OBJECTIVE: To compare early and late side effects in prostate cancer patients with Stage T1b-T3 disease randomized to receive 70 Gy or 78 Gy. METHODS: There were 189 patients randomized with a minimum follow-up of 2 years, that were available for this analysis. All patients were initially treated with a 4-field box to an isocenter dose of 46 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction. In the 70-Gy arm, treatment was continued to a reduced volume using a 4-field box technique. In the 78-Gy arm, treatment was continued to a reduced volume using a conformal 6-field arrangement. Side effects were graded on a 1-4 scale, adapted from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force criteria. RESULTS: No significant differences in acute rectal or bladder toxicity were seen between the two treatment techniques (p > 0.6 for all comparisons). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier risks of Grade 2 or higher late bladder toxicity were 20% and 9% for 70-Gy and 78-Gy groups, respectively (log rank, p = 0.8). The 5-year risks of Grade 2 or higher late rectal toxicity were 14% and 21% for 70 Gy and 78 Gy, respectively (p = 0.4). Dose-volume histogram analysis of the 78-Gy patients showed a significant correlation between the percentage of rectum irradiated to 70 Gy or greater and the likelihood of developing late rectal complications. Patients with more than 25% of the rectum receiving 70 Gy or greater had a 5-year risk of Grade 2 or higher complications of 37% compared to 13% for patients with 25% or less (p = 0.05). All three Grade 3 complications occurred when greater than 30% of the rectum received 70 Gy or more. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of complications was similar in both treatment arms. However, there is evidence for a significant increase in late rectal complications when more than 25% of the rectum received 70 Gy or greater. This parameter may serve as a benchmark for the design of future three-dimensional conformal trials.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare early and late side effects in prostate cancerpatients with Stage T1b-T3 disease randomized to receive 70 Gy or 78 Gy. METHODS: There were 189 patients randomized with a minimum follow-up of 2 years, that were available for this analysis. All patients were initially treated with a 4-field box to an isocenter dose of 46 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction. In the 70-Gy arm, treatment was continued to a reduced volume using a 4-field box technique. In the 78-Gy arm, treatment was continued to a reduced volume using a conformal 6-field arrangement. Side effects were graded on a 1-4 scale, adapted from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force criteria. RESULTS: No significant differences in acute rectal or bladder toxicity were seen between the two treatment techniques (p > 0.6 for all comparisons). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier risks of Grade 2 or higher late bladder toxicity were 20% and 9% for 70-Gy and 78-Gy groups, respectively (log rank, p = 0.8). The 5-year risks of Grade 2 or higher late rectal toxicity were 14% and 21% for 70 Gy and 78 Gy, respectively (p = 0.4). Dose-volume histogram analysis of the 78-Gy patients showed a significant correlation between the percentage of rectum irradiated to 70 Gy or greater and the likelihood of developing late rectal complications. Patients with more than 25% of the rectum receiving 70 Gy or greater had a 5-year risk of Grade 2 or higher complications of 37% compared to 13% for patients with 25% or less (p = 0.05). All three Grade 3 complications occurred when greater than 30% of the rectum received 70 Gy or more. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of complications was similar in both treatment arms. However, there is evidence for a significant increase in late rectal complications when more than 25% of the rectum received 70 Gy or greater. This parameter may serve as a benchmark for the design of future three-dimensional conformal trials.
Authors: S Hynds; C K McGarry; D M Mitchell; S Early; L Shum; D P Stewart; J A Harney; C R Cardwell; J M O'Sullivan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Andrew Jackson; Lawrence B Marks; Søren M Bentzen; Avraham Eisbruch; Ellen D Yorke; Randal K Ten Haken; Louis S Constine; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alexei Trofimov; Paul L Nguyen; John J Coen; Karen P Doppke; Robert J Schneider; Judith A Adams; Thomas R Bortfeld; Anthony L Zietman; Thomas F Delaney; William U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mirko Nitsche; Werner Brannath; Matthias Brückner; Dirk Wagner; Alexander Kaltenborn; Nils Temme; Robert M Hermann Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Michael Sia; George Rodrigues; Cynthia Menard; Andrew Bayley; Robert Bristow; Peter Chung; Mary Gospodarowicz; Michael Milosevic; Padraig Warde; Charles Catton Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: M Rex Cheung; Susan L Tucker; Lei Dong; Renaud de Crevoisier; Andrew K Lee; Steven Frank; Rajat J Kudchadker; Howard Thames; Radhe Mohan; Deborah Kuban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-01-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas N Eade; Eric M Horwitz; Karen Ruth; Mark K Buyyounouski; David J D'Ambrosio; Steven J Feigenberg; David Y T Chen; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 7.038