Koichiro Nakajima1, Hiromitsu Iwata2,3, Hiroyuki Ogino2, Yukiko Hattori2,3, Shingo Hashimoto2,3, Mikiko Nakanishi2,3, Toshiyuki Toshito4, Yukihiro Umemoto5, Shoichiro Iwatsuki5, Yuta Shibamoto3, Jun-Etsu Mizoe2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya, 462-8508, Japan. k.nakajima.ncu@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya, 462-8508, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, 467-8601, Japan. 4. Proton Therapy Physics, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya, 462-8508, Japan. 5. Department of Nephro-Urology, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya, 462-8508, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypofractionated proton therapy (HFPT) is expected to become an effective treatment approach for localized prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in acute toxicity among patients with localized PCa treated with either conventional fractionated proton therapy (CFPT) or HFPT. METHODS: A total of 526 eligible patients treated with proton therapy between February 2013 and May 2016 in three phase II trials were analyzed. We prescribed 74 gray relative biological effectiveness equivalents [Gy (RBE)]/37 fractions for low-risk patients and 78 Gy (RBE)/39 fractions for intermediate- and high-risk patients in the CFPT group (n = 254) and 60 Gy (RBE)/20 fractions for low-risk and 63 Gy (RBE)/21 fractions for intermediate- and high-risk patients in the HFPT group (n = 272). Patients were evaluated for acute toxicity with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and urinary quality-of-life change using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). RESULTS: No grade ≥3 acute toxicity was observed in either group. Among acute genitourinary toxicities, grade 2 rates were 15% (n = 38) in CFPT and 5.9% (n = 16) in HFPT (P ≤ 0.001). The median baseline IPSSs of the CFPT and HFPT groups were 7 (0-29) and 6 (0-31), respectively (P = 0.70). One-month post-treatment scores were 9 (0-32) and 11 (0-32), respectively (P = 0.036), and 6-month post-treatment scores were 7 (0-30) and 7 (0-33), respectively (P = 0.88). There were no significant differences in acute gastrointestinal toxicity between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated the safety of HFPT for localized PCa patients in terms of acute toxicity.
BACKGROUND: Hypofractionated proton therapy (HFPT) is expected to become an effective treatment approach for localized prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in acute toxicity among patients with localized PCa treated with either conventional fractionated proton therapy (CFPT) or HFPT. METHODS: A total of 526 eligible patients treated with proton therapy between February 2013 and May 2016 in three phase II trials were analyzed. We prescribed 74 gray relative biological effectiveness equivalents [Gy (RBE)]/37 fractions for low-risk patients and 78 Gy (RBE)/39 fractions for intermediate- and high-risk patients in the CFPT group (n = 254) and 60 Gy (RBE)/20 fractions for low-risk and 63 Gy (RBE)/21 fractions for intermediate- and high-risk patients in the HFPT group (n = 272). Patients were evaluated for acute toxicity with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and urinary quality-of-life change using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). RESULTS: No grade ≥3 acute toxicity was observed in either group. Among acute genitourinary toxicities, grade 2 rates were 15% (n = 38) in CFPT and 5.9% (n = 16) in HFPT (P ≤ 0.001). The median baseline IPSSs of the CFPT and HFPT groups were 7 (0-29) and 6 (0-31), respectively (P = 0.70). One-month post-treatment scores were 9 (0-32) and 11 (0-32), respectively (P = 0.036), and 6-month post-treatment scores were 7 (0-30) and 7 (0-33), respectively (P = 0.88). There were no significant differences in acute gastrointestinal toxicity between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated the safety of HFPT for localized PCapatients in terms of acute toxicity.
Authors: S Hynds; C K McGarry; D M Mitchell; S Early; L Shum; D P Stewart; J A Harney; C R Cardwell; J M O'Sullivan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Nancy P Mendenhall; Zuofeng Li; Bradford S Hoppe; Robert B Marcus; William M Mendenhall; R Charles Nichols; Christopher G Morris; Christopher R Williams; Joseph Costa; Randal Henderson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Peter C Park; X Ronald Zhu; Andrew K Lee; Narayan Sahoo; Adam D Melancon; Lifei Zhang; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-06-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K M Haustermans; I Hofland; H Van Poppel; R Oyen; W Van de Voorde; A C Begg; J F Fowler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-03-15 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: Carlos E Vargas; William F Hartsell; Megan Dunn; Sameer R Keole; Lucius Doh; Elaine Eisenbeisz; Gary L Larson Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Darius Norkus; Agata Karklelyte; Benedikt Engels; Harijati Versmessen; Romas Griskevicius; Mark De Ridder; Guy Storme; Eduardas Aleknavicius; Ernestas Janulionis; Konstantinas Povilas Valuckas Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.481