The overall diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET(CT) for response assessment and surveillance imaging of HNSCC is good, but its PPV is somewhat suboptimal. Its NPV remains exceptionally high and a negative post-treatment scan is highly suggestive of absence of viable disease that can guide therapeutic decision-making. Timing of post-treatment imaging has a significant, though moderate impact on diagnostic accuracy.

No abstract

Purpose Chemoradiation with cisplatin 100 mg/m given once every 3 weeks is the standard of care in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer (LAHNSCC). Increasingly, low-dose once-a-week cisplatin is substituted because of perceived lower toxicity and convenience. However, there is no level 1 evidence of comparable efficacy to cisplatin once every 3 weeks. Patients and Methods In this phase III randomized trial, we assessed the noninferiority of cisplatin 30 mg/m given once a week compared with cisplatin 100 mg/m given once every 3 weeks, both administered concurrently with curative intent radiotherapy in patients with LAHNSCC. The primary end point was locoregional control (LRC); secondary end points included toxicity, compliance, response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results Between 2013 and 2017, we randomly assigned 300 patients, 150 to each arm. Two hundred seventy-nine patients (93%) received chemoradiotherapy in the adjuvant setting. At a median follow-up of 22 months, the estimated cumulative 2-year LRC rate was 58.5% in the once-a-week arm and 73.1% in the once-every-3-weeks arm, leading to an absolute difference of 14.6% (95% CI, 5.7% to 23.5%); P = .014; hazard ratio (HR), 1.76 (95% CI, 1.11 to 2.79). Acute toxicities of grade 3 or higher occurred in 71.6% of patients in the once-a-week arm and in 84.6% of patients in the once-every-3-weeks arm ( P = .006). Estimated median progression-free survival in the once-a-week arm was 17.7 months (95% CI, 0.42 to 35.05 months) and in the once-every-3-weeks arm, 28.6 months (95% CI, 15.90 to 41.30 months); HR, 1.24 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.73); P = .21. Estimated median overall survival in the once-a-week arm was 39.5 months and was not reached in the once-every-3-weeks arm (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.65]; P = .48). Conclusion Once-every-3-weeks cisplatin at 100 mg/m resulted in superior LRC, albeit with more toxicity, than did once-a-week cisplatin at 30 mg/m, and should remain the preferred chemoradiotherapy regimen for LAHNSCC in the adjuvant setting.

PURPOSE We report the clinical outcomes of a randomized trial comparing prophylactic whole-pelvic nodal radiotherapy to prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) in high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS This phase III, single center, randomized controlled trial enrolled eligible patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for node-negative prostate adenocarcinoma, with estimated nodal risk ≥ 20%. Randomization was 1:1 to PORT (68 Gy/25# to prostate) or whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT, 68 Gy/25# to prostate, 50 Gy/25# to pelvic nodes, including common iliac) using computerized stratified block randomization, stratified by Gleason score, type of androgen deprivation, prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis, and prior transurethral resection of the prostate. All patients received image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and minimum 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy. The primary end point was 5-year biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS From November 2011 to August 2017, a total of 224 patients were randomly assigned (PORT = 114, WPRT = 110). At a median follow-up of 68 months, 36 biochemical failures (PORT = 25, WPRT = 7) and 24 deaths (PORT = 13, WPRT = 11) were recorded. Five-year BFFS was 95.0% (95% CI, 88.4 to 97.9) with WPRT versus 81.2% (95% CI, 71.6 to 87.8) with PORT, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.52; P < .0001). WPRT also showed higher 5-year DFS (89.5% v 77.2%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.73; P = .002), but 5-year OS did not appear to differ (92.5% v 90.8%; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.05; P = .83). Distant metastasis-free survival was also higher with WPRT (95.9% v 89.2%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.82; P = .01). Benefit in BFFS and DFS was maintained across prognostic subgroups. CONCLUSION Prophylactic pelvic irradiation for high-risk, locally advanced prostate cancer improved BFFS and DFS as compared with PORT, but OS did not appear to differ.