Only a few studies reported longer follow-up data. Conclusion: At this point, SBRT with or without pelvic ENI cannot be considered the standard of care in HR PCA, due to missing level 1 evidence. Treatment may be offered to selected patients at specialized centers with access to high-precision RT. While concomitant ADT is the current standard of care, the necessary duration of ADT in combination with SBRT remains unclear. Ideally, all eligible patients should be enrolled in clinical trials.

Background: Head and neck cancers (HNCs) are very common malignancies, and treatment often requires multimodal approaches, including radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Patients with HNC often display a high symptom burden, both due to the disease itself and the adverse effects of the multimodal therapy. Close telemonitoring of symptoms and quality of life during the course of treatment may help to identify those patients requiring early medical support. Objective: The App-Controlled Treatment Monitoring and Support for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer (APCOT) trial aimed to investigate the feasibility of integrating electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in the treatment surveillance pathway of patients with HNC during the course of their radiotherapy. Additionally, the influence of app-based ePRO monitoring on global and disease-specific quality of life and patient satisfaction with treatment was assessed. Methods: Patients undergoing radiotherapy for histologically proven HNCs at the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany, were enrolled in this trial and monitored by weekly physician appointments. Patients were randomized between additional ePRO monitoring on each treatment day or standard-of-care monitoring. Feasibility of ePRO monitoring was defined as ≥80% of enrolled patients answering ≥80% of their daily app-based questions. Quality of life and patient satisfaction were assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), the head and neck cancer module (H&N35), and the validated Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (PSQ-18) at the completion of treatment and compared between trial arms. Results: A total of 100 patients were enrolled in this trial, and 93 patients were evaluable. All patients (100%) in the experimental arm answered ≥80% of the ePRO questions during treatment, reaching the predefined threshold for the feasibility of ePRO monitoring (P<.001 in the binomial test). No clinical or patient-specific factor was found to influence feasibility. Global health and most domains of the general quality of life were comparable between trial arms, but an increased HNC-specific symptom burden was reported by patients undergoing ePRO surveillance. ePRO monitoring resulted in improved patient satisfaction regarding interpersonal manners (P=.01), financial aspects (P=.01), and time spent with a doctor (P=.01). Conclusions: This trial demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating daily app-based ePRO surveillance for patients with HNC undergoing radiotherapy. Our data, for the first time, demonstrate that telemonitoring in this setting led to increased reporting of HNC-specific symptom burden and significantly improved several domains of patient satisfaction. Further analyses are needed to assess whether our findings hold true outside the context of a clinical trial. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00020491; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00020491

Background: Radiotherapy can induce cardiac injury in left-sided breast cancer cases. Cardiac-sparing irradiation using the deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique can achieve substantial dose reduction to vulnerable cardiac substructures compared with free breathing (FB). This study evaluated the dosimetric differences between both techniques at a single institution. Methods: From 2017 to 2019, 130 patients with left-sided breast cancer underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS; n = 121, 93.1%) or mastectomy (ME; n = 9, 6.9%) along with axillary lymph node staging (n = 105, 80.8%), followed by adjuvant irradiation in DIBH technique; adjuvant systemic therapy was included if applicable. 106 (81.5%) patients received conventional and 24 (18.5%) hypofractionated irradiation. Additionally, 12 patients received regional nodal irradiation. Computed tomography (CT) scans in FB and DIBH position were performed for all patients. Intrafractional 3D position monitoring of the patient surface in deep inspiration and breath gating was performed using Sentinel and Catalyst HD 3D surface scanning systems (C-RAD, Catalyst, C‑RAD AB, Uppsala, Sweden). Individual coaching and determination of breathing amplitude during the radiation planning CT was performed. Three-dimensional treatment planning was performed using standard tangential treatment portals (6 or 18 MV). The delineation of cardiac structures and both lungs was done in both the FB and the DIBH scan. Results: All dosimetric parameters for cardiac structures were significantly reduced (p < 0.01 for all). The mean heart dose (Dmean) in the DIBH group was 1.3 Gy (range 0.5–3.6) vs. 2.2 Gy (range 0.9–8.8) in the FB group (p < 0.001). The Dmean for the left ventricle (LV) in DIBH was 1.5 Gy (range 0.6–4.5), as compared to 2.8 Gy (1.1–9.5) with FB (p < 0.001). The parameters for LV (V10 Gy, V15 Gy, V20 Gy, V23 Gy, V25 Gy, V30 Gy) were reduced by about 100% (p < 0.001). The LAD Dmean in the DIBH group was 4.1 Gy (range 1.2–33.3) and 14.3 Gy (range 2.4–37.5) in the FB group (p < 0.001). The median values for LAD such as V15 Gy, V20 Gy, V25 Gy, V30 Gy, and V40 Gy decreased by roughly 100% (p < 0.001). An increasing volume of left lung in the DIBH position resulted in dose sparing of cardiac structures. Conclusion: For all ascertained dosimetric parameters, a significant dose reduction could be achieved in DIBH technique.

(1) Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and can be treated with radical prostatectomy (RPE) or radiotherapy in the primary setting. Stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) has proven to be effective and well tolerated in this setting. However, if SBRT is an equally promising treatment option if applied in the adjuvant or salvage setting after RPE remains unknown. (2) Methods: We searched the PubMed and Embase databases with the following full-text queries in August 2021 for any combination of the terms “SBRT”, “prostate”, “adjuvant”, “postoperative”, “salvage”, “stereotactic radiotherapy”, “prostate bed”. There were no limitations regarding publication date or language. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. (3) Results: We identified 11 individual studies that were included in this systematic review. Three publications included patients without prior radiotherapy and the remaining eight patients with prior radiotherapy. In all but two publications the radiation target was the macroscopic recurrence. SBRT was overall well tolerated with acceptable rates of acute and late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Quality of life was published for two phase I trials with good results. There was a very heterogeneous reporting on biochemical control after SBRT. (4) Conclusions: At this point, ultra-hypofractionated RT using SBRT to the prostate bed remains experimental and its use should be restricted to clinical trials. Given the biological rationale for extreme hypofractionation in patients with prostate cancer and the acceptable toxicity rates that have been reported, further exploration of this field is warranted.

Background: Isometric paravertebral muscle training (IPMT) may improve mobility, pain, and quality of life (QOL) in cancer patients with spinal metastases. However, this regimen remains unproven in patients with unstable spinal metastases (USM), a population at high risk for clinical exacerbation with such interventions. Thus, we conducted this exploratory, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial (NCT02847754) to evaluate the safety/feasibility of IPMT and secondarily assess pain, bone density, pathologic fracture rate, and QOL. Methods: All patients had histologically/radiologically confirmed USM (per Taneichi score) and underwent non-operative management with 5–10 fractions of palliative radiotherapy (RT). Randomization (1:1) groups were IPMT (intervention, INT) or muscle relaxation (control, CON); both lasted 15 min/day and started concurrently with radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was feasibility (completion of training programs three months post-RT). Secondary endpoints were pain response (Visual Analog Scale) and opioid consumption, bone density and pathologic fracture rate, and QOL (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, EORTC questionnaires). Results: Sixty patients were randomized and 56 received protocol therapy. Mean survival in both groups was 4.4 months. There were no adverse events with either training regimen. Altogether, ≥80% of the planned sessions were completed by 55% (n = 16/29) in CON and 67% (n = 18/27) in INT. Regarding the post-radiotherapy home-based training, ≥80% of planned sessions were completed by 64% (n = 9/14) of the INT cohort. There were no differences in pain scores, opioid consumption, or bone density between arms (p > 0.05 for all). No difference was observed between groups regarding new pathological fractures (INT: n = 1 vs. CON: n = 3) after three months (p = 0.419). There were no QOL differences between arms (all parameters p > 0.05). Conclusions: IPMT is potentially feasible for high-risk USM patients. Future trials adequately powered for relevant endpoints are thus recommended.