The QA tool assists users to detect potential delineation errors. QA tool integration into clinical procedures may reduce the frequency of inaccurate OAR delineation, and potentially improve safety and quality of radiation treatment planning.

No abstract

No abstract

Patients with intermediate to high risk disease (prostate specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 10, Gleason score ≥ 7, or clinical stage ≥ T2b) suffer from poorer long-term biochemical control (freedom from an increasing prostate specific antigen level) when treated with external beam radiation (EBRT) alone. In order to improve biochemical control while limiting long-term complications, brachytherapy has been incorporated into radiotherapy treatment, either alone or in combination with EBRT. Areas covered: Current literature regarding the use of high dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer, including as a boost and monotherapy. The efficacy and toxicities of various approaches are evaluated including comparisons to low dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy. Expert commentary: Prostate HDR brachytherapy has higher conformality than EBRT, potentially improving the therapeutic ratio by allowing higher doses per fraction to tumor cells. The improved biochemical control shown in trials have resulted in EBRT plus brachytherapy to be included as a standard treatment option supported by the NCCN and ASCO guidance documents for intermediate to high risk prostate cancer.

Purpose Given the uncertainty with regard to the effectiveness of pelvic nodal irradiation (PNI) for prostate cancer, we aimed to determine whether patients with prostate cancer who are treated with PNI are at a higher risk of developing radiation-related lymphopenia (RRL). Methods and materials The electronic charts of 886 consecutive patients treated with radiation therapy for prostate cancer between 2006 and 2018 at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. Qualifying patients were those with total lymphocyte counts within 1 year before and 3 to 24 months after the start of radiation therapy. Lymphopenia was the primary outcome, and overall survival and biochemical progression-free survival were secondary outcomes. Results Thirty-six patients with and 95 patients without PNI qualified for inclusion. In the PNI cohort, 61.1% of patients developed RRL (median follow-up total lymphocyte count < 1000 cells/μL) versus 26.3% of non-PNI patients ( P < .001). On univariate analysis, initial prostate-specific antigen level, baseline lymphopenia, treatment modality, PNI status, increased planned target volume, and androgen deprivation therapy administration were all significant predictors of RRL ( P < .05). On multivariate analysis, PNI status was a significant predictor of RRL (hazard ratio [HR], 3.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-9.61; P < .001), as were initial prostate-specific antigen values (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11; P = .006) and baseline lymphopenia (HR, 8.32; 95% CI, 2.19-31.6; P = .007). RRL was not predictive for biochemical progression-free survival, distant metastasis, or overall survival on multivariate analysis, but the number of events was likely insufficient for these analyses. Conclusions The higher risk of RRL among patients with PNI comports with other papers that show that increased treatment volumes are associated with higher rates of RRL. Mounting evidence for the adverse effects of RRL on clinical outcomes supports the significance of our findings and suggests that further studies are needed on RRL as a potential harm of PNI that may affect the interpretation of results from clinical trials of PNI.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract