Results for “THERAPY” — Page 13

DOE OSTI2016

MO-A-201-01: A Cliff’s Notes Version of Proton Therapy

Proton therapy is a rapidly growing modality in the fight against cancer. From a high-level perspective the process of proton therapy is identical to x-ray based external beam radiotherapy. However, this course is meant to illustrate for x-ray physicists the many differences between x-ray and proton based practices. Unlike in x-ray therapy, proton dose calculations use CT Hounsfield Units (HU) to determine proton stopping power and calculate the range of a beam in a patient. Errors in stopping power dominate the dosimetric uncertainty in the beam direction, while variations in patient position determine uncertainties orthogonal to the beam path. Mismatches between geometric and range errors lead to asymmetric uncertainties, and so while geometric uncertainties in x-ray therapy are mitigated through the use of a Planning Target Volume (PTV), this approach is not suitable for proton therapy. Robust treatment planning and evaluation are critical in proton therapy, and will be discussed in this course. Predicting the biological effect of a proton dose distribution within a patient is also a complex undertaking. The proton therapy community has generally regarded the Radiobiological Effectiveness (RBE) of a proton beam to be 1.1 everywhere in the patient, but there are increasing data to suggest that the RBE probably climbs higher than 1.1 near the end of a proton beam when the energy deposition density increases. This lecture will discuss the evidence for variable RBE in proton therapy and describe how this is incorporated into current proton treatment planning strategies. Finally, there are unique challenges presented by the delivery process of proton therapy. Many modern systems use a spot scanning technique which has several advantages over earlier scattered beam designs. However, the time dependence of the dose deposition leads to greater concern with organ motion than with scattered protons or x-rays. Image guidance techniques in proton therapy may also differ from standard x-ray approaches, due to equipment design or the desire to maximize efficiency within a high-cost proton therapy treatment room. Differences between x-ray and proton therapy delivery will be described. Learning Objectives: Understand how CT HU are calibrated to provide proton stopping power, and the sources of uncertainty in this process. Understand why a PTV is not suitable for proton therapy, and how robust treatment planning and evaluation are used to mitigate uncertainties. Understand the source and implications of variable RBE in proton therapy Learn about proton specific challenges and approaches in beam delivery and image guidance Jon Kruse has a research grant from Varian Medical Systems related to proton therapy treatment plannning.; J. Kruse, Jon Kruse has a research grant with Varian Medical Systems related to proton therapy planning.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

Assessing Adverse Events of Postprostatectomy Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Outcomes in the Regione Emilia-Romagna, Italy

Purpose: Although the likelihood of radiation-related adverse events influences treatment decisions regarding radiation therapy after prostatectomy for eligible patients, the data available to inform decisions are limited. This study was designed to evaluate the genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and sexual adverse events associated with postprostatectomy radiation therapy and to assess the influence of radiation timing on the risk of adverse events. Methods: The Regione Emilia-Romagna Italian Longitudinal Health Care Utilization Database was queried to identify a cohort of men who received radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer during 2003 to 2009, including patients who received postprostatectomy radiation therapy. Patients with prior radiation therapy were excluded. Outcome measures were genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and sexual adverse events after prostatectomy. Rates of adverse events were compared between the cohorts who did and did not receive postoperative radiation therapy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were developed for each class of adverse events, including models with radiation therapy as a time-varying covariate. Results: A total of 9876 men were included in the analyses: 2176 (22%) who received radiation therapy and 7700 (78%) treated with prostatectomy alone. In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, the additional exposure to radiation therapy after prostatectomy was associated with increased rates of gastrointestinal (rate ratio [RR] 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44-2.27; P<.001) and urinary nonincontinence events (RR 1.83; 95% CI 1.83-2.80; P<.001) but not urinary incontinence events or erectile dysfunction. The addition of the time from prostatectomy to radiation therapy interaction term was not significant for any of the adverse event outcomes (P>.1 for all outcomes). Conclusion: Radiation therapy after prostatectomy is associated with an increase in gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse events. However, the timing of radiation therapy did not influence the risk of radiation therapy–associated adverse events in this cohort, which contradicts the commonly held clinical tenet that delaying radiation therapy reduces the risk of adverse events.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2014

Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Findings During Therapy Predict Outcome in Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated With Chemotherapy Alone but Not in Those Who Receive Consolidation Radiation

Purpose: To assess the value of mid-therapy positron emission tomography (PET) findings for predicting survival and disease progression in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, considering type of therapy (chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy). Methods and Materials: We retrospectively evaluated 294 patients with histologically confirmed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with respect to age, sex, disease stage, International Prognostic Index score, mid-therapy PET findings (positive or negative), and disease status after therapy and at last follow-up. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared according to mid-therapy PET findings. Results: Of the 294 patients, 163 (55%) were male, 144 (49%) were age >61 years, 110 (37%) had stage I or II disease, 219 (74%) had International Prognostic Index score ≤2, 216 (73%) received ≥6 cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone, and 88 (30%) received consolidation radiation therapy. Five-year PFS and OS rates were associated with mid-therapy PET status: PFS was 78% for those with PET-negative (PET−) disease versus 63% for PET-positive (PET+) disease (P=.024), and OS was 82% for PET− versus 62% for PET+ (P<.002). These associations held true for patients who received chemotherapy only (PFS 71% for PET− vs 52% PET+ [P=.012], OS 78% for PET− and 51% for PET+ [P=.0055]) but not for those who received consolidation radiation therapy (PFS 84% PET− vs 81% PET+ [P=.88]; OS 90% PET− vs 81% PET+ [P=.39]). Conclusion: Mid-therapy PET can predict patient outcome, but the use of consolidation radiation therapy may negate the significance of mid-therapy findings.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2016

Stereotactic Radiosurgery: Treatment of Brain Metastasis Without Interruption of Systemic Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate the prevalence, outcomes, and toxicities of concurrent delivery of systemic therapy with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for treatment of brain metastases. Methods and Materials: We conducted a retrospective review of 193 patients treated at our institution with SRS without prior whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for brain metastases between 2009 and 2014. Outcome metrics included administration of concurrent systemic therapy, myelosuppression, neurotoxicity, and survival. Results: One hundred ninety-three patients with a median age of 61 years underwent a total of 291 SRS treatments. Thirty-seven percent of SRS treatments were delivered concurrently with systemic therapy, of which 46% were with conventional myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and 54% with targeted and immune therapy agents. Myelosuppression was minimal after treatment with both systemic therapy and SRS, with 14% grade 3-4 toxicity for lymphopenia and 4-9% for leukopenia, neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Neurotoxicity was also minimal after combined therapy, with no grade 4 and <5% grade 3 toxicity, 34% dexamethasone requirement, and 4% radiation necrosis, all similar to treatments with SRS alone. Median overall survival was similar after SRS alone (14.4 months) versus SRS with systemic therapy (12.9 months). In patients with a new diagnosis of primary cancer with brain metastasis, early treatment with concurrent systemic therapy and SRS correlated with improved survival versus SRS alone (41.6 vs 21.5 months, P<.05). Conclusions: Systemic therapy can be safely given concurrently with SRS for brain metastases: our results suggest minimal myelosuppression and neurotoxicity. Concurrent therapy is an attractive option for patients who have both intracranial and extracranial metastatic disease and may be particularly beneficial in patients with a new diagnosis of primary cancer with brain metastasis.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2017

National Cancer Database Analysis of Proton Versus Photon Radiation Therapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose: To analyze outcomes and predictors associated with proton radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the National Cancer Database. Methods and Materials: The National Cancer Database was queried to capture patients with stage I-IV NSCLC treated with thoracic radiation from 2004 to 2012. A logistic regression model was used to determine the predictors for utilization of proton radiation therapy. The univariate and multivariable association with overall survival were assessed by Cox proportional hazards models along with log–rank tests. A propensity score matching method was implemented to balance baseline covariates and eliminate selection bias. Results: A total of 243,822 patients (photon radiation therapy: 243,474; proton radiation therapy: 348) were included in the analysis. Patients in a ZIP code with a median income of <$46,000 per year were less likely to receive proton treatment, with the income cohort of $30,000 to $35,999 least likely to receive proton therapy (odds ratio 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.90]; P=.011). On multivariate analysis of all patients, non-proton therapy was associated with significantly worse survival compared with proton therapy (hazard ratio 1.21 [95% CI 1.06-1.39]; P<.01). On propensity matched analysis, proton radiation therapy (n=309) was associated with better 5-year overall survival compared with non-proton radiation therapy (n=1549), 22% versus 16% (P=.025). For stage II and III patients, non-proton radiation therapy was associated with worse survival compared with proton radiation therapy (hazard ratio 1.35 [95% CI 1.10-1.64], P<.01). Conclusions: Thoracic radiation with protons is associated with better survival in this retrospective analysis; further validation in the randomized setting is needed to account for any imbalances in patient characteristics, including positron emission tomography–computed tomography staging.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-G-BRB-00: Clinical Trials in Proton and Particle Therapy

Proton therapy, in particular, and ion therapy, just beginning, are becoming an increasing focus of attention in clinical radiation oncology and medical physics. Both modalities have been criticized of lacking convincing evidence from randomized trials proving their efficacy, justifying the higher costs involved in these therapies. This session will provide an overview of the current status of clinical trials in proton therapy, including recent developments in ion therapy. As alluded to in the introductory talk by Dr. Schulte, opinions are diverging widely as to the usefulness and need for clinical trials in particle therapy and the challenge of equipoise. The lectures will highlight some of the challenges that surround clinical trials in particle therapy. One, presented by Dr. Choy from UT Southwestern, is that new technology and even different types of particles such as helium and carbon ions are introduced into this environment, increasing the phase space of clinical variables. The other is the issue of medical physics quality assurance with physical phantoms, presented by Mrs. Taylor from IROC Houston, which is more challenging because 3D and 4D image guidance and active delivery techniques are in relatively early stages of development. The role of digital phantoms in developing clinical treatment planning protocols and as a QA tool will also be highlighted by Dr. Lee from NCI. The symposium will be rounded off by a panel discussion among the Symposium speakers, arguing pro or con the need and readiness for clinical trials in proton and ion therapy. Learning Objectives: To get an update on the current status of clinical trials allowing or mandating proton therapy. Learn about the status of planned clinical trials in the U.S. and worldwide involving ion therapy. Discuss the challenges in the design and QA of clinical trials in particle therapy. Learn about existing and future physical and computational anthropomorphic phantoms for charged particle clinical trial development and support. Research reported in this presentation is supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National; Institutes of Health under Award Number P20CA183640.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-G-BRB-01: Topic Introduction: Do We Need Clinical Trials in Particle Therapy and How Can Medical Physics Support Them?

Proton therapy, in particular, and ion therapy, just beginning, are becoming an increasing focus of attention in clinical radiation oncology and medical physics. Both modalities have been criticized of lacking convincing evidence from randomized trials proving their efficacy, justifying the higher costs involved in these therapies. This session will provide an overview of the current status of clinical trials in proton therapy, including recent developments in ion therapy. As alluded to in the introductory talk by Dr. Schulte, opinions are diverging widely as to the usefulness and need for clinical trials in particle therapy and the challenge of equipoise. The lectures will highlight some of the challenges that surround clinical trials in particle therapy. One, presented by Dr. Choy from UT Southwestern, is that new technology and even different types of particles such as helium and carbon ions are introduced into this environment, increasing the phase space of clinical variables. The other is the issue of medical physics quality assurance with physical phantoms, presented by Mrs. Taylor from IROC Houston, which is more challenging because 3D and 4D image guidance and active delivery techniques are in relatively early stages of development. The role of digital phantoms in developing clinical treatment planning protocols and as a QA tool will also be highlighted by Dr. Lee from NCI. The symposium will be rounded off by a panel discussion among the Symposium speakers, arguing pro or con the need and readiness for clinical trials in proton and ion therapy. Learning Objectives: To get an update on the current status of clinical trials allowing or mandating proton therapy. Learn about the status of planned clinical trials in the U.S. and worldwide involving ion therapy. Discuss the challenges in the design and QA of clinical trials in particle therapy. Learn about existing and future physical and computational anthropomorphic phantoms for charged particle clinical trial development and support. Research reported in this presentation is supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National; Institutes of Health under Award Number P20CA183640.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-G-BRB-02: Clinical Trials in Particle Therapy - Open Questions

Proton therapy, in particular, and ion therapy, just beginning, are becoming an increasing focus of attention in clinical radiation oncology and medical physics. Both modalities have been criticized of lacking convincing evidence from randomized trials proving their efficacy, justifying the higher costs involved in these therapies. This session will provide an overview of the current status of clinical trials in proton therapy, including recent developments in ion therapy. As alluded to in the introductory talk by Dr. Schulte, opinions are diverging widely as to the usefulness and need for clinical trials in particle therapy and the challenge of equipoise. The lectures will highlight some of the challenges that surround clinical trials in particle therapy. One, presented by Dr. Choy from UT Southwestern, is that new technology and even different types of particles such as helium and carbon ions are introduced into this environment, increasing the phase space of clinical variables. The other is the issue of medical physics quality assurance with physical phantoms, presented by Mrs. Taylor from IROC Houston, which is more challenging because 3D and 4D image guidance and active delivery techniques are in relatively early stages of development. The role of digital phantoms in developing clinical treatment planning protocols and as a QA tool will also be highlighted by Dr. Lee from NCI. The symposium will be rounded off by a panel discussion among the Symposium speakers, arguing pro or con the need and readiness for clinical trials in proton and ion therapy. Learning Objectives: To get an update on the current status of clinical trials allowing or mandating proton therapy. Learn about the status of planned clinical trials in the U.S. and worldwide involving ion therapy. Discuss the challenges in the design and QA of clinical trials in particle therapy. Learn about existing and future physical and computational anthropomorphic phantoms for charged particle clinical trial development and support. Research reported in this presentation is supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National; Institutes of Health under Award Number P20CA183640.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-G-BRB-04: Digital Phantoms for Developing Protocols in Particle Therapy

Proton therapy, in particular, and ion therapy, just beginning, are becoming an increasing focus of attention in clinical radiation oncology and medical physics. Both modalities have been criticized of lacking convincing evidence from randomized trials proving their efficacy, justifying the higher costs involved in these therapies. This session will provide an overview of the current status of clinical trials in proton therapy, including recent developments in ion therapy. As alluded to in the introductory talk by Dr. Schulte, opinions are diverging widely as to the usefulness and need for clinical trials in particle therapy and the challenge of equipoise. The lectures will highlight some of the challenges that surround clinical trials in particle therapy. One, presented by Dr. Choy from UT Southwestern, is that new technology and even different types of particles such as helium and carbon ions are introduced into this environment, increasing the phase space of clinical variables. The other is the issue of medical physics quality assurance with physical phantoms, presented by Mrs. Taylor from IROC Houston, which is more challenging because 3D and 4D image guidance and active delivery techniques are in relatively early stages of development. The role of digital phantoms in developing clinical treatment planning protocols and as a QA tool will also be highlighted by Dr. Lee from NCI. The symposium will be rounded off by a panel discussion among the Symposium speakers, arguing pro or con the need and readiness for clinical trials in proton and ion therapy. Learning Objectives: To get an update on the current status of clinical trials allowing or mandating proton therapy. Learn about the status of planned clinical trials in the U.S. and worldwide involving ion therapy. Discuss the challenges in the design and QA of clinical trials in particle therapy. Learn about existing and future physical and computational anthropomorphic phantoms for charged particle clinical trial development and support. Research reported in this presentation is supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National; Institutes of Health under Award Number P20CA183640.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-G-BRB-05: Panel Discussion: Clinical Trials in Proton and Ion Therapy - Are We Ready?

Proton therapy, in particular, and ion therapy, just beginning, are becoming an increasing focus of attention in clinical radiation oncology and medical physics. Both modalities have been criticized of lacking convincing evidence from randomized trials proving their efficacy, justifying the higher costs involved in these therapies. This session will provide an overview of the current status of clinical trials in proton therapy, including recent developments in ion therapy. As alluded to in the introductory talk by Dr. Schulte, opinions are diverging widely as to the usefulness and need for clinical trials in particle therapy and the challenge of equipoise. The lectures will highlight some of the challenges that surround clinical trials in particle therapy. One, presented by Dr. Choy from UT Southwestern, is that new technology and even different types of particles such as helium and carbon ions are introduced into this environment, increasing the phase space of clinical variables. The other is the issue of medical physics quality assurance with physical phantoms, presented by Mrs. Taylor from IROC Houston, which is more challenging because 3D and 4D image guidance and active delivery techniques are in relatively early stages of development. The role of digital phantoms in developing clinical treatment planning protocols and as a QA tool will also be highlighted by Dr. Lee from NCI. The symposium will be rounded off by a panel discussion among the Symposium speakers, arguing pro or con the need and readiness for clinical trials in proton and ion therapy. Learning Objectives: To get an update on the current status of clinical trials allowing or mandating proton therapy. Learn about the status of planned clinical trials in the U.S. and worldwide involving ion therapy. Discuss the challenges in the design and QA of clinical trials in particle therapy. Learn about existing and future physical and computational anthropomorphic phantoms for charged particle clinical trial development and support. Research reported in this presentation is supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National; Institutes of Health under Award Number P20CA183640.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-D-BRB-01: Basic Physics of Proton Therapy

The goal of this session is to review the physics of proton therapy, treatment planning techniques, and the use of volumetric imaging in proton therapy. The course material covers the physics of proton interaction with matter and physical characteristics of clinical proton beams. It will provide information on proton delivery systems and beam delivery techniques for double scattering (DS), uniform scanning (US), and pencil beam scanning (PBS). The session covers the treatment planning strategies used in DS, US, and PBS for various anatomical sites, methods to address uncertainties in proton therapy and uncertainty mitigation to generate robust treatment plans. It introduces the audience to the current status of image guided proton therapy and clinical applications of CBCT for proton therapy. It outlines the importance of volumetric imaging in proton therapy. Learning Objectives: Gain knowledge in proton therapy physics, and treatment planning for proton therapy including intensity modulated proton therapy. The current state of volumetric image guidance equipment in proton therapy. Clinical applications of CBCT and its advantage over orthogonal imaging for proton therapy. B. Teo, B.K Teo had received travel funds from IBA in 2015.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-D-BRB-03: Current State of Volumetric Image Guidance for Proton Therapy

The goal of this session is to review the physics of proton therapy, treatment planning techniques, and the use of volumetric imaging in proton therapy. The course material covers the physics of proton interaction with matter and physical characteristics of clinical proton beams. It will provide information on proton delivery systems and beam delivery techniques for double scattering (DS), uniform scanning (US), and pencil beam scanning (PBS). The session covers the treatment planning strategies used in DS, US, and PBS for various anatomical sites, methods to address uncertainties in proton therapy and uncertainty mitigation to generate robust treatment plans. It introduces the audience to the current status of image guided proton therapy and clinical applications of CBCT for proton therapy. It outlines the importance of volumetric imaging in proton therapy. Learning Objectives: Gain knowledge in proton therapy physics, and treatment planning for proton therapy including intensity modulated proton therapy. The current state of volumetric image guidance equipment in proton therapy. Clinical applications of CBCT and its advantage over orthogonal imaging for proton therapy. B. Teo, B.K Teo had received travel funds from IBA in 2015.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-D-BRB-04: Clinical Applications of CBCT for Proton Therapy

The goal of this session is to review the physics of proton therapy, treatment planning techniques, and the use of volumetric imaging in proton therapy. The course material covers the physics of proton interaction with matter and physical characteristics of clinical proton beams. It will provide information on proton delivery systems and beam delivery techniques for double scattering (DS), uniform scanning (US), and pencil beam scanning (PBS). The session covers the treatment planning strategies used in DS, US, and PBS for various anatomical sites, methods to address uncertainties in proton therapy and uncertainty mitigation to generate robust treatment plans. It introduces the audience to the current status of image guided proton therapy and clinical applications of CBCT for proton therapy. It outlines the importance of volumetric imaging in proton therapy. Learning Objectives: Gain knowledge in proton therapy physics, and treatment planning for proton therapy including intensity modulated proton therapy. The current state of volumetric image guidance equipment in proton therapy. Clinical applications of CBCT and its advantage over orthogonal imaging for proton therapy. B. Teo, B.K Teo had received travel funds from IBA in 2015.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-D-BRB-00: Basics of Proton Therapy

The goal of this session is to review the physics of proton therapy, treatment planning techniques, and the use of volumetric imaging in proton therapy. The course material covers the physics of proton interaction with matter and physical characteristics of clinical proton beams. It will provide information on proton delivery systems and beam delivery techniques for double scattering (DS), uniform scanning (US), and pencil beam scanning (PBS). The session covers the treatment planning strategies used in DS, US, and PBS for various anatomical sites, methods to address uncertainties in proton therapy and uncertainty mitigation to generate robust treatment plans. It introduces the audience to the current status of image guided proton therapy and clinical applications of CBCT for proton therapy. It outlines the importance of volumetric imaging in proton therapy. Learning Objectives: Gain knowledge in proton therapy physics, and treatment planning for proton therapy including intensity modulated proton therapy. The current state of volumetric image guidance equipment in proton therapy. Clinical applications of CBCT and its advantage over orthogonal imaging for proton therapy. B. Teo, B.K Teo had received travel funds from IBA in 2015.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Radiation Therapy Did Not Induce Long-Term Changes in Rectal Mucosa: Results From the Randomized Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 7 Trial

Purpose: To investigate long-term changes in the rectal mucosa after curative external beam radiation therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: In the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 7 trial, 880 men with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomized to hormonal therapy alone versus hormonal therapy plus radiation therapy to 70 Gy. A subcohort from this trial being randomized at our center (n=178) was invited to a study on late anorectal side effects during 2003-2005, approximately 5 years after treatment, including measuring health-reported quality of life and physician-assessed toxicity score by the Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force/Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic (LENT/SOMA) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group score. Sixty-seven patients had a rectal mucosa biopsy. Sixty-four biopsies were included in the final analysis, of which 33 patients were randomized to hormonal treatment and 31 to hormonal treatment plus radiation therapy. The presence of fibrosis, number of capillaries, and lymphocyte infiltration was then evaluated by light microscopy. Results: The group receiving radiation therapy had significantly higher LENT/SOMA and function/bother scale scores than the group that only received hormonal treatment, but there was no significant difference in the presence of fibrosis, ectasia, number of capillaries in the lamina propria, or lymphocyte infiltration between the groups. Conclusion: Radiation therapy to 70 Gy to the prostate does not induce long-term microscopic mucosal changes in the rectum 5 years after treatment. This is in contrast to the general assumption that structural changes, including fibrosis, seen after radiation therapy include the mucosa. We speculate that the main late effects of radiation therapy on the structure of the rectum are located in the deeper layers of the rectal wall than the mucosa.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2019

Influence of Neoadjuvant Therapy on Poor Long-Term Outcomes of Postoperative Complications in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Postoperative complications have a negative impact on overall survival after esophagectomy because systemic inflammation may induce residual cancer cell growth. A solution that could suppress micrometastasis is neoadjuvant therapy; however, to date, no study has shown that neoadjuvant therapy suppresses proliferation of cancer cells due to postoperative complications after esophagectomy. The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of neoadjuvant therapy on poor long-term outcomes of postoperative complications in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Patients and Methods: In total, 431 patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were included in this study. We investigated the relationship between complications, such as pneumonia, and long-term oncologic outcomes with and without neoadjuvant therapy. Results: Among the patients, the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 69.5% and the disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 59.0%. The patients were categorized into two groups: the neoadjuvant therapy (+) group (n = 217) and neoadjuvant therapy (−) group (n = 214). Among patients not undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, patients with pneumonia or pyothorax had significantly poorer OS and DFS than patients without these complications. However, among patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, there were no significant differences in long-term outcomes, regardless of presence of complications. On multivariate analysis, pneumonia (p = 0.003), pyothorax (p < 0.001), and chylothorax (p = 0.002) were identified as predictors of death in the neoadjuvant therapy (−) group. Conclusion: The negative impact of postoperative complications on long-term prognoses can be reduced by performing neoadjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal carcinoma.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2012

Role of Definitive Radiation Therapy in Carcinoma of Unknown Primary in the Abdomen and Pelvis

Objectives: Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) in the abdomen and pelvis is a heterogeneous group of cancers with no standard treatment. Considered by many to be incurable, these patients are often treated with chemotherapy alone. In this study, we determined the effectiveness of radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy in patients with CUP in the abdomen and pelvis. Patients and Methods: Medical records were reviewed for 37 patients with CUP treated with radiation therapy for disease located in the soft tissues and/or nodal basins of the abdomen and pelvis at University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer between 2002 and 2009. All patients underwent chemotherapy, either before or concurrent with radiation therapy. Patients were selected for radiation therapy on the basis of histologic type, disease extent, and prior therapy response. Twenty patients underwent definitive radiation therapy (defined as radiation therapy targeting all known disease sites with at least 45 Gy) and 17 patients underwent palliative radiation therapy. Only 6 patients had surgical resection of their disease. Patient and treatment characteristics were extracted and the endpoints of local disease control, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-related toxicity incidence were analyzed. Results: The 2-year PFS and OS rates for the entire cohort were 32% and 57%, respectively. However, in patients treated with definitive radiation therapy, the rates were 48% and 76%, and 7 patients lived more than 3 years after treatment with no evidence of disease progression. Nevertheless, radiation-associated toxicity was significant in this cohort, as 40% experienced Grade 2 or higher late toxicities. Conclusions: The use of definitive radiation therapy should be considered in selected patients with CUP in the soft tissues or nodal basins of the abdomen and pelvis.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2014

Radiation Therapy Administration and Survival in Stage I/II Extranodal Marginal Zone B-Cell Lymphoma of Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue

Purpose: To determine the factors associated with the use of radiation therapy and associated survival outcomes in early-stage marginal zone lymphoma of the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT). Methods and Materials: We extracted data on adult patients with stage I/II MALT lymphoma diagnoses between 1998 and 2010 recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We studied factors associated with radiation therapy administration in a logistic regression model and described the cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related death (LRD) according to receipt of the treatment. The association of radiation therapy with survival was explored in multivariate models with adjustment for immortal time bias. Results: Of the 7774 identified patients, 36% received radiation therapy as part of the initial course of treatment. Older patients; black or Hispanic men; white, Hispanic, and black women; and socioeconomically disadvantaged and underinsured patients had a significantly lower chance of receiving radiation therapy. Radiation therapy administration was associated with a lower chance of LRD in most sites. In cutaneous, ocular, and salivary MALT lymphomas, the 5-year estimate of LRD after radiation therapy was 0%. The association of radiation therapy with overall survival in different lymphoma sites was heterogeneous, and statistically significant in cutaneous (hazard ratio 0.45, P=.009) and ocular (hazard ratio 0.47, P<.0001) locations after multivariate adjustment. Conclusions: Demographic factors are associated with the use of radiation therapy in MALT lymphoma. Clinicians should be sensitive to those disparities because the administration of radiation therapy may be associated with improved survival, particularly in cutaneous and ocular lymphomas.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗