PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to compare toxicity and cancer control between patients with prostate cancer treated using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and those treated using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 553 patients with prostate cancer were treated with 3D-CRT 70-74 Gy (3D-CRT 70, 3D-CRT 74) or IMRT 78-82 Gy (IMRT 78, IMRT/SIB 82). Late toxicity was scored according to FC-RTOG/LENT criteria. Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix and ASTRO definitions. RESULTS: The 5-year risk of grade 2-4 genitourinary toxicity was 26.3 % (3D-CRT 70), 27.2 % (3D-CRT 74), 17.3 % (IMRT 78), and 25.1 % (IMRT/SIB 82) without statistical differences. The 5-year risk of grade 2-4 gastrointestinal toxicity was 19.4 % (3D-CRT 70), 42.1 % (3D-CRT 74), 20.5 % (IMRT 78), and 26.6 % (IMRT/SIB 82). The differences between 3D-CRT 74 and 3D-CRT 70 and between 3D-CRT 74 and IMRT 78 were statistically significant (log rank p = 0.03). The 5-year Phoenix PSA relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS) in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients treated using 3D-CRT were 89.4, 65.5, and 57.8 %, respectively. Patients treated with IMRT achieved the following results: 90.9, 89.4, and 83.9 %. Clinical relapse-free survival (C-RFS) in patients treated using 3D-CRT vs. IMRT for the aforementioned groups were 94.7 vs. 100 %, 86.8 vs. 98.6 %, and 84.4 vs. 94.5 %. Disease-free survival (DFS) for patients treated using 3D-CRT were 83.1, 70.9, and 71.5 %. The IMRT group reached 95.8, 89.1, and 87.6 %. The PSA-RFS for intermediate- and high-risk patients were statistically significant, while C-RFS and DFS were marginally better. CONCLUSION: Dose escalation with IMRT was associated with improved cancer control in intermediate- and high-risk patients in comparison with 3D-CRT, without compromising toxicity.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to compare toxicity and cancer control between patients with prostate cancer treated using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and those treated using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 553 patients with prostate cancer were treated with 3D-CRT 70-74 Gy (3D-CRT 70, 3D-CRT 74) or IMRT 78-82 Gy (IMRT 78, IMRT/SIB 82). Late toxicity was scored according to FC-RTOG/LENT criteria. Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix and ASTRO definitions. RESULTS: The 5-year risk of grade 2-4 genitourinary toxicity was 26.3 % (3D-CRT 70), 27.2 % (3D-CRT 74), 17.3 % (IMRT 78), and 25.1 % (IMRT/SIB 82) without statistical differences. The 5-year risk of grade 2-4 gastrointestinal toxicity was 19.4 % (3D-CRT 70), 42.1 % (3D-CRT 74), 20.5 % (IMRT 78), and 26.6 % (IMRT/SIB 82). The differences between 3D-CRT 74 and 3D-CRT 70 and between 3D-CRT 74 and IMRT 78 were statistically significant (log rank p = 0.03). The 5-year Phoenix PSA relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS) in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients treated using 3D-CRT were 89.4, 65.5, and 57.8 %, respectively. Patients treated with IMRT achieved the following results: 90.9, 89.4, and 83.9 %. Clinical relapse-free survival (C-RFS) in patients treated using 3D-CRT vs. IMRT for the aforementioned groups were 94.7 vs. 100 %, 86.8 vs. 98.6 %, and 84.4 vs. 94.5 %. Disease-free survival (DFS) for patients treated using 3D-CRT were 83.1, 70.9, and 71.5 %. The IMRT group reached 95.8, 89.1, and 87.6 %. The PSA-RFS for intermediate- and high-risk patients were statistically significant, while C-RFS and DFS were marginally better. CONCLUSION: Dose escalation with IMRT was associated with improved cancer control in intermediate- and high-risk patients in comparison with 3D-CRT, without compromising toxicity.
Authors: M J Zelefsky; D Cowen; Z Fuks; M Shike; C Burman; A Jackson; E S Venkatramen; S A Leibel Journal: Cancer Date: 1999-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M J Zelefsky; Z Fuks; L Happersett; H J Lee; C C Ling; C M Burman; M Hunt; T Wolfe; E S Venkatraman; A Jackson; M Skwarchuk; S A Leibel Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Karel Odrazka; Milan Zouhar; Jiri Petera; Miloslava Vaculikova; Martin Dolezel; Milan Vosmik; Petr Tucek Journal: Phys Med Date: 2005 October - December Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Wim L J van Putten; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Geert J L H van Leenders; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Wilma D Heemsbergen; Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David P Dearnaley; Gordana Jovic; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; Richard A Cowan; John D Graham; Edwin G Aird; David Bottomley; Robert A Huddart; Chakiath C Jose; John H L Matthews; Jeremy L Millar; Claire Murphy; J Martin Russell; Christopher D Scrase; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Tomasz Barelkowski; Peter Wust; David Kaul; Sebastian Zschaeck; Waldemar Wlodarczyk; Volker Budach; Pirus Ghadjar; Marcus Beck Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Hye Jin Kang; Chul-Seung Kay; Seok Hyun Son; Myungsoo Kim; In Young Jo; So Jung Lee; Dong Hwan Lee; Hong Jin Suh; Yong Sun Choi Journal: Radiat Oncol J Date: 2016-03-30
Authors: Mahbubl Ahmed; Leila Dorling; Sarah Kerns; Laura Fachal; Rebecca Elliott; Matt Partliament; Barry S Rosenstein; Ana Vega; Antonio Gómez-Caamaño; Gill Barnett; David P Dearnaley; Emma Hall; Matt Sydes; Neil Burnet; Paul D P Pharoah; Ros Eeles; Catharine M L West Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 7.640