| Literature DB >> 26993980 |
Lotte J Lutkenhaus1, Rob M van Os2, Arjan Bel2, Maarten C C M Hulshof2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For elderly or medically unfit patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, cystectomy or chemotherapy are contraindicated. This leaves radical radiotherapy as the only treatment option. It was the aim of this study to retrospectively analyze the treatment outcome and associated toxicity of conformal versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using a focal simultaneous tumor boost for muscle-invasive bladder cancer in patients not suitable for cystectomy.Entities:
Keywords: Bladder cancer; Focal boost; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; Radical radiotherapy; Toxicity
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26993980 PMCID: PMC4797227 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-016-0618-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Patient and treatment characteristics
| Characteristics | Patients | |
|---|---|---|
|
| (%) | |
| Sex | ||
| Female | 29 | (25) |
| Male | 89 | (75) |
| WHO performance status | ||
| 0 | 13 | (11) |
| 1 | 67 | (57) |
| 2 | 35 | (30) |
| 3 | 3 | (2) |
| Tumor stagea | ||
| 2 | 37 | (31) |
| 3 | 71 | (60) |
| 4 | 10 | (9) |
| Histological grade | ||
| 2 | 11 | (9) |
| 3 | 107 | (91) |
| Clinical lymph node involvementb | ||
| No | 109 | (92) |
| Yes | 9 | (8) |
| Hydronephrosis | ||
| No | 97 | (82) |
| Yes | 21 | (18) |
| Tumor size | ||
| 2–4 cm | 37 | (31) |
| 4–6 cm | 58 | (49) |
| ≥6 cm | 22 | (19) |
| Unknown | 1 | (1) |
| Tumor resection status | ||
| Not resected | 2 | (2) |
| Complete resection | 13 | (11) |
| Incomplete resection | 49 | (41) |
| Unknown | 54 | (46) |
| Planned radiotherapy dose | ||
| 55 Gy | 61 | (52) |
| 60 Gy | 57 | (48) |
| Radiotherapy technique | ||
| 3D-conformal | 67 | (57) |
| IMRT | 43 | (36) |
| VMAT | 8 | (7) |
| Focal simultaneous boost | ||
| Concomitant | 101 | (86) |
| Simultaneously integrated | 17 | (14) |
| Treated with image-guidance | ||
| No | 42 | (36) |
| Yes | 76 | (64) |
aAccording to UICC (TNM) classification
bPatients with positive lymph nodes were not referred for radical radiotherapy. However, patients with one clinically dubious but not pathologically proven local node were included
Treatment planning and delivery methods
| Elective | Boosta | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dose | Target organs | PTV | Doseb | Delivery | |
|
| 40 Gy | Bladder, prostate, and pelvic lymph nodesc | Box technique, based on anatomical landmarks | 55–60 Gy | Concomitant |
|
| 40 Gy | Bladder, prostate, and pelvic lymph nodesc | Cranially and anteriorly: 15 mm. | 55–60 Gy | Concomitant |
| Other directions: 8 mm | 55–60 Gy | Simultaneously integratedd | |||
|
| 40 Gy | Bladder, and pelvic lymph nodesc | Cranially and anteriorly: 13 mm. | 55–60 Gy | Simultaneously integrated |
| Other directions: 7 mm | |||||
aIn case fiducial markers were present, a uniform boost margin of 10 mm was used. Otherwise, an adaptive margin strategy was employed
bA dose of 60 Gy was standard after 2006. 55 Gy was chosen only when a dose of 60 Gy would result in a too high small bowel dose
cLymph nodes were excluded from the elective field in case of comorbidities that required a target volume reduction
dSimultaneous integration of the boost plan with the elective plan was implemented after October 2011
Fig. 1Overall survival (95 % confidence intervals depicted in grey dashed lines)
Fig. 2Locoregional control (95 % confidence intervals depicted in grey dashed lines)
Prognostic value for overall survival and locoregional recurrence of patient and tumor characteristics
| Prognostic factors | Overall survival | Locoregional recurrence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| HR | 95 % CI |
|
| HR | 95 % CI |
| |
| Age | 118 | 1.0 | (1.0;1.1) | 0.02 | 112 | 1.0 | (0.95;1.0) | 0.89 |
| Tumor size | 117 | 1.0 | (0.90;1.2) | 0.62 | 111 | 1.0 | (0.76;1.3) | 0.99 |
| Residual mass after resectiona | ||||||||
| Yes | 57 | 52 | ||||||
| Possibly | 27 | 0.81 | (0.45;1.5) | 0.49 | 27 | 0.83 | (0.29;2.4) | 0.73 |
| No | 16 | 0.47 | (0.20;1.1) | 0.09 | 15 | 0.80 | (0.22;2.9) | 0.73 |
| Tumor location | ||||||||
| Not mobile part | 27 | 25 | ||||||
| Mobile part | 91 | 1.05 | (0.61;1.8) | 0.85 | 87 | 0.85 | (0.34;2.1) | 0.73 |
| Clinical lymph node involvement | ||||||||
| No | 109 | 103 | ||||||
| Yes | 9 | 0.52 | (0.19;1.4) | 0.20 | 9 | 1.5 | (0.44;5.0) | 0.53 |
| Hydronephrosis | ||||||||
| No | 97 | 92 | ||||||
| Yes | 21 | 1.29 | (0.73;2.3) | 0.38 | 20 | 2.9 | (1.2;6.8) | 0.01 |
| Tumor stage | ||||||||
| T2-T3 | 108 | 103 | ||||||
| T4 | 10 | 1.05 | (0.45;2.4) | 0.91 | 9 | 0.52 | (0.07;3.8) | 0.23 |
NB. Due to exclusion of patients receiving less than their prescribed dose for the analysis on local recurrence, total amount of patients in this analysis is 112, which is different from the analysis on overall survival. In addition, residual mass after resection and tumor size were not known for all patients
aAs assessed on the CT scan made for planning purposes
Prognostic value for overall survival and locoregional recurrence of treatment characteristics
| Prognostic factors | Overall survival | Locoregional recurrence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| HR | 95 % CI |
|
| HR | 95 % CI |
| |
| Received radiotherapy dose | ||||||||
| 55 Gy | 57 | 57 | ||||||
| 60 Gy | 55 | 0.70 | (0.44;1.1) | 0.15 | 55 | 0.81 | (0.36;1.8) | 0.61 |
| < prescribed dose | 6 | 5.3 | (2.1;13.0) | <0.001 | ||||
| Radiotherapy technique | ||||||||
| 3D-conformal | 67 | 63 | ||||||
| IMRT/VMAT | 51 | 1.05 | (0.66;1.7) | 0.83 | 49 | 0.97 | (0.43;2.2) | 0.95 |
| Treated with image-guidance | ||||||||
| No | 42 | 40 | ||||||
| Yes | 76 | 1.43 | (0.88;2.3) | 0.15 | 72 | 1.0 | (0.45;2.4) | 0.93 |
| Elective lymph node irradiation | ||||||||
| No | 24 | 23 | ||||||
| Yes | 94 | 0.60 | (0.36;1.0) | 0.06 | 89 | 1.1 | (0.37;3.1) | 0.90 |
| Use of fiducial markers | ||||||||
| No | 43 | 40 | ||||||
| Yes | 75 | 0.93 | (0.59;1.46) | 0.75 | 72 | 0.83 | (0.37;1.9) | 0.66 |
Fig. 3Acute and late toxicity. a Acute toxicity. b Late toxicity. Light bars represent urinary toxicity, dark bars represent intestinal toxicity