Literature DB >> 12095556

Preliminary observations on biochemical relapse-free survival rates after short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction) for localized prostate cancer.

Patrick A Kupelian1, Chandana A Reddy, Thomas P Carlson, Kimberley A Altsman, Twyla R Willoughby.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the preliminary biochemical relapse-free survival rates between short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SCIM-RT) delivering 70 Gy in 28 fractions and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) delivering 78 Gy in 39 fractions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 1998 and December 1999, 166 patients were treated with SCIM-RT and 116 with 3D-CRT. The SCIM-RT cases were treated to 70 Gy (2.5 Gy/fraction) using 5 intensity-modulated fields using a dynamic multileaf collimator. The BAT transabdominal ultrasound system was used for localization of the prostate gland in all SCIM-RT cases. The 116 3D-CRT cases were treated to 78.0 Gy (2.0 Gy/fraction). The study sample therefore comprised 282 cases; 70 Gy in 28 fractions is equivalent to 78 Gy in 39 fractions for late-reacting tissues, according to the linear-quadratic model. The median follow-up for all cases was 25 months (range 3-42). The median follow-up was 21 months for the SCIM-RT cases (range 3-31) and 32 months for the 3D-CRT cases (range 3-42). The follow-up period was shorter for the SCIM-RT cases, because SCIM-RT was started only in October 1998. Biochemical relapse was defined as 3 consecutive rising prostate-specific antigen levels after reaching a nadir. The analysis was then repeated with a more stringent definition of biochemical control: reaching and maintaining a prostate-specific antigen level of < or =0.5 ng/mL. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity scores were used to assess complications.
RESULTS: For the 282 patients, the biochemical relapse-free survival rate at 30 months was 91% (95% confidence interval 88-95%). The biochemical relapse-free survival rate at 30 months for 3D-CRT vs. SCIM-RT was 88% (95% confidence interval 82-94%) vs. 94% (95% confidence interval 91-98%), respectively. The difference was not statistically significant between the two treatment arms (p = 0.084). The multivariate time-to-failure analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model for clinical parameters showed the pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level (p <0.001) and biopsy Gleason score (p <0.001) to be the only independent predictors of biochemical relapse. Clinical T stage (p = 0.66), age (p = 0.15), race (p = 0.25), and neoadjuvant androgen deprivation (p = 0.66) were not independent predictors of biochemical failure. SCIM-RT showed only a trend toward a better outcome on multivariate analysis (p = 0.058). Late rectal toxicity was limited; the actuarial combined Grade 2 and 3 late rectal toxicity rate at 30 months was 5% for SCIM-RT vs. 12% for 3D-CRT (p = 0.24). Grade 3 late rectal toxicity (rectal bleeding requiring cauterization) occurred in a total of 10 patients. The actuarial Grade 3 late rectal toxicity rate at 30 months was 2% for the SCIM-RT cases and 8% for the 3D-CRT cases (p = 0.059). Late urinary toxicity was rare in both groups.
CONCLUSION: With the currently available follow-up period (< or =30 months), the hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy schedule of 70.0 Gy delivered at 2.5 Gy/fraction had a comparable biochemical relapse profile with the prior 3D-CRT schedule delivering 78.0 at 2.0 Gy/fraction. The late rectal toxicity profile has been extremely favorable. If longer follow-up confirms the favorable biochemical failure and low late toxicity rates, SCIM-RT will be an alternative and more convenient way of providing dose escalation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12095556     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02836-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  27 in total

Review 1.  [Optimizing the use of radiotherapy with IMRT and image guided location of advanced prostate cancer].

Authors:  F Lohr; M Fuss; U Tiefenbacher; M Siegsmund; S Mai; J M Kunnappallil; B Dobler; P Alken; F Wenz
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice.

Authors:  M Teoh; C H Clark; K Wood; S Whitaker; A Nisbet
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Recommendations for treatment with IMRT for prostate and head-neck cancer. Axencia de Avaliación de Tecnoloxías Sanitarias de Galicia.

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

4.  Outcomes after intensity-modulated versus conformal radiotherapy in older men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

Authors:  Justin E Bekelman; Nandita Mitra; Jason Efstathiou; Kaijun Liao; Robert Sunderland; Deborah N Yeboa; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-04-16       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 5.  Current status of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

Authors:  Kazuo Hatano; Hitoshi Araki; Mitsuhiro Sakai; Takashi Kodama; Naoki Tohyama; Tohru Kawachi; Masaharu Imazeki; Takayuki Shimizu; Tsutomu Iwase; Minoru Shinozuka; Hideyo Ishigaki
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-12-21       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Preliminary patient-reported outcomes analysis of 3-dimensional radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy on the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0126 prostate cancer trial.

Authors:  Deborah W Bruner; Daniel Hunt; Jeff M Michalski; Walter R Bosch; James M Galvin; Mahul Amin; Canhua Xiao; Jean-Paul Bahary; Malti Patel; Susan Chafe; George Rodrigues; Harold Lau; Marie Duclos; Madhava Baikadi; Snehal Deshmukh; Howard M Sandler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Acute and late complications after hypofractionated intensity modulated radiotherapy in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Takuyo Kozuka; Masahiro Nakano; Masatoshi Hashimoto; Kotaro Gomi; Keiko Nemoto Murofushi; Minako Sumi; Junji Yonese; Masahiko Oguchi
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 2.374

8.  Who benefits from hypofractionated radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: evidence from meta-analysis.

Authors:  Libin Sun; Linbin Sun; Shimiao Zhu; Yang Zhao; Hui Zhang; Zhiqun Shang; Ning Jiang; Gang Li; Yuanjie Niu
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-07-06

Review 9.  The comparative oncologic effectiveness of available management strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Mark D Tyson; David F Penson; Matthew J Resnick
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 3.498

10.  Positional reproducibility and effects of a rectal balloon in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Jae Ho Cho; Chang-Geol Lee; Dae Ryong Kang; Jooho Kim; Sangkyu Lee; Chang-Ok Suh; Jinsil Seong; Yang Gun Suh; Ikjae Lee; Gwi Eon Kim
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.