PURPOSE: To compare acute and late toxicities of high-dose radiation for prostate cancer delivered by either conventional three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Between September 1992 and February 1998, 61 patients with clinical stage T1c- T3 prostate cancer were treated with 3D-CRT and 171 with IMRT to a prescribed dose of 81 Gy. To quantitatively evaluate the differences between conventional 3D-CRT and IMRT, 20 randomly selected patients were planned concomitantly by both techniques and the resulting treatment plans were compared. Acute and late radiation-induced morbidity was evaluated in all patients and graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity scale. RESULTS: Compared with conventional 3D-CRT, IMRT improved the coverage of the clinical target volume (CTV) by the prescription dose and reduced the volumes of the rectal and bladder walls carried to high dose levels (P<0.01), indicating improved conformality with IMRT. Acute and late urinary toxicities were not significantly different for the two methods. However, the combined rates of acute grade 1 and 2 rectal toxicities and the risk of late grade 2 rectal bleeding were significantly lower in the IMRT patients. The 2-year actuarial risk of grade 2 bleeding was 2% for IMRT and 10% for conventional 3D-CRT (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrate the feasibility and safety of high-dose IMRT for patients with localized prostate cancer and provide a proof-of-principle that this method improves dose conformality relative to tumor coverage and exposure to normal tissues.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare acute and late toxicities of high-dose radiation for prostate cancer delivered by either conventional three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between September 1992 and February 1998, 61 patients with clinical stage T1c- T3 prostate cancer were treated with 3D-CRT and 171 with IMRT to a prescribed dose of 81 Gy. To quantitatively evaluate the differences between conventional 3D-CRT and IMRT, 20 randomly selected patients were planned concomitantly by both techniques and the resulting treatment plans were compared. Acute and late radiation-induced morbidity was evaluated in all patients and graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity scale. RESULTS: Compared with conventional 3D-CRT, IMRT improved the coverage of the clinical target volume (CTV) by the prescription dose and reduced the volumes of the rectal and bladder walls carried to high dose levels (P<0.01), indicating improved conformality with IMRT. Acute and late urinary toxicities were not significantly different for the two methods. However, the combined rates of acute grade 1 and 2 rectal toxicities and the risk of late grade 2 rectal bleeding were significantly lower in the IMRT patients. The 2-year actuarial risk of grade 2 bleeding was 2% for IMRT and 10% for conventional 3D-CRT (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrate the feasibility and safety of high-dose IMRT for patients with localized prostate cancer and provide a proof-of-principle that this method improves dose conformality relative to tumor coverage and exposure to normal tissues.
Authors: Dwight E Heron; Karen D Godette; Ray A Wynn; V Elayne Arterbery; Oscar A Streeter; Mack Roach; Joseph R Simpson; Melissa Blough; Charles R Thomas Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: M del Carmen Maceira Rozas; Teresa Rey Liste; Angela L García Caeiro; Julio García Comesaña Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: M Schenck; C Boergermann; F vom Dorp; Y Busch; M Groneberg; B Wilker; S Keitsch; S Moyrer; K W Schmid; M Stuschke; H Ruebben; E Gulbins Journal: Urologe A Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Krista Dawdy; Katija Bonin; Steve Russell; Agnes Ryzynski; Tamara Harth; Christopher Townsend; Stanley Liu; William Chu; Patrick Cheung; Hans Chung; Gerard Morton; Danny Vesprini; Andrew Loblaw; Xingshan Cao; Ewa Szumacher Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: B A Jereczek-Fossa; A Maucieri; G Marvaso; S Gandini; C Fodor; D Zerini; G Riva; O Alessandro; A Surgo; S Volpe; G Fanetti; S Arculeo; M A Zerella; S Parisi; P Maisonneuve; A Vavassori; F Cattani; R Cambria; C Garibaldi; A Starzyńska; G Musi; O De Cobelli; M Ferro; F Nolè; D Ciardo; R Orecchia Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 3.064