Ben G L Vanneste1, Aswin L Hoffmann2, Emile N van Lin3, Lien Van De Voorde3, Michael Pinkawa4, Philippe Lambin3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands. Electronic address: ben.vanneste@maastro.nl. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands; Institute of Radiooncology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus at the Technische Universität Dresden, Germany. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies confirmed that implantable rectum spacers (IRS) decreased acute gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity in a significant percentage of prostate cancer patients undergoing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We developed decision rules based on clinical risk factors (CRFs) to select those patients who are expected to benefit most from IRS implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 26 patients dose distributions with (IMRT+IRS) and without (IMRT-IRS) IRS were calculated. Validated nomograms based on CRFs and dosimetric criteria (anorectal V40Gy and V75Gy) were used to predict probabilities for grade 2-3 (G2-3) acute GI toxicity, G2-3 late rectal bleeding (LRB), G3 LRB, and G2-3 faecal incontinence (FI) for IMRT+IRS and IMRT-IRS. All permutations of CRFs were generated to identify most benefit scenarios (MBS) in which a predicted toxicity reduction of ⩾5% points in ⩾25% of the cohort was present due to IRS implantation. RESULTS: IMRT+IRS revealed a significant reduction in V40Gy (p=0.0357) and V75Gy (p<0.0001) relative to IMRT-IRS. For G2-3 acute GI toxicity and G2-3 LRB, the predicted toxicity rates decreased in 17/26 (65%) and 20/26 (77%) patients, and decision rules were derived for 22/32 (69%) and 12/64 (19%) MBS, respectively. From the decision rules, it follows that diabetes status has no impact on G2-3 acute toxicity, and in absence of pre-RT abdominal surgery, the implantation of an IRS is predicted to show no clinically relevant benefit for G2-3 LRB. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer patients who are expected to benefit most from IRS implantation can be identified prior to IMRT based on their CRFs profile.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies confirmed that implantable rectum spacers (IRS) decreased acute gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity in a significant percentage of prostate cancerpatients undergoing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We developed decision rules based on clinical risk factors (CRFs) to select those patients who are expected to benefit most from IRS implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 26 patients dose distributions with (IMRT+IRS) and without (IMRT-IRS) IRS were calculated. Validated nomograms based on CRFs and dosimetric criteria (anorectal V40Gy and V75Gy) were used to predict probabilities for grade 2-3 (G2-3) acute GI toxicity, G2-3 late rectal bleeding (LRB), G3 LRB, and G2-3 faecal incontinence (FI) for IMRT+IRS and IMRT-IRS. All permutations of CRFs were generated to identify most benefit scenarios (MBS) in which a predicted toxicity reduction of ⩾5% points in ⩾25% of the cohort was present due to IRS implantation. RESULTS: IMRT+IRS revealed a significant reduction in V40Gy (p=0.0357) and V75Gy (p<0.0001) relative to IMRT-IRS. For G2-3 acute GI toxicity and G2-3 LRB, the predicted toxicity rates decreased in 17/26 (65%) and 20/26 (77%) patients, and decision rules were derived for 22/32 (69%) and 12/64 (19%) MBS, respectively. From the decision rules, it follows that diabetes status has no impact on G2-3 acute toxicity, and in absence of pre-RT abdominal surgery, the implantation of an IRS is predicted to show no clinically relevant benefit for G2-3 LRB. CONCLUSIONS:Prostate cancerpatients who are expected to benefit most from IRS implantation can be identified prior to IMRT based on their CRFs profile.
Authors: Raymond B King; Sarah Os Osman; Ciaran Fairmichael; Denise M Irvine; Ciara A Lyons; Ananth Ravi; Joe M O'Sullivan; Alan R Hounsell; Darren M Mitchell; Conor K McGarry; Suneil Jain Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ben G L Vanneste; Evert J Van Limbergen; Emile N van Lin; Joep G H van Roermund; Philippe Lambin Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Ben G L Vanneste; Evert J Van Limbergen; Tom Marcelissen; Kobe Reynders; Jarno Melenhorst; Joep G H van Roermund; Ludy Lutgens Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-01-25
Authors: Honglai Zhang; Lin Wang; Adam C Riegel; Jeffrey Antone; Louis Potters; Lucille Lee; Yijian Cao Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Andrew W See; Patrick Bowden; Geoffrey Wells; Sree Appu; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Peter Liodakis; Chloe Pandeli; Yolanda Aarons; Lloyd M L Smyth; Dean P McKenzie Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 4.309
Authors: Antonio Lazo; Alejandro de la Torre-Luque; Gregorio Arregui; Daniel Rivas; Ana Serradilla; Joaquin Gómez; Francisca Jurado; María Isabel Núñez; Escarlata López Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2022-03-11