C S Drodge1, O Boychak2, S Patel2, N Usmani2, J Amanie2, M B Parliament2, A Murtha2, C Field3, S Ghosh4, N Pervez2. 1. At the time of the study: Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB. ; Currently: Department of Radiation Oncology, Eastern Health, Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre, St. John's, NL. 2. At the time of the study: Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB. 3. Division of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB. 4. Division of Medical Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dose-escalated hypofractionated radiotherapy (hfrt) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (imrt), with inclusion of the pelvic lymph nodes (plns), plus androgen suppression therapy (ast) in high-risk prostate cancer patients should improve patient outcomes, but acute toxicity could limit its feasibility. METHODS: Our single-centre phase ii prospective study enrolled 40 high-risk prostate cancer patients. All patients received hfrt using imrt with daily mega-voltage computed tomography imaging guidance, with 95% of planning target volumes (ptv68 and ptv50) receiving 68 Gy and 50 Gy (respectively) in 25 daily fractions. The boost volume was targeted to the involved plns and the prostate (minus the urethra plus 3 mm and minus 3 mm from adjacent rectal wall) and totalled up to 75 Gy in 25 fractions. Acute toxicity scores were recorded weekly during and 3 months after radiotherapy (rt) administration. RESULTS: For the 37 patients who completed rt and the 3-month follow-up, median age was 65.5 years (range: 50-76 years). Disease was organ-confined (T1c-T2c) in 23 patients (62.1%), and node-positive in 5 patients (13.5%). All patients received long-term ast. Maximum acute genitourinary (gu) and gastrointestinal (gi) toxicity peaked at grade 2 in 6 of 36 evaluated patients (16.6%) and in 4 of 31 evaluated patients (12.9%) respectively. Diarrhea and urinary frequency were the chief complaints. Dose-volume parameters demonstrated no correlation with toxicity. The ptv treatment objectives were met in 36 of the 37 patients. CONCLUSIONS: This hfrt dose-escalation trial in high-risk prostate cancer has demonstrated the feasibility of administering 75 Gy in 25 fractions with minimal acute gi and gu toxicities. Further follow-up will report late toxicities and outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Dose-escalated hypofractionated radiotherapy (hfrt) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (imrt), with inclusion of the pelvic lymph nodes (plns), plus androgen suppression therapy (ast) in high-risk prostate cancerpatients should improve patient outcomes, but acute toxicity could limit its feasibility. METHODS: Our single-centre phase ii prospective study enrolled 40 high-risk prostate cancerpatients. All patients received hfrt using imrt with daily mega-voltage computed tomography imaging guidance, with 95% of planning target volumes (ptv68 and ptv50) receiving 68 Gy and 50 Gy (respectively) in 25 daily fractions. The boost volume was targeted to the involved plns and the prostate (minus the urethra plus 3 mm and minus 3 mm from adjacent rectal wall) and totalled up to 75 Gy in 25 fractions. Acute toxicity scores were recorded weekly during and 3 months after radiotherapy (rt) administration. RESULTS: For the 37 patients who completed rt and the 3-month follow-up, median age was 65.5 years (range: 50-76 years). Disease was organ-confined (T1c-T2c) in 23 patients (62.1%), and node-positive in 5 patients (13.5%). All patients received long-term ast. Maximum acute genitourinary (gu) and gastrointestinal (gi) toxicity peaked at grade 2 in 6 of 36 evaluated patients (16.6%) and in 4 of 31 evaluated patients (12.9%) respectively. Diarrhea and urinary frequency were the chief complaints. Dose-volume parameters demonstrated no correlation with toxicity. The ptv treatment objectives were met in 36 of the 37 patients. CONCLUSIONS: This hfrt dose-escalation trial in high-risk prostate cancer has demonstrated the feasibility of administering 75 Gy in 25 fractions with minimal acute gi and gu toxicities. Further follow-up will report late toxicities and outcomes.
Authors: David Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Georges Sumo; Margaret Bidmead; David Bloomfield; Catharine Clark; Annie Gao; Shama Hassan; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Vincent Khoo; Peter Kirkbride; Helen Mayles; Philip Mayles; Olivia Naismith; Chris Parker; Helen Patterson; Martin Russell; Christopher Scrase; Chris South; John Staffurth; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Vipul V Thakkar; Deepak Khuntia; Chandana A Reddy; Eric A Klein; Arul Mahadevan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nadeem Pervez; Cormac Small; Marc MacKenzie; Don Yee; Matthew Parliament; Sunita Ghosh; Alina Mihai; John Amanie; Albert Murtha; Colin Field; David Murray; Gino Fallone; Robert Pearcey Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Xiaonan Liu; Jing Li; Teresa Wu; Steven E Schild; Michael H Schild; William Wong; Sujay Vora; Mirek Fatyga Journal: OMICS J Radiol Date: 2016-06-13