PURPOSE: To report on the acute toxicity of a third escalation level using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa) and the acute toxicity resulting from delivery of a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to an intraprostatic lesion (IPL) detected on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without spectroscopy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 2002 and March 2007, we treated 230 patients with intensity-modulated radiotherapy to a third escalation level as primary therapy for prostate cancer. If an IPL (defined by MRI or MRI plus spectroscopy) was present, a SIB was delivered to the IPL. To report on acute toxicity, patients were seen weekly during treatment and 1 and 3 months after treatment. Toxicity was scored using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity scale, supplemented by an in-house-developed scoring system. RESULTS: The median dose to the planning target volume was 78 Gy. An IPL was found in 118 patients. The median dose to the MRI-detected IPL and MRI plus spectroscopy-detected IPL was 81 Gy and 82 Gy, respectively. No Grade 3 or 4 acute gastrointestinal toxicity developed. Grade 2 acute gastrointestinal toxicity was present in 26 patients (11%). Grade 3 genitourinary toxicity was present in 15 patients (7%), and 95 patients developed Grade 2 acute genitourinary toxicity (41%). No statistically significant increase was found in Grade 2-3 acute gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity after a SIB to an IPL. CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown that treatment-induced acute toxicity remains low when intensity-modulated radiotherapy to 80 Gy as primary therapy for prostate cancer is used. In addition, a SIB to an IPL did not increase the severity or incidence of acute toxicity.
PURPOSE: To report on the acute toxicity of a third escalation level using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa) and the acute toxicity resulting from delivery of a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to an intraprostatic lesion (IPL) detected on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without spectroscopy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 2002 and March 2007, we treated 230 patients with intensity-modulated radiotherapy to a third escalation level as primary therapy for prostate cancer. If an IPL (defined by MRI or MRI plus spectroscopy) was present, a SIB was delivered to the IPL. To report on acute toxicity, patients were seen weekly during treatment and 1 and 3 months after treatment. Toxicity was scored using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity scale, supplemented by an in-house-developed scoring system. RESULTS: The median dose to the planning target volume was 78 Gy. An IPL was found in 118 patients. The median dose to the MRI-detected IPL and MRI plus spectroscopy-detected IPL was 81 Gy and 82 Gy, respectively. No Grade 3 or 4 acute gastrointestinal toxicity developed. Grade 2 acute gastrointestinal toxicity was present in 26 patients (11%). Grade 3 genitourinary toxicity was present in 15 patients (7%), and 95 patients developed Grade 2 acute genitourinary toxicity (41%). No statistically significant increase was found in Grade 2-3 acute gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity after a SIB to an IPL. CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown that treatment-induced acute toxicity remains low when intensity-modulated radiotherapy to 80 Gy as primary therapy for prostate cancer is used. In addition, a SIB to an IPL did not increase the severity or incidence of acute toxicity.
Authors: Uulke A van der Heide; Antonetta C Houweling; Greetje Groenendaal; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Philippe Lambin Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Tomasz Barelkowski; Peter Wust; David Kaul; Sebastian Zschaeck; Waldemar Wlodarczyk; Volker Budach; Pirus Ghadjar; Marcus Beck Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Martin Dolezel; Karel Odrazka; Milan Zouhar; Miloslava Vaculikova; Jana Sefrova; Jan Jansa; Petr Paluska; Tereza Kohlova; Jaroslav Vanasek; Josef Kovarik Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Oscar Acosta; Gael Drean; Juan D Ospina; Antoine Simon; Pascal Haigron; Caroline Lafond; Renaud de Crevoisier Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Constantinos Zamboglou; Gesche Wieser; Steffen Hennies; Irene Rempel; Simon Kirste; Martin Soschynski; Hans Christian Rischke; Tobias Fechter; Cordula A Jilg; Mathias Langer; Philipp T Meyer; Michael Bock; Anca-Ligia Grosu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Isabel Syndikus; Rachel C Morgan; Matthew R Sydes; John D Graham; David P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 7.038