PURPOSE:Image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) allows significant dose reductions to organs at risk in prostate cancer patients. However, clinical data identifying the benefits of IG-IMRT in daily practice are scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare dose distributions to organs at risk and acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity levels of patients treated to 78 Gy with either IG-IMRT or 3D-CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated with 3D-CRT (n=215) and IG-IMRT (n=260) receiving 78 Gy in 39 fractions within 2 randomized trials were selected. Dose surface histograms of anorectum, anal canal, and bladder were calculated. Identical toxicity questionnaires were distributed at baseline, prior to fraction 20 and 30 and at 90 days after treatment. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade ≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 endpoints were derived directly from questionnaires. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were applied. RESULTS: The median volumes receiving 5 to 75 Gy were significantly lower (all P<.001) with IG-IMRT for anorectum, anal canal, and bladder. The mean dose to the anorectum was 34.4 Gy versus 47.3 Gy (P<.001), 23.6 Gy versus 44.6 Gy for the anal canal (P<.001), and 33.1 Gy versus 43.2 Gy for the bladder (P<.001). Significantly lower grade ≥2 toxicity was observed for proctitis, stool frequency ≥6/day, and urinary frequency ≥12/day. IG-IMRT resulted in significantly lower overall RTOG grade ≥2 GI toxicity (29% vs 49%, respectively, P=.002) and overall GU grade ≥2 toxicity (38% vs 48%, respectively, P=.009). CONCLUSIONS: A clinically meaningful reduction in dose to organs at risk and acute toxicity levels was observed in IG-IMRT patients, as a result of improved technique and tighter margins. Therefore reduced late toxicity levels can be expected as well; additional research is needed to quantify such reductions.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) allows significant dose reductions to organs at risk in prostate cancerpatients. However, clinical data identifying the benefits of IG-IMRT in daily practice are scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare dose distributions to organs at risk and acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity levels of patients treated to 78 Gy with either IG-IMRT or 3D-CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated with 3D-CRT (n=215) and IG-IMRT (n=260) receiving 78 Gy in 39 fractions within 2 randomized trials were selected. Dose surface histograms of anorectum, anal canal, and bladder were calculated. Identical toxicity questionnaires were distributed at baseline, prior to fraction 20 and 30 and at 90 days after treatment. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade ≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 endpoints were derived directly from questionnaires. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were applied. RESULTS: The median volumes receiving 5 to 75 Gy were significantly lower (all P<.001) with IG-IMRT for anorectum, anal canal, and bladder. The mean dose to the anorectum was 34.4 Gy versus 47.3 Gy (P<.001), 23.6 Gy versus 44.6 Gy for the anal canal (P<.001), and 33.1 Gy versus 43.2 Gy for the bladder (P<.001). Significantly lower grade ≥2 toxicity was observed for proctitis, stool frequency ≥6/day, and urinary frequency ≥12/day. IG-IMRT resulted in significantly lower overall RTOG grade ≥2 GI toxicity (29% vs 49%, respectively, P=.002) and overall GU grade ≥2 toxicity (38% vs 48%, respectively, P=.009). CONCLUSIONS: A clinically meaningful reduction in dose to organs at risk and acute toxicity levels was observed in IG-IMRT patients, as a result of improved technique and tighter margins. Therefore reduced late toxicity levels can be expected as well; additional research is needed to quantify such reductions.
Authors: Tanja Sprave; Vivek Verma; Robert Förster; Ingmar Schlampp; Thomas Bruckner; Tilman Bostel; Stefan Ezechiel Welte; Eric Tonndorf-Martini; Rami El Shafie; Nils Henrik Nicolay; Jürgen Debus; Harald Rief Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: B A Jereczek-Fossa; A Maucieri; G Marvaso; S Gandini; C Fodor; D Zerini; G Riva; O Alessandro; A Surgo; S Volpe; G Fanetti; S Arculeo; M A Zerella; S Parisi; P Maisonneuve; A Vavassori; F Cattani; R Cambria; C Garibaldi; A Starzyńska; G Musi; O De Cobelli; M Ferro; F Nolè; D Ciardo; R Orecchia Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Valeria Meier; Chris Staudinger; Stephan Radonic; Jürgen Besserer; Uwe Schneider; Linda Walsh; Carla Rohrer Bley Journal: Vet Comp Oncol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 2.613