PURPOSE: To compare toxicity profiles and biochemical tumor control outcomes between patients treated with high-dose image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2008 and 2009, 186 patients with prostate cancer were treated with IGRT to a dose of 86.4 Gy with daily correction of the target position based on kilovoltage imaging of implanted prostatic fiducial markers. This group of patients was retrospectively compared with a similar cohort of 190 patients who were treated between 2006 and 2007 with IMRT to the same prescription dose without, however, implanted fiducial markers in place (non-IGRT). The median follow-up time was 2.8 years (range, 2-6 years). RESULTS: A significant reduction in late urinary toxicity was observed for IGRT patients compared with the non-IGRT patients. The 3-year likelihood of grade 2 and higher urinary toxicity for the IGRT and non-IGRT cohorts were 10.4% and 20.0%, respectively (p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identifying predictors for grade 2 or higher late urinary toxicity demonstrated that, in addition to the baseline Internatinoal Prostate Symptom Score, IGRT was associated with significantly less late urinary toxicity compared with non-IGRT. The incidence of grade 2 and higher rectal toxicity was low for both treatment groups (1.0% and 1.6%, respectively; p = 0.81). No differences in prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival outcomes were observed for low- and intermediate-risk patients when treated with IGRT and non-IGRT. For high-risk patients, a significant improvement was observed at 3 years for patients treated with IGRT compared with non-IGRT. CONCLUSIONS: IGRT is associated with an improvement in biochemical tumor control among high-risk patients and a lower rate of late urinary toxicity compared with high-dose IMRT. These data suggest that, for definitive radiotherapy, the placement of fiducial markers and daily tracking of target positioning may represent the preferred mode of external-beam radiotherapy delivery for the treatment of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: To compare toxicity profiles and biochemical tumor control outcomes between patients treated with high-dose image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2008 and 2009, 186 patients with prostate cancer were treated with IGRT to a dose of 86.4 Gy with daily correction of the target position based on kilovoltage imaging of implanted prostatic fiducial markers. This group of patients was retrospectively compared with a similar cohort of 190 patients who were treated between 2006 and 2007 with IMRT to the same prescription dose without, however, implanted fiducial markers in place (non-IGRT). The median follow-up time was 2.8 years (range, 2-6 years). RESULTS: A significant reduction in late urinary toxicity was observed for IGRT patients compared with the non-IGRT patients. The 3-year likelihood of grade 2 and higher urinary toxicity for the IGRT and non-IGRT cohorts were 10.4% and 20.0%, respectively (p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identifying predictors for grade 2 or higher late urinary toxicity demonstrated that, in addition to the baseline Internatinoal Prostate Symptom Score, IGRT was associated with significantly less late urinary toxicity compared with non-IGRT. The incidence of grade 2 and higher rectal toxicity was low for both treatment groups (1.0% and 1.6%, respectively; p = 0.81). No differences in prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival outcomes were observed for low- and intermediate-risk patients when treated with IGRT and non-IGRT. For high-risk patients, a significant improvement was observed at 3 years for patients treated with IGRT compared with non-IGRT. CONCLUSIONS: IGRT is associated with an improvement in biochemical tumor control among high-risk patients and a lower rate of late urinary toxicity compared with high-dose IMRT. These data suggest that, for definitive radiotherapy, the placement of fiducial markers and daily tracking of target positioning may represent the preferred mode of external-beam radiotherapy delivery for the treatment of prostate cancer.
Authors: Maria Thor; Caroline E Olsson; Jung Hun Oh; David Alsadius; Niclas Pettersson; Joseph O Deasy; Gunnar Steineck Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2015-11-13 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Romain Mathieu; Juan David Ospina Arango; Véronique Beckendorf; Jean-Bernard Delobel; Taha Messai; Ciprian Chira; Alberto Bossi; Elisabeth Le Prisé; Stéphane Guerif; Jean-Marc Simon; Bernard Dubray; Jian Zhu; Jean-Léon Lagrange; Pascal Pommier; Khemara Gnep; Oscar Acosta; Renaud De Crevoisier Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 4.226
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: 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