After a comprehensive two-year follow-up, researchers at the UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center found that MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer significantly reduced long-term side effects and improved quality of life, particularly in bowel and sexual health, compared to conventional CT-guided treatment.

Stereotactic radiotherapy uses high doses of radiation to target and kill cancer cells; it uses newer machines that can deliver very focused radiation beams

Apparatus for performing electron radiation therapy on a breast cancer patient preferably includes an intraoperative electron radiation therapy machine, an intraoperative electron radiation therapy collimator tube connected to the intraoperative electron radiation therapy machine, and a plurality of filters made of a material having substantially the same density as human breast tissue for placement between the machine and the patient to change the energy of a monoenergetic beam after the beam has left the machine, allowing a filter to be chosen to reduce the energy traveling through the tube to a desired amount of energy to treat the patient. A method of controlling the amount of energy to reach a breast cancer patient undergoing electron radiation therapy includes selecting a filter made of a material having substantially the same density as human tissue and placing the filter between an intraoperative electron radiation therapy machine and a breast cancer patient to change the energy of a monoenergetic beam after it has left the machine, the filter being chosen to reduce the energy traveling from the machine to a desired amount of energy to treat the patient.

In randomized clinical trials (RCTs), no survival benefit has been observed for selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) over sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). This study aimed to assess by means of a meta-analysis whether overall survival (OS) with SIRT, as monotherapy or followed by sorafenib, is non-inferior to sorafenib, and compare safety profiles for patients with aHCC. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to February 2019 to identify RCTs comparing SIRT as monotherapy, or followed by sorafenib, to sorafenib monotherapy among patients with aHCC. The main outcomes were OS and frequency of treatment-related severe adverse events (AEs grade ≥3). The per-protocol population was the primary analysis population. A non-inferiority margin of 1.08 in terms of hazard ratio (HR) was pre-specified for the upper boundary of 95% confidence interval (CI) for OS. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Three RCTs, involving 1,243 patients, comparing sorafenib with SIRT (SIRveNIB and SARAH) or SIRT followed by sorafenib (SORAMIC), were included. After randomization, 411/635 (64.7%) patients allocated to SIRT and 522/608 (85.8%) allocated to sorafenib completed the studies without major protocol deviations. Median OS with SIRT, whether or not followed by sorafenib, was non-inferior to sorafenib (10.2 and 9.2 months, [HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78–1.05]). Treatment-related severe adverse events were reported in 149/515 patients (28.9%) who received SIRT and 249/575 (43.3%) who received sorafenib only (p<0.01). Conclusion: SIRT as initial therapy for aHCC is non-inferior to sorafenib in terms of OS, and offers a better safety profile.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–targeting α-radiation therapy (TAT) is an emerging treatment modality for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. There is a subgroup of patients with poor response despite sufficient expression of PSMA in their tumors. The aim of this work was to characterize PSMA-TAT–nonresponding lesions by targeted next-generation sequencing. Methods: Of 60 patients treated with ²²⁵Ac-PSMA-617, we identified 10 patients who presented with a poor response despite sufficient tumor uptake in PSMA PET/CT. We were able to perform CT-guided biopsies with histologic validation of the nonresponding lesions in 7 of these nonresponding patients. Specimens were analyzed by targeted next-generation sequencing interrogating 37 DNA damage-repair–associated genes. Results: In the 7 tumor samples analyzed, we found a total of 15 whole-gene deletions, deleterious or presumably deleterious mutations affecting TP53 (n = 3), CHEK2 (n = 2), ATM (n = 2), and BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, FANCB, and PMS1 (n = 1 each). The average number of deleterious or presumably deleterious mutations was 2.2 (range, 0–6) per patient. In addition, several variants of unknown significance in ATM, BRCA1, MSH2, SLX4, ERCC, and various FANC genes were detected. Conclusion: Patients with resistance to PSMA-TAT despite PSMA positivity frequently harbor mutations in DNA damage-repair and checkpoint genes. Although the causal role of these alterations in the patient outcome remains to be determined, our findings encourage future studies combining PSMA-TAT and DNA damage-repair–targeting agents such as poly(ADP-ribose)-polymerase inhibitors.

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Interview with Trevor J. Royce, MD MS MPH, author of Analysis of Price Transparency via National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers’ Chargemasters for Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy