Purpose Small cell carcinoma of the cervix (SCCC) represents 1% to 5% of cervical cancers, with limited data on management and outcomes. We evaluated patterns of care and outcomes for SCCC using the National Cancer Database. Methods and materials This retrospective cohort study of SCCC (2004-2011) included 542 cases. Patient demographic, diagnosis, treatment information, and overall survival (OS) were compared with descriptive statistics, logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox models. Clinical reasoning was used to select variables for multivariable models to avoid overfitting. Results SCCC had more comorbidities, higher grade, and advanced stage than other histologies. SCCC received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (36%) more often than squamous cell carcinoma (23%) and adenocarcinoma (13%, P less then .001). SCCC had worse OS across all stages (P less then .001). Looking at SCCC alone, patients who received chemoradiation (CRT) (with external beam and brachytherapy) and those who received chemotherapy and surgery (without RT) had similar OS (median OS 44 vs 47 months; P = .7) on Kaplan-Meier. Patients receiving CRT were more likely to have stage II or III and N+ disease (P less then .001). When evaluating chemoradiation, the addition of brachytherapy resulted in improved median OS (35 vs 19 months; P = .001) regardless of surgical resection status and controlling for age and stage. Even after controlling for stage, age, and comorbidities, the addition of brachytherapy was associated with a 40% improvement in OS (hazard ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.0-2.0). Conclusions SCCC patients benefit from chemotherapy with aggressive local treatment. Patients who receive CRT that included brachytherapy did as well as patients who received chemotherapy followed by surgery. Brachytherapy remains an essential component in the treatment of SCCC with CRT.Purpose To establish the safety and efficacy of gantry-mounted linear accelerator-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Methods We pooled 921 patients enrolled on 7 single-institution prospective phase II trials of gantry-based SBRT from 2006 to 2017. The cumulative incidences of biochemical recurrence (defined by the Phoenix definition) and physician-scored genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities (defined per the original trials using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) were estimated using a competing risk framework. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between late toxicity and prespecified covariates biologically effective dose, every other day versus weekly fractionation, intrafractional motion monitoring, and acute toxicity. Results Median follow-up was 3.1 years (range, 0.5-10.8 years). In addition, 505 (54.8%) patients had low-risk disease, 236 (25.6%) had favorable intermediate-riable safety and efficacy profile, despite variable intrafractional motion management techniques. These findings suggest that multiple treatment platforms can be used to safely deliver prostate SBRT.Purpose There is no consensus on how to treat high-risk prostate cancer, and long-term results from hypofractionated radiation therapy are lacking. We report 10-year results after image guided, intensity modulated radiation therapy with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost and elective pelvic field. Methods and materials Between 2007 and 2009, 97 consecutive patients with high-risk prostate cancer were included, treated with 2.7 to 2.0 Gy × 25 Gy to the prostate, seminal vesicles, and elective pelvic field. Toxicity was scored according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria and biochemical disease-free survival (BFS) defined by the Phoenix definition. Patients were subsequently divided into 3 groups high risk (HR; n = 32), very high risk (VHR; n = 50), and N+/s-prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥100 (n = 15). Differences in outcomes were examined using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Results BFS in the patients at HR and VHR was 64%, metastasis-free survival 80%, prostate cancer-specific survival 90%, and overall survival (OS) 72%. VHR versus HR subgroups demonstrated significantly different BFS, 54% versus 79% (P = .01). Metastasis-free survival and prostate cancer-specific survival in the VHR group versus HR group were 76% versus 87% (P = .108) and 74% versus 100% (P = .157). Patients reaching nadir PSA less then 0.1 (n = 80) had significantly better outcomes than the rest (n = 17), with BFS 70% versus 7% (P less then .001). Acute grade 2 gastrointestinal tract (GI) and genitourinary tract (GU) toxicity occurred in 27% and 40%, grade 3 GI and GU toxicity in 1% and 3%. Late GI and GU grade 2 toxicity occurred in 1% and 8%. Conclusions High-risk prostate cancer patients obtained favorable 10-year outcomes with low toxicity. There were significantly better results in the HR versus the VHR group, both better than the N+/PSA ≥100 group. A nadir PSA value less then 0.1 predicted good prognosis.Purpose Growing evidence supports the efficacy and safety of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a boost or monotherapy in prostate cancer treatment. We initiated a new HDR prostate brachytherapy practice in April 2014. Here, we report the learning experiences, short-term safety, quality, and outcome. see more Methods and materials From April 2014 to December 2017, 164 men were treated with HDR brachytherapy with curative intent. Twenty-eight men (17.1%) underwent HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy, receiving 25 to 27 Gy in 2 fractions. Men treated with HDR brachytherapy as a boost received 19 to 21 Gy in 2 fractions. Fifty-two men (31.7%) had high-risk disease. HDR procedure times, dosimetry, and response were recorded and analyzed. Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were recorded according to the toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Results Mean HDR procedure times decreased yearly from 179 minutes in 2014 to 115 minutes in 2017. Median follow-up was 18.6 months (range, 3-55 months). At last review, 79% of patients reported returning to baseline GU status, and 100% of patients noted no change in GI status from their baseline. Four patients experienced acute urinary retention. Treatment planning target volume (PTV) was defined as prostate with margins. Dosimetrically, 97.5% of all HDR implants had PTV D90 ≥100%, 81.5% had PTV V100 ≥95%, 73.6% had maximal urethral doses ≤120%, and 77.5% had rectal 1 mL dose ≤70% (all but one ≤10.8 Gy). The estimated 3-year overall survival was 98.7% (95% confidence interval, 91.4%-99.8%), and disease-free survival was 96.2% (95% confidence interval, 89.5%-98.7%). Conclusions The low incidence of GU and GI complications in our cohort demonstrates that a HDR brachytherapy program can be successfully developed as a treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer.