PURPOSE: To compare the toxicity and efficacy of hypofractionated (62 Gy/20 fractions/5 weeks, 4 fractions per week) vs. conventional fractionation radiotherapy (80 Gy/40 fractions/8 weeks) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From January 2003 to December 2007, 168 patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated or conventional fractionated schedules of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. All patients received a 9-month course of total androgen deprivation (TAD), and radiotherapy started 2 months thereafter. RESULTS: The median (range) follow-up was 32 (8-66) and 35 (7-64) months in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation arms, respectively. No difference was found for late toxicity between the two treatment groups, with 3-year Grade 2 rates of 17% and 16% for gastrointestinal and 14% and 11% for genitourinary in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation groups, respectively. The 3-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were 87% and 79% in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation groups, respectively (p = 0.035). The 3-year FFBF rates in patients at a very high risk (i.e., pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) >20 ng/mL, Gleason score >or=8, or T >or=2c), were 88% and 76% (p = 0.014) in the former and latter arm, respectively. The multivariate Cox analysis confirmed fractionation, iPSA, and Gleason score as significant prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that late toxicity is equivalent between the two treatment groups and that the hypofractionated schedule used in this trial is superior to the conventional fractionation in terms of FFBF. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the toxicity and efficacy of hypofractionated (62 Gy/20 fractions/5 weeks, 4 fractions per week) vs. conventional fractionation radiotherapy (80 Gy/40 fractions/8 weeks) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From January 2003 to December 2007, 168 patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated or conventional fractionated schedules of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. All patients received a 9-month course of total androgen deprivation (TAD), and radiotherapy started 2 months thereafter. RESULTS: The median (range) follow-up was 32 (8-66) and 35 (7-64) months in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation arms, respectively. No difference was found for late toxicity between the two treatment groups, with 3-year Grade 2 rates of 17% and 16% for gastrointestinal and 14% and 11% for genitourinary in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation groups, respectively. The 3-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were 87% and 79% in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation groups, respectively (p = 0.035). The 3-year FFBF rates in patients at a very high risk (i.e., pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) >20 ng/mL, Gleason score >or=8, or T >or=2c), were 88% and 76% (p = 0.014) in the former and latter arm, respectively. The multivariate Cox analysis confirmed fractionation, iPSA, and Gleason score as significant prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that late toxicity is equivalent between the two treatment groups and that the hypofractionated schedule used in this trial is superior to the conventional fractionation in terms of FFBF. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: C S Drodge; O Boychak; S Patel; N Usmani; J Amanie; M B Parliament; A Murtha; C Field; S Ghosh; N Pervez Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Philip S Boonstra; Jeremy M G Taylor; Beata Smolska-Ciszewska; Katarzyna Behrendt; Tomasz Dworzecki; Marzena Gawkowska-Suwinska; Brygida Bialas; Rafal Suwinski Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Giuseppe Ferrera; Gianluca Mortellaro; Mariella Mannino; Giovanni Caminiti; Antonio Spera; Vanessa Figlia; Giuseppina Iacoviello; Gioacchino Di Paola; Rosario Mazzola; Antonio Lo Casto; Filippo Alongi; Maria Pia Pappalardo; Roberto Lagalla Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-05-24 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Scott C Morgan; Karen Hoffman; D Andrew Loblaw; Mark K Buyyounouski; Caroline Patton; Daniel Barocas; Soren Bentzen; Michael Chang; Jason Efstathiou; Patrick Greany; Per Halvorsen; Bridget F Koontz; Colleen Lawton; C Marc Leyrer; Daniel Lin; Michael Ray; Howard Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Nitin Ohri; Timothy N Showalter; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Stefan Höcht; Daniel M Aebersold; Clemens Albrecht; Dirk Böhmer; Michael Flentje; Ute Ganswindt; Tobias Hölscher; Thomas Martin; Felix Sedlmayer; Frederik Wenz; Daniel Zips; Thomas Wiegel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.621