Arne Grün1, Michael Kawgan-Kagan2, David Kaul3, Harun Badakhshi4, Carmen Stromberger3, Volker Budach3, Dirk Böhmer5. 1. Department for Radiation Oncology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Campus Virchow-Clinic, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. arne.gruen@charite.de. 2. Department for Radiation Oncology, Helios Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Schwanebecker Chaussee 50, 13125, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department for Radiation Oncology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Campus Virchow-Clinic, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department for Radiation Oncology, Ernst-von-Bergmann Klinikum, Charlottenstraße 72, 14467, Potsdam, Germany. 5. Department for Radiation Oncology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of changes in bladder volume during high-dose intensity-modulated-radiotherapy (IMRT) of prostate cancer on acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity and prospectively evaluate a simple biofeedback technique for reproducible bladder filling with the aim of reducing acute GU toxicity. METHODS: One hundred ninety-three patients were trained via a biofeedback mechanism to maintain a partially filled bladder with a reproducible volume of 200-300 cc at planning CT and subsequently at each fraction of radiotherapy. We prospectively analyzed whether and to what extent the patients' ability to maintain a certain bladder filling influenced the degree of acute GU toxicity and whether cut-off values could be differentiated. RESULTS: We demonstrated that the ability to reach a reproducible bladder volume above a threshold volume of 180 cc and maintain that volume via biofeedback throughout treatment predicts for a decrease in acute GU toxicity during curative high-dose IMRT of the prostate. Patients who were not able to reach a partial bladder filling to that cut-off value and were not able to maintain a partially filled bladder throughout treatment had a significantly higher risk of developing ≥grade 2 GU acute toxicity. CONCLUSION: Our results support the hypothesis that a biofeedback training for the patient is an easy-to-apply, useful, and cost-effective tool for reducing acute GU toxicity in high-dose IMRT of the prostate. Patients who are not able to reach and maintain a certain bladder volume during planning and treatment-two independent risk factors-might need special consideration.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of changes in bladder volume during high-dose intensity-modulated-radiotherapy (IMRT) of prostate cancer on acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity and prospectively evaluate a simple biofeedback technique for reproducible bladder filling with the aim of reducing acute GU toxicity. METHODS: One hundred ninety-three patients were trained via a biofeedback mechanism to maintain a partially filled bladder with a reproducible volume of 200-300 cc at planning CT and subsequently at each fraction of radiotherapy. We prospectively analyzed whether and to what extent the patients' ability to maintain a certain bladder filling influenced the degree of acute GU toxicity and whether cut-off values could be differentiated. RESULTS: We demonstrated that the ability to reach a reproducible bladder volume above a threshold volume of 180 cc and maintain that volume via biofeedback throughout treatment predicts for a decrease in acute GU toxicity during curative high-dose IMRT of the prostate. Patients who were not able to reach a partial bladder filling to that cut-off value and were not able to maintain a partially filled bladder throughout treatment had a significantly higher risk of developing ≥grade 2 GU acute toxicity. CONCLUSION: Our results support the hypothesis that a biofeedback training for the patient is an easy-to-apply, useful, and cost-effective tool for reducing acute GU toxicity in high-dose IMRT of the prostate. Patients who are not able to reach and maintain a certain bladder volume during planning and treatment-two independent risk factors-might need special consideration.
Authors: Marcel R Stam; Emile N J Th van Lin; Lisette P van der Vight; Johannes H A M Kaanders; Andries G Visser Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Katja M Langen; Omar A Zeidan; Sanford L Meeks; Twyla R Willoughby; Thomas H Wagner; Sam Jeswani; Kenneth J Ruchala; Jason Haimerl; Gustavo H Olivera Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: O Matzinger; F Duclos; A van den Bergh; C Carrie; S Villà; P Kitsios; P Poortmans; S Sundar; E M van der Steen-Banasik; A Gulyban; L Collette; M Bolla Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-08-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: C J Beard; P Kijewski; M Bussière; R Gelman; D Gladstone; K Shaffer; M Plunkett; P Castello; C N Coleman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-01-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Maggio; D Gabriele; E Garibaldi; S Bresciani; E Delmastro; A Di Dia; A Miranti; M Poli; T Varetto; M Stasi; P Gabriele Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Vickie C Kong; Jennifer Dang; Winnie Li; Inmaculada Navarro; Jerusha Padayachee; Victor Malkov; Jeff Winter; Srinivas Raman; Alejandro Berlin; Charles Catton; Padraig Warde; Peter Chung Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-03-02
Authors: Stratos Vassis; Beatrice Nöldeke; Hans Christiansen; Christoph A von Klot; Roland Merten Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 3.621