PURPOSE This study investigates whether focal boosting of the macroscopic visible tumor with external beam radiotherapy increases biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in patients with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS In the phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer trial, 571 patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled between 2009 and 2015. Patients assigned to standard treatment received 77 Gy (fractions of 2.2 Gy) to the entire prostate. The focal boost arm received an additional simultaneous integrated focal boost up to 95 Gy (fractions up to 2.7 Gy) to the intraprostatic lesion visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Organ at risk constraints were prioritized over the focal boost dose. The primary end point was 5-year bDFS. Secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastases-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, overall survival, toxicity, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS Median follow-up was 72 months. Biochemical DFS was significantly higher in the focal boost compared with the standard arm (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.71, P < .001). At 5-year follow-up bDFS was 92% and 85%, respectively. We did not observe differences in prostate cancer-specific survival ( P = .49) and overall survival ( P = .50). The cumulative incidence of late genitourinary and GI toxicity grade ≥ 2 was 23% and 12% in the standard arm versus 28% and 13% in the focal boost arm, respectively. Both for late toxicity as health-related quality of life, differences were small and not statistically significant. CONCLUSION The addition of a focal boost to the intraprostatic lesion improved bDFS for patients with localized intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer without impacting toxicity and quality of life. The Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer study shows that a high focal boost strategy to improve tumor control while respecting organ at risk dose constraints is effective and safe.

Background and purpose: Local recurrences after radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa) often originate at the location of the macroscopic tumour(s). Since PCa cells are known to be sensitive to high fraction doses, hypofractionated whole gland stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in conjunction with a simultaneous ablative microboost to the macroscopic tumour(s) within the prostate could be a way to reduce the risk of local failure. We investigated the safety of this treatment strategy. Materials and methods:Patients with intermediate or high risk PCa were enrolled in a prospective phase II trial, called hypo-FLAME. All patients were treated with extreme hypofractionated doses of 35 Gy in 5 weekly fractions to the whole prostate gland with an integrated boost up to 50 Gy to the multiparametric (mp) MRI-defined tumour(s). Treatment related toxicity was measured using the CTCAE v4.0. The primary endpoint of the trial was treatment related acute toxicity.Results: Between April 2016 and December 2018, 100 men were treated in 4 academic centres. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. The median mean dose delivered to the visible tumour nodule(s) on mpMRI was 44.7 Gy in this trial. No grade ≥3 acute genitourinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed. Furthermore, 90 days after start of treatment, the cumulative acute grade 2 GU and GI toxicity rates were 34.0% and 5.0%, respectively. Conclusion:Simultaneous focal boosting to the macroscopic tumour(s) in addition to whole gland prostate SBRT is associated with acceptable acute GU and GI toxicity.

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as 70% agreement and 15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach. Patient summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.

No abstract

These consensus statements were developed by the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and are published simultaneously in European Urology and Annals of Oncology. Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.

In intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients, focal dose escalation integrated with standard EBRT did not result in an increase in GU and GI toxicity when compared to the standard treatment up to two years after treatment. This suggests that the described focal dose escalation technique is safe and feasible.

Despite the fact that all recommended precautions were taken to minimize the damage to the ICDs during radiotherapy and the calculated dose to the ICDs was <1 Gy, in 29% of the treatments a malfunction occurred. We observed a possible correlation between the beam energy and the malfunctions. This correlation may be due to an interaction between neutrons produced in the head of the linear accelerator at beam energies ≥10 MeV, and boron-10 which is present in the integrated circuit.

No abstract