This study is based on the context that many patients with advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma are being treated with primary chemoradiation. The aims of this study are to identify differences in quality of life (QOL) between patients with advanced oropharyngeal cancer following traditional chemoradiation versus chemotherapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT). This research is designed on a cohort study from an academic tertiary referral center. Fifty patients were identified from an institutional database of patients who had undergone primary chemotherapy and radiation (traditional or IMRT) for advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Patients responded via mail using the University of Washington quality of life instrument version 4. Statistical analysis of data was performed using Chi-square and Wilcoxon tests. The results comprise the responses of 17 CRT (57%) and 14 CIMRT (70%) patients. The patients completed the survey between 9 and 44 months following end of treatment. When adjusted for tumor stage and time since treatment, CIMRT patients reported improved appearance (p = 0.05), chewing (p = 0.02), and mood (p = 0.01). There was a trend toward significance for improved activity (p = 0.07), recreation (p = 0.07), and anxiety (p = 0.08). There were no differences between the two groups for saliva, taste, shoulder function, speech, and swallowing. But there was a trend for significance for improved overall QOL in patients who had undergone CIMRT (p = 0.06). In conclusion, CIMRT results in improved QOL for some domains but surprisingly not for swallowing or saliva. Patients undergoing CIMRT also report slightly better QOL overall when compared to patients receiving more traditional forms of radiation therapy.

Background

The long natural history of prostate cancer (CaP) limits comparisons of efficacy between radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), since patients treated years ago received treatments considered suboptimal by modern standards (particularly with regards to androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] and radiotherapy dose-escalation]. Gleason score (GS) 9-10 CaP is particularly aggressive, and clinically-relevant endpoints occur early, facilitating meaningful comparisons.

Objective

To compare outcomes of patients with GS 9-10 CaP following EBRT, extremely-dose escalated radiotherapy (as exemplified by EBRT+brachytherapy [EBRT+BT]), and RP.

Design, setting, participants

Retrospective analysis of 487 patients with biopsy GS 9-10 CaP treated between 2000 and 2013 (230 with EBRT, 87 with EBRT+BT, and 170 with RP). Most radiotherapy patients received ADT and dose-escalated radiotherapy.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression estimated and compared 5-yr and 10-yr rates of distant metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS).

Results and limitations

The median follow-up was 4.6 yr. Local salvage and systemic salvage were performed more frequently in RP patients (49.0% and 30.1%) when compared with either EBRT patients (0.9% and 19.7%) or EBRT+BT patients (1.2% and 16.1%, p<0.0001). Five-yr and 10-yr distant metastasis-free survival rates were significantly higher with EBRT+BT (94.6% and 89.8%) than with EBRT (78.7% and 66.7%, p=0.0005) or RP (79.1% and 61.5%, p<0.0001). The 5-yr and 10-yr CSS and OS rates were similar across all three cohorts.

Conclusions

Radiotherapy and RP provide equivalent CSS and OS. Extremely dose-escalated radiotherapy with ADT in particular offers improved systemic control when compared with either EBRT or RP. These data suggest that extremely dose-escalated radiotherapy with ADT might be the optimal upfront treatment for patients with biopsy GS 9-10 CaP.

Patient summary

While some prostate cancers are slow-growing requiring many years, sometimes decades, of follow-up in order to compare between radiation and surgery, high-risk and very aggressive cancers follow a much shorter time course allowing such comparisons to be made and updated as treatments, especially radiation, rapidly evolve. We showed that radiation-based treatments and surgery, with contemporary standards, offer equivalent survival for patients with very aggressive cancers (defined as Gleason score 9-10). Extremely-dose escalated radiotherapy with short-course androgen deprivation therapy offered the least risk of developing metastases, and equivalent long term survival.

Purpose

Our purpose was to study the effect of 2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-[18F]fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid (¹⁸F-DCFPyL) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) on staging/treatment recommendations of previously untreated prostate cancer. We report here results of a prospective single center single arm imaging trial within Veterans Affairs (Greater Los Angeles): the frequency of patients upstaged to M1 disease (primary endpoint) and the frequency of patients with change in treatment recommendations (secondary endpoint). This is the first report of prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT exclusive to U.S. veterans.

Methods and materials

Veterans with Gleason ≥4 + 3, clinical stage ≥T2c, or prostate-specific antigen >10 ng/mL were eligible. Patients underwent conventional imaging (^99mTc-methyl diphosphonate bone scan or ¹⁸F-NaF PET-CT; and pelvic CT or pelvic magnetic resonance imaging) in addition to ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET-CT. The effect of ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET-CT on treatment change was determined by applying prespecified treatment recommendations based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and modern clinical practice.

Results

One hundred patients underwent ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET-CT. Nineteen out of 84 (23%) patients initially thought to be nonmetastatic were upstaged to M1; 8/16 (50%) patients initially thought to have M1 disease were downstaged to M0. In total, 39/100 (39%) had a change in prespecified treatment recommendations, including change of radiation therapy volume/dose in 39/100 (39%) and starting abiraterone in 22/100 (22%).

Conclusions

Incorporation of ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET-CT into the initial conventional imaging workup for prostate cancer can substantially affect staging/treatment recommendations.

In this work, we provide an industry research view for approaching the design, deployment, and operation of trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) inference systems. Such systems provide customers with timely, informed, and customized inferences to aid their decision, while at the same time utilizing appropriate security protection mechanisms for AI models. Additionally, such systems should also use Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETs) to protect customers' data at any time. To approach the subject, we start by introducing current trends in AI inference systems. We continue by elaborating on the relationship between Intellectual Property (IP) and private data protection in such systems. Regarding the protection mechanisms, we survey the security and privacy building blocks instrumental in designing, building, deploying, and operating private AI inference systems. For example, we highlight opportunities and challenges in AI systems using trusted execution environments combined with more recent advances in cryptographic techniques to protect data in use. Finally, we outline areas of further development that require the global collective attention of industry, academia, and government researchers to sustain the operation of trustworthy AI inference systems.

Background

The treatment paradigm for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) patients is evolving. PET/CT now offers improved sensitivity and accuracy in staging. Recent randomized trial data supports escalated hormone therapy, local primary tumor therapy, and metastasis-directed therapy. The impact of combining such therapies into a multimodal approach is unknown. This Phase II single-arm clinical trial sponsored and funded by Veterans Affairs combines local, metastasis-directed, and systemic therapies to durably render patients free of detectable disease off active therapy.

Methods

Patients with newly-diagnosed M1a/b prostate cancer (PSMA PET/CT staging is permitted) and 1-5 radiographically visible metastases (excluding pelvic lymph nodes) are undergoing local treatment with radical prostatectomy, limited duration systemic therapy for a total of six months (leuprolide, abiraterone acetate with prednisone, and apalutamide), metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and post-operative fractionated radiotherapy if pT ≥ 3a, N1, or positive margins are present. The primary endpoint is the percent of patients achieving a serum PSA of < 0.05 ng/mL six months after recovery of serum testosterone ≥150 ng/dL. Secondary endpoints include time to biochemical progression, time to radiographic progression, time to initiation of alternative antineoplastic therapy, prostate cancer specific survival, health related quality-of-life, safety and tolerability.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first trial that tests a comprehensive systemic and tumor directed therapeutic strategy for patients with newly diagnosed oligometastatic prostate cancer. This trial, and others like it, represent the critical first step towards curative intent therapy for a patient population where palliation has been the norm.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03298087 (registration date: September 29, 2017).

Background

The role of elective whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) remains controversial. Few studies have investigated it in Gleason grade group (GG) 5 prostate cancer (PCa), known to have a high risk of nodal metastases.

Objective

To assess the impact of WPRT on patients with GG 5 PCa treated with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT).

Design, setting, and participants

We identified 1170 patients with biopsy-proven GG 5 PCa from 11 centers in the United States and one in Norway treated between 2000 and 2013 (734 with EBRT and 436 with EBRT+BT).

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were compared using Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score adjustment.

Results and limitations

A total of 299 EBRT patients (41%) and 320 EBRT+BT patients (73%) received WPRT. The adjusted 5-yr bRFS rates with WPRT in the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 66% and 88%, respectively. Without WPRT, these rates for the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 58% and 78%, respectively. The median follow-up was 5.6yr. WPRT was associated with improved bRFS among patients treated with EBRT+BT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.9, p=0.02), but no evidence for improvement was found in those treated with EBRT (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.2, p=0.4). WPRT was not significantly associated with improved DMFS or PCSS in the EBRT group (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.7, p=0.8 for DMFS and HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p=0.1 for PCSS), or in the EBRT+BT group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.4, p=0.2 for DMFS and HR 0.5 95% CI 0.2-1.2, p=0.1 for PCSS).

Conclusions

WPRT was not associated with improved PCSS or DMFS in patients with GG 5 PCa who received either EBRT or EBRT+BT. However, WPRT was associated with a significant improvement in bRFS among patients receiving EBRT+BT. Strategies to optimize WPRT, potentially with the use of advanced imaging techniques to identify occult nodal disease, are warranted.

Patient summary

When men with a high Gleason grade prostate cancer receive radiation with external radiation and brachytherapy, the addition of radiation to the pelvis results in a longer duration of prostate-specific antigen control. However, we did not find a difference in their survival from prostate cancer or in their survival without metastatic disease. We also did not find a benefit for radiation to the pelvis in men who received radiation without brachytherapy.