Nicholas G Zaorsky1, Joshua D Palmer2, Mark D Hurwitz2, Scott W Keith3, Adam P Dicker2, Robert B Den2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: nicholaszaorsky@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Division of Biostatistics, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if increasing the biologically equivalent dose (BED) via various radiation fractionation regimens is correlated with clinical outcomes or toxicities for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a meta-analysis that included 12,756 prostate cancer patients from 55 studies published from 2003 to 2013 who were treated with non-dose-escalated conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (non-DE-CFRT), DE-CFRT, hypofractionated RT, and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT; either mono or boost) with ⩾5-year actuarial follow-up. BEDs were calculated based on the following formula: (nd[1+d/(α/β)]), where n is the number of fractions, and d is dose per fraction; assuming an α/β of 1.5 for prostate cancer and 3.0 for late toxicities. Mixed effects meta-regression models were used to estimate weighted linear relationships between BED and the observed percentages of patients experiencing late toxicities or 5-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF). RESULTS: Increases in 10 Gy increments in BED (at α/β of 1.5) from 140 to 200 Gy were associated with 5-unit improvements in percent FFBF. Dose escalation of BED above 200 Gy was not correlated with FFBF. Increasing BED (at α/β of 3.0) from 98 to 133 Gy was associated with increased gastrointestinal toxicity. Dose escalation above 133 Gy was not correlated with toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in the BED to 200 Gy (at α/β of 1.5) was associated with increased disease control. Doses above 200 Gy did not result in additional clinical benefit.
PURPOSE: To determine if increasing the biologically equivalent dose (BED) via various radiation fractionation regimens is correlated with clinical outcomes or toxicities for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a meta-analysis that included 12,756 prostate cancerpatients from 55 studies published from 2003 to 2013 who were treated with non-dose-escalated conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (non-DE-CFRT), DE-CFRT, hypofractionated RT, and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT; either mono or boost) with ⩾5-year actuarial follow-up. BEDs were calculated based on the following formula: (nd[1+d/(α/β)]), where n is the number of fractions, and d is dose per fraction; assuming an α/β of 1.5 for prostate cancer and 3.0 for late toxicities. Mixed effects meta-regression models were used to estimate weighted linear relationships between BED and the observed percentages of patients experiencing late toxicities or 5-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF). RESULTS: Increases in 10 Gy increments in BED (at α/β of 1.5) from 140 to 200 Gy were associated with 5-unit improvements in percent FFBF. Dose escalation of BED above 200 Gy was not correlated with FFBF. Increasing BED (at α/β of 3.0) from 98 to 133 Gy was associated with increased gastrointestinal toxicity. Dose escalation above 133 Gy was not correlated with toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in the BED to 200 Gy (at α/β of 1.5) was associated with increased disease control. Doses above 200 Gy did not result in additional clinical benefit.
Authors: Alan Dal Pra; Cedric Panje; Thomas Zilli; Winfried Arnold; Kathrin Brouwer; Helena Garcia; Markus Glatzer; Silvia Gomez; Fernanda Herrera; Khanfir Kaouthar; Alexandros Papachristofilou; Gianfranco Pesce; Christiane Reuter; Hansjörg Vees; Daniel Rudolf Zwahlen; Daniel Engeler; Paul Martin Putora Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Brian J Davis; Paul L Nguyen; Timothy N Showalter; Peter J Hoskin; Yasuo Yoshioka; Gerard C Morton; Eric M Horwitz Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Charles T Lee; Eddie Zhang; Scott W Keith; Thomas J Galloway Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: I Henríquez; A Rodríguez-Antolín; J Cassinello; C Gonzalez San Segundo; M Unda; E Gallardo; J López-Torrecilla; A Juarez; J Arranz Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Thomas M Churilla; Karen Ruth; Shelly B Hayes; Mark L Sobczak; Mark A Hallman; Marc C Smaldone; David Yt Chen; Eric M Horwitz Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 7.045