Takuyo Kozuka1, Masahiro Nakano2, Masatoshi Hashimoto2, Kotaro Gomi3, Keiko Nemoto Murofushi4, Minako Sumi4, Junji Yonese5, Masahiko Oguchi4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan. takuyo.kozuka@jfcr.or.jp. 2. Department of Physics, Cancer Institute of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Japanese Red Cross Society Suwa Hospital, Nagano, Japan. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan. 5. Department of Urology, Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study compared the complications associated with hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (Hypo-IMRT) of prostate cancer to conventionally fractionated IMRT (Conv-IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hypo-IMRT delivered 70 Gy in 28 fractions, whereas Conv-IMRT delivered 78 Gy in 39 fractions. Toxicity was graded with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, weekly during radiotherapy, 1 month after radiotherapy, and annually in both patient groups. RESULTS: The median follow-ups were 39.1 and 38.7 months for patients in the Hypo- and Conv-IMRT groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in rates of acute and late adverse events. The proportions of grade 2 acute genitourinary complications were 48.4 and 51.2% in the Hypo- and Conv-IMRT groups, respectively. The presence of a baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of ten or more was the only significant prognostic factor for grade 2 acute genitourinary toxicity. The incidence of grade 2 late rectal hemorrhage at 3 years was 3.2 and 3.5% in the Hypo- and Conv-IMRT groups, respectively. Small rectal volume was significantly associated with grade 2 late rectal hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Regarding acute and late adverse events, hypofractionated IMRT for prostate cancer was well tolerated and comparable with conventionally fractionated IMRT. Clinical trial registration no. UMIN000003218.
PURPOSE: The present study compared the complications associated with hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (Hypo-IMRT) of prostate cancer to conventionally fractionated IMRT (Conv-IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hypo-IMRT delivered 70 Gy in 28 fractions, whereas Conv-IMRT delivered 78 Gy in 39 fractions. Toxicity was graded with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, weekly during radiotherapy, 1 month after radiotherapy, and annually in both patient groups. RESULTS: The median follow-ups were 39.1 and 38.7 months for patients in the Hypo- and Conv-IMRT groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in rates of acute and late adverse events. The proportions of grade 2 acute genitourinary complications were 48.4 and 51.2% in the Hypo- and Conv-IMRT groups, respectively. The presence of a baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of ten or more was the only significant prognostic factor for grade 2 acute genitourinary toxicity. The incidence of grade 2 late rectal hemorrhage at 3 years was 3.2 and 3.5% in the Hypo- and Conv-IMRT groups, respectively. Small rectal volume was significantly associated with grade 2 late rectal hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Regarding acute and late adverse events, hypofractionated IMRT for prostate cancer was well tolerated and comparable with conventionally fractionated IMRT. Clinical trial registration no. UMIN000003218.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acute toxicity; Hypofractionation; Intensity modulated radiotherapy; Late toxicity; Prostate cancer
Authors: David Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Georges Sumo; Margaret Bidmead; David Bloomfield; Catharine Clark; Annie Gao; Shama Hassan; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Vincent Khoo; Peter Kirkbride; Helen Mayles; Philip Mayles; Olivia Naismith; Chris Parker; Helen Patterson; Martin Russell; Christopher Scrase; Chris South; John Staffurth; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Raymond Miralbell; Stephen A Roberts; Eduardo Zubizarreta; Jolyon H Hendry Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Kyounghwa Bae; Jerry D Slater; William U Shipley; Jason A Efstathiou; John J Coen; David A Bush; Margie Lunt; Daphna Y Spiegel; Rafi Skowronski; B Rodney Jabola; Carl J Rossi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Wim L J van Putten; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Geert J L H van Leenders; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alan Pollack; Gail Walker; Eric M Horwitz; Robert Price; Steven Feigenberg; Andre A Konski; Radka Stoyanova; Benjamin Movsas; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo; Charlie Ma; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Twyla R Willoughby; Chandana A Reddy; Eric A Klein; Arul Mahadevan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038