Takuya Shimizuguchi1, Keiji Nihei2, Tomoyuki Okano2, Yumiko Machitori2, Kei Ito2, Katsuyuki Karasawa2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, 3-18-22 Hon-Komagome, Bunkyo Ward, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan. shimizuguchi@cick.jp. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, 3-18-22 Hon-Komagome, Bunkyo Ward, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduces the dose delivered to organs at risk. However, there have been few direct comparisons of IMRT with conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical benefit of IMRT in terms of toxicity and biochemical control. METHODS: The medical records of 203 consecutive patients with localized to non-metastatic (stage T1a-T3bN0M0) prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. The prescribed dose was 76 Gy delivered in 38 fractions in both the 3DCRT and IMRT treatment groups. The frequency of grade 2 or greater late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicity and biochemical control were estimated by the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model with and without adjustment by the propensity score for treatment choice. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were included in the study (3DCRT: 70 patients, IMRT: 89 patients). The median follow-up period was 4.7 years. The estimated 5-year cumulative risk of late GI toxicity was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the 3DCRT group (3.6 vs 13.2%, respectively, p = 0.022). After adjustment by propensity score, IMRT remained associated with a lower risk of late GI toxicity (hazard ratio 0.22; 95% confidence interval 0.058-0.85; p = 0.028). The 5-year biochemical failure-free rate was 93.2% in the 3DCRT group and 95.4% in the IMRT group (non-significant difference). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of late GI toxicity was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the 3DCRT group, while the biochemical control rates were no different between the two groups. These clinical data suggest the benefit of IMRT in the reduction of late GI toxicity.
BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduces the dose delivered to organs at risk. However, there have been few direct comparisons of IMRT with conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical benefit of IMRT in terms of toxicity and biochemical control. METHODS: The medical records of 203 consecutive patients with localized to non-metastatic (stage T1a-T3bN0M0) prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. The prescribed dose was 76 Gy delivered in 38 fractions in both the 3DCRT and IMRT treatment groups. The frequency of grade 2 or greater late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicity and biochemical control were estimated by the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model with and without adjustment by the propensity score for treatment choice. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were included in the study (3DCRT: 70 patients, IMRT: 89 patients). The median follow-up period was 4.7 years. The estimated 5-year cumulative risk of late GI toxicity was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the 3DCRT group (3.6 vs 13.2%, respectively, p = 0.022). After adjustment by propensity score, IMRT remained associated with a lower risk of late GI toxicity (hazard ratio 0.22; 95% confidence interval 0.058-0.85; p = 0.028). The 5-year biochemical failure-free rate was 93.2% in the 3DCRT group and 95.4% in the IMRT group (non-significant difference). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of late GI toxicity was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the 3DCRT group, while the biochemical control rates were no different between the two groups. These clinical data suggest the benefit of IMRT in the reduction of late GI toxicity.
Authors: G O De Meerleer; L A Vakaet; W R De Gersem; C De Wagter; B De Naeyer; W De Neve Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C C Ling; C Burman; C S Chui; G J Kutcher; S A Leibel; T LoSasso; R Mohan; T Bortfeld; L Reinstein; S Spirou; X H Wang; Q Wu; M Zelefsky; Z Fuks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Deborah W Bruner; Daniel Hunt; Jeff M Michalski; Walter R Bosch; James M Galvin; Mahul Amin; Canhua Xiao; Jean-Paul Bahary; Malti Patel; Susan Chafe; George Rodrigues; Harold Lau; Marie Duclos; Madhava Baikadi; Snehal Deshmukh; Howard M Sandler Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M J Zelefsky; D Cowen; Z Fuks; M Shike; C Burman; A Jackson; E S Venkatramen; S A Leibel Journal: Cancer Date: 1999-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M J Zelefsky; Z Fuks; M Hunt; H J Lee; D Lombardi; C C Ling; V E Reuter; E S Venkatraman; S A Leibel Journal: J Urol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Stephanie T H Peeters; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M Protopapa; V Kouloulias; A Kougioumtzopoulou; Z Liakouli; C Papadimitriou; A Zygogianni Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 3.405