Explore the vast range of titles available.

Machine learning (ML) holds great promise for impacting healthcare delivery; however, to date most methods are tested in ‘simulated’ environments that cannot recapitulate factors influencing real-world clinical practice. We prospectively deployed and evaluated a random forest algorithm for therapeutic curative-intent radiation therapy (RT) treatment planning for prostate cancer in a blinded, head-to-head study with full integration into the clinical workflow. ML- and human-generated RT treatment plans were directly compared in a retrospective simulation with retesting ( n  = 50) and a prospective clinical deployment ( n  = 50) phase. Consistently throughout the study phases, treating physicians assessed ML- and human-generated RT treatment plans in a blinded manner following a priori defined standardized criteria and peer review processes, with the selected RT plan in the prospective phase delivered for patient treatment. Overall, 89% of ML-generated RT plans were considered clinically acceptable and 72% were selected over human-generated RT plans in head-to-head comparisons. RT planning using ML reduced the median time required for the entire RT planning process by 60.1% (118 to 47 h). While ML RT plan acceptability remained stable between the simulation and deployment phases (92 versus 86%), the number of ML RT plans selected for treatment was significantly reduced (83 versus 61%, respectively). These findings highlight that retrospective or simulated evaluation of ML methods, even under expert blinded review, may not be representative of algorithm acceptance in a real-world clinical setting when patient care is at stake. An artificial intelligence system prospectively deployed to design radiation therapy plans for patients with prostate cancer illustrates the real-world impact of machine learning in clinical practice and identifies factors influencing human–algorithm interaction

Androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer has side effects. In this study, intermittent androgen-deprivation therapy was associated with a survival rate similar to that with continuous treatment, with about one third the total antiandrogen exposure and fewer side effects. Ever since Huggins and Hodges's work of 1941 1 showing the androgen dependence of prostate cancer, androgen deprivation has been the mainstay treatment for metastatic disease. With the development of reversible forms of medical castration, indications for androgen deprivation have been expanded to include nonmetastatic disease. 2 – 4 The introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing into clinical practice in the early 1990s provided an objective evaluation of the efficacy of definitive treatment; biochemical failure became an accepted end point. The ability to diagnose early treatment failure created a clinical dilemma. The justification for lifelong androgen deprivation is more apparent in the case . . .

We did a randomised phase 3 trial assessing the benefit of addition of long-term androgen suppression with a luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist to external irradiation in patients with prostate cancer with high metastatic risk. In this report, we present the 10-year results. For this open-label randomised trial, eligible patients were younger than 80 years and had newly diagnosed histologically proven T1–2 prostatic adenocarcinoma with WHO histological grade 3 or T3–4 prostatic adenocarcinoma of any histological grade, and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone or radiotherapy plus immediate androgen suppression. Treatment allocation was open label and used a minimisation algorithm with institution, clinical stage of the disease, results of pelvic-lymph-node dissection, and irradiation fields extension as minimisation factors. Patients were irradiated externally, once a day, 5 days a week, for 7 weeks to a total dose of 50 Gy to the whole pelvis, with an additional 20 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. The LHRH agonist, goserelin acetate (3·6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks), was started on the first day of irradiation and continued for 3 years; cyproterone acetate (50 mg orally three times a day) was given for 1 month starting a week before the first goserelin injection. The primary endpoint was clinical disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00849082. Between May 22, 1987, and Oct 31, 1995, 415 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups and were included in the analysis (208 radiotherapy alone, 207 combined treatment). Median follow-up was 9·1 years (IQR 5·1–12·6). 10-year clinical disease-free survival was 22·7% (95% CI 16·3–29·7) in the radiotherapy-alone group and 47·7% (39·0–56·0) in the combined treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·42, 95% CI 0·33–0·55, p<0·0001). 10-year overall survival was 39·8% (95% CI 31·9–47·5) in patients receiving radiotherapy alone and 58·1% (49·2–66·0) in those allocated combined treatment (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·45–0·80, p=0·0004), and 10-year prostate-cancer mortality was 30·4% (95% CI 23·2–37·5) and 10·3% (5·1–15·4), respectively (HR 0·38, 95% CI 0·24–0·60, p<0·0001). No significant difference in cardiovascular mortality was noted between treatment groups both in patients who had cardiovascular problems at study entry (eight of 53 patients in the combined treatment group had a cardiovascular-related cause of death vs 11 of 63 in the radiotherapy group; p=0·60) and in those who did not (14 of 154 vs six of 145; p=0·25). Two fractures were reported in patients allocated combined treatment. In patients with prostate cancer with high metastatic risk, immediate androgen suppression with an LHRH agonist given during and for 3 years after external irradiation improves 10-year disease-free and overall survival without increasing late cardiovascular toxicity. AstraZeneca; Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (France), through the EORTC Charitable Trust.

Whether the addition of radiation therapy (RT) improves overall survival in men with locally advanced prostate cancer managed with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is unclear. Our aim was to compare outcomes in such patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients with: locally advanced (T3 or T4) prostate cancer (n=1057); or organ-confined disease (T2) with either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration more than 40 ng/mL (n=119) or PSA concentration more than 20 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 8 or higher (n=25), were randomly assigned (done centrally with stratification and dynamic minimisation, not masked) to receive lifelong ADT and RT (65–69 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The results presented here are of an interim analysis planned for when two-thirds of the events for the final analysis were recorded. All efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and were based on data from all patients. This trial is registered at controlledtrials.com as ISRCTN24991896 and Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00002633. Between 1995 and 2005, 1205 patients were randomly assigned (602 in the ADT only group and 603 in the ADT and RT group); median follow-up was 6·0 years (IQR 4·4–8·0). At the time of analysis, a total of 320 patients had died, 175 in the ADT only group and 145 in the ADT and RT group. The addition of RT to ADT improved overall survival at 7 years (74%, 95% CI 70–78 vs 66%, 60–70; hazard ratio [HR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·61–0·98, p=0·033). Both toxicity and health-related quality-of-life results showed a small effect of RT on late gastrointestinal toxicity (rectal bleeding grade >3, three patients (0·5%) in the ADT only group, two (0·3%) in the ADT and RT group; diarrhoea grade >3, four patients (0·7%) vs eight (1·3%); urinary toxicity grade >3, 14 patients (2·3%) in both groups). The benefits of combined modality treatment—ADT and RT—should be discussed with all patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, and UK Medical Research Council.

Background Existing evidence demonstrates that 1:1 personal training (PT) improves many adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether less resource-intensive exercise delivery models are as effective remains to be established. We determined the feasibility of conducting a multi-center non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing PT with supervised group (GROUP) and home-based (HOME) exercise programs, and obtained preliminary efficacy estimates for GROUP and HOME compared to PT on quality of life (QOL) and physical fitness. Methods Men with prostate cancer on ADT were recruited from one of two experienced Canadian centres and randomized 1:1:1 to PT, GROUP, or HOME. Randomization was stratified by length of ADT use and site. Participants completed moderate intensity aerobic and resistance exercises 4–5 days per week for 6 months with a target 150 min per week of exercise. Exercise prescriptions were individualized and progressed throughout the trial. Feasibility endpoints included recruitment, retention, adherence, and participant satisfaction. The efficacy endpoints QOL, fatigue, and fitness (VO2 peak, grip strength, and timed chair stands) in GROUP and HOME were compared for non-inferiority to PT. Descriptive analyses were used for feasibility endpoints. Between-group differences for efficacy endpoints were examined using Bayesian linear mixed effects models. Results Fifty-nine participants (mean age 69.9 years) were enrolled. The recruitment rate was 25.4% and recruitment was slower than projected. Retention was 71.2%. Exercise adherence as measured through attendance was high for supervised sessions but under 50% by self-report and accelerometry. Satisfaction was high and there was no difference in this measure between all three groups. Between-group differences (comparing both GROUP and HOME to PT) were smaller than the minimum clinically important difference on most measures of QOL, fatigue, and fitness. However, two of six outcomes for GROUP and four of six outcomes for HOME had a > 20% probability of being inferior for GROUP. Conclusions Feasibility endpoints were generally met. Both GROUP and HOME interventions in men with PC on ADT appeared to be similar to PT for multiple efficacy outcomes, although conclusions are limited by a small sample size and cost considerations have not been incorporated. Efforts need to be targeted to improving recruitment and adherence. A larger trial is warranted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02046837 . Date of registration: January 20, 2014.

A prognostic model for relapse risk in stage I seminoma managed by surveillance after orchiectomy has been developed but has not been independently validated. Individual data on 685 stage I seminoma surveillance patients managed between 1998 and 2005 at three cancer centers were retrospectively analyzed. Variables including age and pathology of the primary tumor: small vessel invasion, tumor size, and invasion of rete testis were analyzed. Specifically median tumor size and rete testis invasion was tested to evaluate the performance of the published model. Median follow‐up was 3.85 years (0.1–10.29), 88 patients relapsed and 5‐year relapse‐free rate was 85%. In univariate analysis, median tumor size (<3 cm vs. ≥3 cm) was associated with increased risk of relapse but rete testis invasion was not, nor was age and small vessel invasion. In multivariable analysis, tumor size above median (cutpoint of 3 cm) was a predictor for relapse, HR 1.87 (95% CI 1.15, 3.06), whereas rete testis invasion HR 1.36, (95% CI 0.81, 2.28) was not statistically significant. The 3‐year relapse risk based on the primary tumor size alone increased from 9% for 1 cm primary tumor to 26% for 8 cm tumor. A clinically useful, highly discriminating prognostic model remains elusive in stage I seminoma surveillance as we were unable to validate the previously developed model. However, primary tumor size retained prognostic importance and a scale of relapse risk based on the unit increment of tumor size was developed to help guide patients and clinicians in decision making. Primary tumor size in stage I seminoma surveillance was confirmed to be of prognostic importance and a scale of relapse risk was developed. However a highly discriminatory prognostic model in this setting remains elusive.

Background In men with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with primarily bone metastases, radium‐223 (223Ra) improves overall survival (OS). However, the selection of 223Ra is not guided by specific validated clinicopathologic factors, and thus outcomes are heterogeneous. Patients and methods This retrospective survival analysis was performed in men with mCRPC treated with 223Ra at our cancer center. Demographics and disease characteristics were collected. OS was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method (log‐rank). The potential prognostic factors were determined using both univariable (UVA) and multivariable analysis (MVA) (Cox‐regression) methods. Results In total, 150 patients with a median age of 74 years (52–93) received 223Ra between May 2015 and July 2018, and 58% had 6–20 bone metastases. Ninety‐four (63%) patients received >4 223Ra doses, and 56 (37%) received ≤4. The following pre‐treatment factors were analyzed (median [range]): eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS), (1 [0–3]); Albumin (ALB), (39 g/L [24–47]); alkaline phosphatase (ALP), (110 U/L [35–1633]); and prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), (49 µg/L [0.83–7238]). The median OS for all patients was 14.5 months (95% CI: 11.2–18). These factors were associated with poor survival outcomes in UVA and MVA: ALB <35 g/L, ALP >150 U/L, ECOG PS 2–3, and PSA >80 µg/L. By assigning one point for each of these factors, a prognostic model was developed, wherein three distinct risk groups were identified: good, 0–1 (n = 103); intermediate, 2 (n = 30); and poor risk, 3–4 points (n = 17). The median OS was 19.4, 10.0, and 3.1 months, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions Pre‐treatment ALB, ALP, ECOG, and PSA, were significantly correlated with OS and could guide treatment selection for men with mCRPC by identifying those who are most or least likely to benefit from 223Ra. Validation in an independent dataset is required prior to widespread clinical utilization. Baseline clinicopathological factors were associated with survival for men with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer who were treated with radium‐233. Our retrospective analysis defined a prognostic model that can be utilized to evaluate the treatment benefit of radium‐223.

Background Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used to treat prostate cancer. However, side effects of ADT often lead to reduced quality of life and physical function. Existing evidence demonstrates that exercise can ameliorate multiple treatment-related side effects for men on ADT, yet adherence rates are often low. The method of exercise delivery (e.g., supervised group in-centre vs. individual home-based) may be important from clinical and economic perspectives; however, few studies have compared different delivery models. Additionally, long-term exercise adherence and an understanding of predictors of adherence are critical to achieving sustained benefits, but such data are lacking. The primary aim of this multi-centre phase III non-inferiority randomized controlled trial is to determine whether a home-based delivery model is non-inferior to a group-based delivery model in terms of benefits in fatigue and fitness in this population. Two other key aims include examining cost-effectiveness and long-term adherence. Methods Men diagnosed with prostate cancer of any stage, starting or continuing on ADT for at least 6 months, fluent in English, and living close to a study centre are eligible. Participants complete five assessments over 12 months (baseline and every 3 months during the 6-month intervention and 6-month follow-up phases), including a fitness assessment and self-report questionnaires. Biological outcomes are collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A total of 200 participants will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to supervised group training or home-based training supported by smartphones, health coaches, and Fitbit technology. Participants are asked to complete 4 to 5 exercise sessions per week, incorporating aerobic, resistance and flexibility training. Outcomes include fatigue, quality of life, fitness measures, body composition, biological outcomes, and program adherence. Cost information will be obtained using patient diary-based self-report and utilities via the EQ-5D. Discussion To disseminate publicly funded exercise programs widely, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness have to be demonstrated. The goals of this trial are to provide these data along with an increased understanding of adherence to exercise among men with prostate cancer receiving ADT. Trial registration The trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Registration # NCT02834416 ). Registration date was June 2, 2016.

IntroductionThe oligometastatic (OM) disease hypothesis of an intermediate metastatic state with limited distant disease deposits amenable for curative therapies remains debatable. Over a third of prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy and postoperative radiotherapy experience disease recurrence; these patients are considered incurable by current standards. Often the recurrence cannot be localised by conventional imaging (CT and bone scan). Combined anatomical imaging with CT and/or MR with positron emission tomography (PET) using a novel second-generation prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) probe, [18F]DCFPyL, is a promising imaging modality to unveil disease deposits in these patients. A new and earlier molecularly defined oligorecurrent (OR) state may be amenable to focal-targeted ablative curative-intent therapies, such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) or surgery, thereby significantly delaying or completely avoiding the need for palliative therapies in men with recurrent PCa after maximal local treatments.Methods and analysisThis ongoing single-institution phase II study will enrol up to 75 patients total, to include up to 37 patients with response-evaluable disease, who have rising prostate-specific antigen (range 0.4–3.0 ng/mL) following maximal local therapies with no evidence of disease on conventional imaging. These patients will undergo [18F]DCFPyL PET-MR/CT imaging to detect disease deposits, which will then be treated with SABR or surgery. The primary endpoints are performance of [18F]DCFPyL PET-MR/CT, and treatment response rates following SABR or surgery. Demographics and disease characteristics will be summarised and analysed descriptively. Response rates will be described with waterfall plots and proportions.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the institutional Research Ethics Board. All patients will provide written informed consent. [18F]DCFPyL has approval from Health Canada. The results of the study will be disseminated by the principal investigator. Patients will not be identifiable as individuals in any publication or presentation of this study.Trial registration numbersNCT03160794