BACKGROUND: We sought to identify the bladder dose-volume factors associated with an increased risk of late urinary toxicity among prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective analysis included data from 128 prostate cancer patients treated on protocol with 2 Gy/fraction to 46 Gy followed by a boost to 78 Gy. The endpoint for this analysis was Grade 1 or greater late genitourinary (GU) toxicity occurring within two years of treatment. The Lyman-Kutcher-Burman, mean dose, threshold dose, and hottest volume models were fitted to the toxicity data using the maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: Model fits based on dose-volume histograms tended to fit the toxicity data better than models based on dose-wall histograms. The hottest volume (hotspot) model was found to be the best-fitting model investigated. The best fit was for the hottest 2.9% of bladder (95% CI, 1.1-6.8%). This model has an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74. The hotspot model separated the patients into clinically meaningful subgroups with approximately 25% of the patients who received <78 Gy to the hottest 2.9% of bladder had GU toxicity at eight years compared with approximately 50% when the dose was > or =78 Gy (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: This provides the first evidence supporting that bladder "hotspots" are related to GU toxicity within two years after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Confirming data are needed from other investigators. Particular attention should be given to hotspots higher than 78 Gy in bladder in radiation treatment planning.
BACKGROUND: We sought to identify the bladder dose-volume factors associated with an increased risk of late urinary toxicity among prostate cancerpatients treated with radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective analysis included data from 128 prostate cancerpatients treated on protocol with 2 Gy/fraction to 46 Gy followed by a boost to 78 Gy. The endpoint for this analysis was Grade 1 or greater late genitourinary (GU) toxicity occurring within two years of treatment. The Lyman-Kutcher-Burman, mean dose, threshold dose, and hottest volume models were fitted to the toxicity data using the maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: Model fits based on dose-volume histograms tended to fit the toxicity data better than models based on dose-wall histograms. The hottest volume (hotspot) model was found to be the best-fitting model investigated. The best fit was for the hottest 2.9% of bladder (95% CI, 1.1-6.8%). This model has an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74. The hotspot model separated the patients into clinically meaningful subgroups with approximately 25% of the patients who received <78 Gy to the hottest 2.9% of bladder had GU toxicity at eight years compared with approximately 50% when the dose was > or =78 Gy (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: This provides the first evidence supporting that bladder "hotspots" are related to GU toxicity within two years after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Confirming data are needed from other investigators. Particular attention should be given to hotspots higher than 78 Gy in bladder in radiation treatment planning.
Authors: Susan L Tucker; Lei Dong; Rex Cheung; Jennifer Johnson; Radhe Mohan; Eugene H Huang; H Helen Liu; Howard D Thames; Deborah Kuban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M J Zelefsky; D Cowen; Z Fuks; M Shike; C Burman; A Jackson; E S Venkatramen; S A Leibel Journal: Cancer Date: 1999-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Susan L Tucker; H Helen Liu; Shulian Wang; Xiong Wei; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Radhe Mohan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M J Zelefsky; Z Fuks; M Hunt; H J Lee; D Lombardi; C C Ling; V E Reuter; E S Venkatraman; S A Leibel Journal: J Urol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Zachariah A Allen; Gregory S Merrick; Wayne M Butler; Kent E Wallner; Brian Kurko; Richard L Anderson; Brian C Murray; Robert W Galbreath Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Susan L Tucker; Rex Cheung; Lei Dong; H Helen Liu; Howard D Thames; Eugene H Huang; Deborah Kuban; Radhe Mohan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michele Albert; Clare M Tempany; Delray Schultz; Ming-Hui Chen; Robert A Cormack; Sanjaya Kumar; Mark D Hurwitz; Clair Beard; Kemal Tuncali; Michael O'Leary; George P Topulos; Kristin Valentine; Lynn Lopes; Angela Kanan; Daniel Kacher; James Rosato; Hanne Kooy; Ferenc Jolesz; David L Carr-Locke; Jerome P Richie; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ugur Selek; Rex Cheung; Mingfwu Lii; Pamela Allen; Roy E Steadham; Terry R Vantreese; Darren J Little; Isaac I Rosen; Deborah Kuban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas P Kole; Michael Tong; Binbin Wu; Siyuan Lei; Olusola Obayomi-Davies; Leonard N Chen; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; Ellen Yorke; Sean P Collins Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Ryan M Davis; Anastasia L Sowers; William DeGraff; Marcelino Bernardo; Angela Thetford; Murali C Krishna; James B Mitchell Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: Jarad M Martin; Andrew Bayley; Robert Bristow; Peter Chung; Mary Gospodarowicz; Cynthia Menard; Michael Milosevic; Tara Rosewall; Padraig R Warde; Charles N Catton Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: B Henriques de Figueiredo; C Zacharatou; S Galland-Girodet; J Benech; H De Clermont-Gallerande; F Lamare; M Hatt; L Digue; E De Mones del Pujol; P Fernandez Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 3.621