Kiyonao Nakamura1, Takashi Mizowaki2, Haruo Inokuchi1, Itaru Ikeda1, Takahiro Inoue3, Tomomi Kamba3, Osamu Ogawa3, Masahiro Hiraoka1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. mizo@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp. 3. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a major therapeutic option for localized prostate cancer. Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) allows tumor visualization and corrects the errors caused by daily internal movement of the prostate. The current study retrospectively compared the acute toxicities and biochemical tumor control outcomes of prostate IMRT achieved using two IGRT techniques: bony structure-based IGRT (B-IGRT) and prostate-based IGRT (P-IGRT). METHODS: Between February 2011 and July 2014, 96 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated using P-IGRT based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT; 76 Gy) without fiducial markers. This group of patients was compared with a similar cohort of 96 patients who were treated with B-IGRT (74 Gy) between July 2007 and September 2011. The planning target volume (PTV) margins were 1-3 mm smaller in the P-IGRT group than in the B-IGRT group. RESULTS: The median follow-up periods for all patients, the P-IGRT group, and the B-IGRT group were 42, 32, and 64 months, respectively. A significantly lower incidence of acute grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicities was observed in the P-IGRT group compared with the B-IGRT group (3 vs. 11%; p = 0.049). The prostate-specific antigen failure-free survival rates at 3 years were 95.5 and 92.7% for the P-IGRT and B-IGRT groups, respectively (p = 0.534). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT with P-IGRT allows PTV margin reduction without sacrificing tumor control, which successfully reduces acute rectal toxicity compared with IMRT with B-IGRT.
BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a major therapeutic option for localized prostate cancer. Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) allows tumor visualization and corrects the errors caused by daily internal movement of the prostate. The current study retrospectively compared the acute toxicities and biochemical tumor control outcomes of prostate IMRT achieved using two IGRT techniques: bony structure-based IGRT (B-IGRT) and prostate-based IGRT (P-IGRT). METHODS: Between February 2011 and July 2014, 96 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated using P-IGRT based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT; 76 Gy) without fiducial markers. This group of patients was compared with a similar cohort of 96 patients who were treated with B-IGRT (74 Gy) between July 2007 and September 2011. The planning target volume (PTV) margins were 1-3 mm smaller in the P-IGRT group than in the B-IGRT group. RESULTS: The median follow-up periods for all patients, the P-IGRT group, and the B-IGRT group were 42, 32, and 64 months, respectively. A significantly lower incidence of acute grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicities was observed in the P-IGRT group compared with the B-IGRT group (3 vs. 11%; p = 0.049). The prostate-specific antigen failure-free survival rates at 3 years were 95.5 and 92.7% for the P-IGRT and B-IGRT groups, respectively (p = 0.534). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT with P-IGRT allows PTV margin reduction without sacrificing tumor control, which successfully reduces acute rectal toxicity compared with IMRT with B-IGRT.
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: John M Schallenkamp; Michael G Herman; Jon J Kruse; Thomas M Pisansky Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Joshua D Palmer; Mark D Hurwitz; Scott W Keith; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 6.280
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: Patrick A Kupelian; Louis Potters; Deepak Khuntia; Jay P Ciezki; Chandana A Reddy; Alwyn M Reuther; Thomas P Carlson; Eric A Klein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-01-01 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: Shyama U Tetar; Anna M E Bruynzeel; Lisa Verweij; Omar Bohoudi; Berend J Slotman; Tezontl Rosario; Miguel A Palacios; Frank J Lagerwaard Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-03