OBJECTIVE: To compare dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity rates between whole-pelvic (WP) and prostate-only (PO) volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: A total of 224 consecutive patients treated with definitive VMAT to 78 Gy in 39 fractions were enrolled. Of these, 119 patients received initial WP VMAT at 46.8 Gy in 26 fractions using a simultaneous integrated boost technique, and 105 patients received PO VMAT. Image-guided radiotherapy was practised with daily cone beam CT. RESULTS: The mean rectal dose, the rectal volume receiving ≥30 Gy (V30Gy), rectal V50Gy, the mean bladder dose, bladder V30Gy and bladder V50Gy were significantly increased in the WP group (p < 0.05 each); however, the rectal V70Gy did not differ between groups (p = 0.101), and the bladder V70Gy was significantly lower in the WP group (p = 0.029). The WP group experienced a significantly increased frequency of acute grade 2 diarrhoea relative to the PO group (5.9% vs 0%; p = 0.015). No differences were seen between the WP and PO groups in terms of acute grade 2 proctitis (10.1% vs 6.7%; p = 0.360) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity (12.6% vs 10.5%; p = 0.620). CONCLUSION: Despite larger rectum and bladder volumes at low- and medium-dose levels, WP VMAT resulted in no significant increase in acute proctitis or GU toxicity when compared with PO VMAT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study demonstrates that whole-pelvic radiotherapy has comparable acute toxicity to those observed with prostate-only radiotherapy when VMAT with daily image guidance is used.
OBJECTIVE: To compare dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity rates between whole-pelvic (WP) and prostate-only (PO) volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: A total of 224 consecutive patients treated with definitive VMAT to 78 Gy in 39 fractions were enrolled. Of these, 119 patients received initial WP VMAT at 46.8 Gy in 26 fractions using a simultaneous integrated boost technique, and 105 patients received PO VMAT. Image-guided radiotherapy was practised with daily cone beam CT. RESULTS: The mean rectal dose, the rectal volume receiving ≥30 Gy (V30Gy), rectal V50Gy, the mean bladder dose, bladder V30Gy and bladder V50Gy were significantly increased in the WP group (p < 0.05 each); however, the rectal V70Gy did not differ between groups (p = 0.101), and the bladder V70Gy was significantly lower in the WP group (p = 0.029). The WP group experienced a significantly increased frequency of acute grade 2 diarrhoea relative to the PO group (5.9% vs 0%; p = 0.015). No differences were seen between the WP and PO groups in terms of acute grade 2 proctitis (10.1% vs 6.7%; p = 0.360) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity (12.6% vs 10.5%; p = 0.620). CONCLUSION: Despite larger rectum and bladder volumes at low- and medium-dose levels, WP VMAT resulted in no significant increase in acute proctitis or GU toxicity when compared with PO VMAT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study demonstrates that whole-pelvic radiotherapy has comparable acute toxicity to those observed with prostate-only radiotherapy when VMAT with daily image guidance is used.
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: Mack Roach; Michelle DeSilvio; Richard Valicenti; David Grignon; Sucha O Asbell; Colleen Lawton; Charles R Thomas; William U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B S Teh; W Y Mai; B M Uhl; M E Augspurger; W H Grant; H H Lu; S Y Woo; L S Carpenter; J K Chiu; E B Butler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: C Franzese; A Fogliata; G R D'Agostino; L Di Brina; T Comito; P Navarria; L Cozzi; M Scorsetti Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Róża Poźniak-Balicka; Beata Chomiak; Piotr Wośkowiak; Norbert Nowicki; Jacek Bojarski; Maciej Salagierski Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2020-08-18
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Urs J Muehlematter; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Niels J Rupp; Martin Huellner; Michael Messerli; Jan Hendrik Rüschoff; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Thomas Hermanns; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Theresa A Lawrie; John T Green; Mark Beresford; Linda Wedlake; Sorrel Burden; Susan E Davidson; Simon Lal; Caroline C Henson; H Jervoise N Andreyev Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-01-23
Authors: Hyunsoo Jang; Jiyeon Park; Mark Artz; Yawei Zhang; Jacob C Ricci; Soon Huh; Perry B Johnson; Mi-Hwa Kim; Mison Chun; Young-Taek Oh; O Kyu Noh; Hae-Jin Park Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 6.244