BACKGROUND: With salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in the postprostatectomy setting, the need to deliver sufficient radiation doses to achieve a high probability of tumor control is balanced with the risk of increased toxicity. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the postprostatectomy salvage setting is gaining interest as a treatment strategy. OBJECTIVE: Compare acute and late toxicities in patients treated with IMRT and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in the postprostatectomy salvage setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 285 patients who were treated at our institution between 1988 and 2007 with SRT after radical prostatectomy for biochemical recurrence were identified. All medical records were reviewed and toxicity recorded. Median follow-up was 60 mo. INTERVENTION: All patients were treated with SRT with either 3D-CRT (n=109) or IMRT (n=176). A total of 205 patients (72%) were treated with doses ≥70Gy. MEASUREMENTS: Late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v. 3.0 definition. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The 5-yr actuarial rates of late grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicity were 5.2% and 17.0%, respectively. IMRT was independently associated with a reduction in grade ≥2 GI toxicity compared with 3D-CRT (5-yr IMRT, 1.9%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 10.2%; p=0.02). IMRT was not associated with a reduction in risk of grade ≥2 GU toxicity (5-yr IMRT, 16.8%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 15.8%; p=0.86), urinary incontinence (5-yr IMRT, 13.6%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 7.9%; p=0.25), or grade 3 erectile dysfunction (5-yr IMRT, 26%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 30%; p=0.82). Of patients who developed late grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity, 38% and 44%, respectively, experienced resolution of their symptoms prior to the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with high-dose IMRT in the postprostatectomy salvage setting demonstrates that the treatment can be delivered safely with an associated reduction in late GI toxicity.
BACKGROUND: With salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in the postprostatectomy setting, the need to deliver sufficient radiation doses to achieve a high probability of tumor control is balanced with the risk of increased toxicity. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the postprostatectomy salvage setting is gaining interest as a treatment strategy. OBJECTIVE: Compare acute and late toxicities in patients treated with IMRT and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in the postprostatectomy salvage setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 285 patients who were treated at our institution between 1988 and 2007 with SRT after radical prostatectomy for biochemical recurrence were identified. All medical records were reviewed and toxicity recorded. Median follow-up was 60 mo. INTERVENTION: All patients were treated with SRT with either 3D-CRT (n=109) or IMRT (n=176). A total of 205 patients (72%) were treated with doses ≥70Gy. MEASUREMENTS: Late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v. 3.0 definition. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The 5-yr actuarial rates of late grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicity were 5.2% and 17.0%, respectively. IMRT was independently associated with a reduction in grade ≥2 GI toxicity compared with 3D-CRT (5-yr IMRT, 1.9%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 10.2%; p=0.02). IMRT was not associated with a reduction in risk of grade ≥2 GU toxicity (5-yr IMRT, 16.8%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 15.8%; p=0.86), urinary incontinence (5-yr IMRT, 13.6%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 7.9%; p=0.25), or grade 3 erectile dysfunction (5-yr IMRT, 26%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 30%; p=0.82). Of patients who developed late grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity, 38% and 44%, respectively, experienced resolution of their symptoms prior to the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with high-dose IMRT in the postprostatectomy salvage setting demonstrates that the treatment can be delivered safely with an associated reduction in late GI toxicity.
Authors: Alan Dal Pra; Cedric Panje; Thomas Zilli; Winfried Arnold; Kathrin Brouwer; Helena Garcia; Markus Glatzer; Silvia Gomez; Fernanda Herrera; Khanfir Kaouthar; Alexandros Papachristofilou; Gianfranco Pesce; Christiane Reuter; Hansjörg Vees; Daniel Rudolf Zwahlen; Daniel Engeler; Paul Martin Putora Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Xinglei Shen; Robert B Den; Adam P Dicker; Edouard J Trabulsi; Timothy N Showalter Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: A Karl; A Buchner; C Tympner; T Kirchner; U Ganswindt; C Belka; R Ganzer; M Burger; F Eder; F Hofstädter; D Schilling; K Sievert; A Stenzl; M Scharpf; F Fend; F Vom Dorp; H Rübben; K Schmid; D Porres-Knoblauch; A Heidenreich; B Hangarter; R Knüchel-Clarke; M Rogenhofer; B Wullich; A Hartmann; E Comploj; A Pycha; E Hanspeter; D Pehrke; G Sauter; M Graefen; C Stief; A Haese Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-02-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Paolo Borghetti; Luigi Spiazzi; Claudia Cozzaglio; Sara Pedretti; Bruno Caraffini; Luca Triggiani; Diana Greco; Lilia Bardoscia; Fernando Barbera; Michela Buglione; Stefano Maria Magrini Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Mark D Hurwitz; Jonathan Harris; Oliver Sartor; Ying Xiao; Bobby Shayegan; Paul W Sperduto; Kasra R Badiozamani; Colleen A F Lawton; Eric M Horwitz; Jeff M Michalski; Kevin Roof; David C Beyer; Qiang Zhang; Howard M Sandler Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gunnar Lohm; Jörg Lütcke; Basil Jamil; Stefan Höcht; Konrad Neumann; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Ovidiu Gabriel Bratu; Camelia Cristina Diaconu; Dan Liviu Dorel Mischianu; Traian Constantin; Ana Maria Alexandra Stanescu; Simona Gabriela Bungau; Florentina Ionita-Radu; Radu Dragos Marcu Journal: Exp Ther Med Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 2.447