Maria Thor1, Caroline Olsson2, Jung Hun Oh3, Stine Elleberg Petersen4, David Alsadius5, Lise Bentzen4, Niclas Pettersson6, Ludvig Paul Muren4, Morten Høyer4, Gunnar Steineck5, Joseph O Deasy3. 1. Dept of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. Electronic address: thorm@mskcc.org. 2. Radiation Physics, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Dept of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 4. Depts of Medical Physics of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. 5. Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. 6. Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) induced genitourinary (GU) morbidity is typically assessed by physicians as single symptoms or aggregated scores including symptoms from various domains. Here we apply a method to group patient-reported GU symptoms after RT for localized prostate cancer based on their interplay, and study how these relate to urinary bladder dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were taken from two Scandinavian studies (N=207/276) including men treated with external-beam RT (EBRT) to 78/70Gy (2Gy/fraction; median time-to-follow-up: 3.6-6.4y). Within and across cohorts, bladder dose-volume parameters were tested as predictors for GU symptom domains identified from two study-specific questionnaires (35 questions on frequency, incontinence, obstruction, pain, urgency, and sensory symptoms) using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis (MVA) with 10-fold cross-validation. Performance was evaluated using Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (Az). RESULTS: For the identified Incontinence (2-5 symptoms), Obstruction (3-5 symptoms), and Urgency (2-7 symptoms) domains, MVA demonstrated that bladder doses close to the prescription doses were the strongest predictors for Obstruction (Az: 0.53-0.57) and Urgency (Az: 0.60). For Obstruction, performance increased for the across cohort analysis (Az: 0.61-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Our identified patient-reported GU symptom domains suggest that high urinary bladder doses, and increased focus on both obstruction and urgency is likely to further add to the understanding of GU tract RT responses. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) induced genitourinary (GU) morbidity is typically assessed by physicians as single symptoms or aggregated scores including symptoms from various domains. Here we apply a method to group patient-reported GU symptoms after RT for localized prostate cancer based on their interplay, and study how these relate to urinary bladder dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were taken from two Scandinavian studies (N=207/276) including men treated with external-beam RT (EBRT) to 78/70Gy (2Gy/fraction; median time-to-follow-up: 3.6-6.4y). Within and across cohorts, bladder dose-volume parameters were tested as predictors for GU symptom domains identified from two study-specific questionnaires (35 questions on frequency, incontinence, obstruction, pain, urgency, and sensory symptoms) using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis (MVA) with 10-fold cross-validation. Performance was evaluated using Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (Az). RESULTS: For the identified Incontinence (2-5 symptoms), Obstruction (3-5 symptoms), and Urgency (2-7 symptoms) domains, MVA demonstrated that bladder doses close to the prescription doses were the strongest predictors for Obstruction (Az: 0.53-0.57) and Urgency (Az: 0.60). For Obstruction, performance increased for the across cohort analysis (Az: 0.61-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Our identified patient-reported GU symptom domains suggest that high urinary bladder doses, and increased focus on both obstruction and urgency is likely to further add to the understanding of GU tract RT responses. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Authors: Maximilian P Schmid; Richard Pötter; Valentin Bombosch; Samir Sljivic; Christian Kirisits; Wolfgang Dörr; Gregor Goldner Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-06-23 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Ellen D Yorke; Lawrence B Marks; Patricia J Eifel; William U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Maria Thor; Caroline E Olsson; Jung Hun Oh; Stine E Petersen; David Alsadius; Lise Bentzen; Niclas Pettersson; Ludvig P Muren; Ann-Charlotte Waldenström; Morten Høyer; Gunnar Steineck; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: C E Olsson; N Pettersson; D Alsadius; U Wilderäng; S L Tucker; K-A Johansson; G Steineck Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Sangkyu Lee; Sarah Kerns; Harry Ostrer; Barry Rosenstein; Joseph O Deasy; Jung Hun Oh Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yvette Seppenwoolde; Katarina Majercakova; Martin Buschmann; Elke Dörr; Alina E Sturdza; Maximilian P Schmid; Richard Pötter; Dietmar Georg Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jesper Pedersen; Oscar Casares-Magaz; Jørgen B B Petersen; Jarle Rørvik; Lise Bentzen; Andreas G Andersen; Ludvig P Muren Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-07-18
Authors: Panayiotis Mavroidis; Kevin A Pearlstein; John Dooley; Jasmine Sun; Srinivas Saripalli; Shiva K Das; Andrew Z Wang; Ronald C Chen Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 3.481