PURPOSE: There is little evidence comparing complications after intensity-modulated (IMRT) vs. three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (CRT) for prostate cancer. The study objective was to test the hypothesis that IMRT, compared with CRT, is associated with a reduction in bowel, urinary, and erectile complications in elderly men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We undertook an observational cohort study using registry and administrative claims data from the SEER-Medicare database. We identified men aged 65 years or older diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the United States between 2002 and 2004 who received IMRT (n = 5,845) or CRT (n = 6,753). The primary outcome was a composite measure of bowel complications. Secondary outcomes were composite measures of urinary and erectile complications. We also examined specific subsets of bowel (proctitis/hemorrhage) and urinary (cystitis/hematuria) events within the composite complication measures. RESULTS: IMRT was associated with reductions in composite bowel complications (24-month cumulative incidence 18.8% vs. 22.5%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.93) and proctitis/hemorrhage (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95). IMRT was not associated with rates of composite urinary complications (HR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.04) or cystitis/hematuria (HR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07). The incidence of erectile complications involving invasive procedures was low and did not differ significantly between groups, although IMRT was associated with an increase in new diagnoses of impotence (HR 1.27, 95% CI, 1.14-1.42). CONCLUSION: IMRT is associated with a small reduction in composite bowel complications and proctitis/hemorrhage compared with CRT in elderly men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: There is little evidence comparing complications after intensity-modulated (IMRT) vs. three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (CRT) for prostate cancer. The study objective was to test the hypothesis that IMRT, compared with CRT, is associated with a reduction in bowel, urinary, and erectile complications in elderly men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We undertook an observational cohort study using registry and administrative claims data from the SEER-Medicare database. We identified men aged 65 years or older diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the United States between 2002 and 2004 who received IMRT (n = 5,845) or CRT (n = 6,753). The primary outcome was a composite measure of bowel complications. Secondary outcomes were composite measures of urinary and erectile complications. We also examined specific subsets of bowel (proctitis/hemorrhage) and urinary (cystitis/hematuria) events within the composite complication measures. RESULTS: IMRT was associated with reductions in composite bowel complications (24-month cumulative incidence 18.8% vs. 22.5%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.93) and proctitis/hemorrhage (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95). IMRT was not associated with rates of composite urinary complications (HR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.04) or cystitis/hematuria (HR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07). The incidence of erectile complications involving invasive procedures was low and did not differ significantly between groups, although IMRT was associated with an increase in new diagnoses of impotence (HR 1.27, 95% CI, 1.14-1.42). CONCLUSION: IMRT is associated with a small reduction in composite bowel complications and proctitis/hemorrhage compared with CRT in elderly men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.
Authors: Sujay A Vora; William W Wong; Steven E Schild; Gary A Ezzell; Michele Y Halyard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Deborah A Kuban; Susan L Tucker; Lei Dong; George Starkschall; Eugene H Huang; M Rex Cheung; Andrew K Lee; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David P Dearnaley; Matthew R Sydes; John D Graham; Edwin G Aird; David Bottomley; Richard A Cowan; Robert A Huddart; Chakiath C Jose; John Hl Matthews; Jeremy Millar; A Rollo Moore; Rachel C Morgan; J Martin Russell; Christopher D Scrase; Richard J Stephens; Isabel Syndikus; Mahesh K B Parmar Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Murilo A Luz; Alan Dal Pra; Hin-Yu Vincent Tu; Marie Duclos; Fabio L B Cury; Bassel G Bachir; Armen G Aprikian; Simon Tanguay; Wassim Kassouf Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Amy S Harrison; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Timothy N Showalter; Mark D Hurwitz; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 14.432
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
Authors: Phillip J Gray; Jonathan J Paly; Beow Y Yeap; Martin G Sanda; Howard M Sandler; Jeff M Michalski; James A Talcott; John J Coen; Daniel A Hamstra; William U Shipley; Stephen M Hahn; Anthony L Zietman; Justin E Bekelman; Jason A Efstathiou Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jeff M Michalski; Yan Yan; Deborah Watkins-Bruner; Walter R Bosch; Kathryn Winter; James M Galvin; Jean-Paul Bahary; Gerard C Morton; Matthew B Parliament; Howard M Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James B Yu; Pamela R Soulos; Jeph Herrin; Laura D Cramer; Arnold L Potosky; Kenneth B Roberts; Cary P Gross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 13.506