BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is increasingly used to treat localized prostate cancer. Although allowing for the delivery of higher doses of radiation to the prostate, its effectiveness compared with the prior standard three-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative effectiveness of IMRT relative to 3D-CRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a population-based cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2001 and 2007 who underwent either 3D-CRT (n=6976) or IMRT (n=11 039). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We assessed our main outcomes (ie, the adjusted use of salvage therapy with androgen-deprivation therapy [ADT] and risk of a complication requiring an intervention) using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The percentage of men receiving IMRT increased from 9% in 2001 to 93% in 2007. Compared with those treated with 3D-CRT, low-risk patients treated with IMRT had similar likelihoods of using salvage therapy with ADT and similar risks of having a complication requiring an intervention (all p>0.05). Conversely, a subset of higher risk patients treated with IMRT who did not receive concurrent ADT were less likely to use salvage therapy (p=0.02) while maintaining similar complication rates. Because our cohort includes Medicare beneficiaries, our findings may not be generalizable to younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: For a subset of higher risk patients, IMRT appears to show a benefit in terms of reduced salvage therapy without an increase in complications. For other patients, the risks of salvage therapy and complications are comparable between the two modalities.
BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is increasingly used to treat localized prostate cancer. Although allowing for the delivery of higher doses of radiation to the prostate, its effectiveness compared with the prior standard three-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative effectiveness of IMRT relative to 3D-CRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a population-based cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2001 and 2007 who underwent either 3D-CRT (n=6976) or IMRT (n=11 039). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We assessed our main outcomes (ie, the adjusted use of salvage therapy with androgen-deprivation therapy [ADT] and risk of a complication requiring an intervention) using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The percentage of men receiving IMRT increased from 9% in 2001 to 93% in 2007. Compared with those treated with 3D-CRT, low-risk patients treated with IMRT had similar likelihoods of using salvage therapy with ADT and similar risks of having a complication requiring an intervention (all p>0.05). Conversely, a subset of higher risk patients treated with IMRT who did not receive concurrent ADT were less likely to use salvage therapy (p=0.02) while maintaining similar complication rates. Because our cohort includes Medicare beneficiaries, our findings may not be generalizable to younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: For a subset of higher risk patients, IMRT appears to show a benefit in terms of reduced salvage therapy without an increase in complications. For other patients, the risks of salvage therapy and complications are comparable between the two modalities.
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: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: David C Miller; Stephen B Gruber; Brent K Hollenbeck; James E Montie; John T Wei Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-08-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Rodney L Dunn; Jeff Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Laurel Northouse; Larry Hembroff; Xihong Lin; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal; Arul Mahadevan; Eric Klein; Adam Kibel; Louis L Pisters; Deborah Kuban; Irving Kaplan; David Wood; Jay Ciezki; Nikhil Shah; John T Wei Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Florian R Schroeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Bruce L Jacobs; Ted A Skolarus; David C Miller; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Yun Zhang; Florian R Schroeck; Ted A Skolarus; John T Wei; James E Montie; Scott M Gilbert; Seth A Strope; Rodney L Dunn; David C Miller; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Bruce L Jacobs; Ted A Skolarus; Yun Zhang; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Urology Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ted A Skolarus; Rodney L Dunn; Martin G Sanda; Peter Chang; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; John T Wei Journal: Urology Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: G G Alves; A Kinoshita; H F de Oliveira; F S Guimarães; L L Amaral; O Baffa Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 2.590
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Bruce L Jacobs; Yun Zhang; Alon Z Weizer; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Scott M Gilbert; Seth A Strope; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.983