Niloy R Datta1, Emanuel Stutz2, Susanne Rogers2, Stephan Bodis3. 1. Center for Radiation Oncology KSA-KSB, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland. Electronic address: niloyranjan.datta@ksa.ch. 2. Center for Radiation Oncology KSA-KSB, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland. 3. Center for Radiation Oncology KSA-KSB, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the therapeutic outcomes of conventional radiation therapy (CRT) and hypofractionated radiation therapy (HRT) for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (LLPCa). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 599 abstracts were extracted from 5 databases and screened in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only phase III trials randomized between CRT and HRT in LLPCa with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up data were considered. The evaluated endpoints were biochemical failure, biochemical and/or clinical failure, overall mortality, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and both acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) (grade ≥2) toxicity. RESULTS: Ten trials from 9 studies, with a total of 8146 patients (CRT, 3520; HRT, 4626; 1 study compared 2 HRT schedules with a common CRT regimen), were included in the evaluation. No significant differences were found in the patient characteristics between the 2 arms. However, the RT parameters differed significantly between CRT and HRT (P<.001 for all). The use of androgen deprivation therapy varied from 0% to 100% in both groups (mean ± standard deviation 43.3% ± 43.6% for CRT vs HRT; P=NS). The odds ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference (RD) between CRT and HRT for biochemical failure, biochemical and/or clinical failure, overall mortality, prostate cancer-specific mortality, acute GU toxicity, and late GU and GI toxicities were all nonsignificant. Nevertheless, the incidence of acute GI toxicity was 9.1% less with CRT (RD 0.091; odds ratio 1.687; risk ratio 1.470; P<.001 for all). On subgroup analysis, the patient groups with ≤66.8% versus >66.8% androgen deprivation therapy (RD 0.052 vs 0.136; P=.008) and <76% versus ≥76% full seminal vesicles in the clinical target volume (RD 0.034 vs 0.108; P<.001) were found to significantly influence the incidence of acute GI toxicity with HRT. CONCLUSIONS: HRT provides similar therapeutic outcomes to CRT in LLPCa, except for a significantly greater risk of acute GI toxicity. HRT enables a reduction in the overall treatment time and offers patient convenience. However, the variables contributing to an increased risk of acute GI toxicity require careful consideration.
PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the therapeutic outcomes of conventional radiation therapy (CRT) and hypofractionated radiation therapy (HRT) for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (LLPCa). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 599 abstracts were extracted from 5 databases and screened in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only phase III trials randomized between CRT and HRT in LLPCa with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up data were considered. The evaluated endpoints were biochemical failure, biochemical and/or clinical failure, overall mortality, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and both acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) (grade ≥2) toxicity. RESULTS: Ten trials from 9 studies, with a total of 8146 patients (CRT, 3520; HRT, 4626; 1 study compared 2 HRT schedules with a common CRT regimen), were included in the evaluation. No significant differences were found in the patient characteristics between the 2 arms. However, the RT parameters differed significantly between CRT and HRT (P<.001 for all). The use of androgen deprivation therapy varied from 0% to 100% in both groups (mean ± standard deviation 43.3% ± 43.6% for CRT vs HRT; P=NS). The odds ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference (RD) between CRT and HRT for biochemical failure, biochemical and/or clinical failure, overall mortality, prostate cancer-specific mortality, acute GU toxicity, and late GU and GI toxicities were all nonsignificant. Nevertheless, the incidence of acute GI toxicity was 9.1% less with CRT (RD 0.091; odds ratio 1.687; risk ratio 1.470; P<.001 for all). On subgroup analysis, the patient groups with ≤66.8% versus >66.8% androgen deprivation therapy (RD 0.052 vs 0.136; P=.008) and <76% versus ≥76% full seminal vesicles in the clinical target volume (RD 0.034 vs 0.108; P<.001) were found to significantly influence the incidence of acute GI toxicity with HRT. CONCLUSIONS: HRT provides similar therapeutic outcomes to CRT in LLPCa, except for a significantly greater risk of acute GI toxicity. HRT enables a reduction in the overall treatment time and offers patient convenience. However, the variables contributing to an increased risk of acute GI toxicity require careful consideration.
Authors: Michelle Iocolano; Aaron T Wild; Margaret Hannum; Zhigang Zhang; Charles B Simone; Daphna Gelblum; Abraham J Wu; Andreas Rimner; Annemarie F Shepherd Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Lindsay S Rowe; Jeremy J Mandia; Kilian E Salerno; Uma T Shankavaram; Shaoli Das; Freddy E Escorcia; Holly Ning; Deborah E Citrin Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-02-03
Authors: Julie Nossiter; Arunan Sujenthiran; Thomas E Cowling; Matthew G Parry; Susan C Charman; Paul Cathcart; Noel W Clarke; Heather Payne; Jan van der Meulen; Ajay Aggarwal Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Valero; A Montero; O Hernando; M Izquierdo; E Sánchez; M García-Aranda; M López; R Ciérvide; J Martí; B Álvarez; R Alonso; X Chen-Zhao; P Fernández-Letón; C Rubio Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Trevor J Royce; Panayiotis Mavroidis; Kyle Wang; Aaron D Falchook; Nathan C Sheets; Donald B Fuller; Sean P Collins; Issam El Naqa; Daniel Y Song; George X Ding; Alan E Nahum; Andrew Jackson; Jimm Grimm; Ellen Yorke; Ronald C Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-09-06 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Michael Green; Samantha J Van Nest; Emilie Soisson; Kathryn Huber; Yixiang Liao; William McBride; Michael M Dominello; Jay Burmeister; Michael C Joiner Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.102