Tomasz Barelkowski1,2, Peter Wust3, David Kaul3, Sebastian Zschaeck3,4, Waldemar Wlodarczyk3, Volker Budach3, Pirus Ghadjar3, Marcus Beck3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. tomasz.barelkowski@charite.de. 2. Praxis Strahlentherapie Berlin Südwest, Berlin, Germany. tomasz.barelkowski@charite.de. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. 4. Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate treatment outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer who were treated with dose-escalated primary image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 88 consecutive patients treated using helical tomotherapy with daily megavoltage CTs (MVCT). Patients were prescribed daily doses of 1.8 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) and 2 Gy to the clinical target volume (CTV). Low- and favorable intermediate-risk patients received a minimum total dose of 72 Gy to the PTV and up to 80 Gy to the CTV. Unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk patients received a minimum total dose of 75.6 Gy to the PTV and up to 84 Gy to the CTV. We assessed freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBF), 5‑year biochemical recurrence-free survival (5-bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (5-dMFS), and cancer-specific survival (5-CSS) as well as acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. RESULTS: Among our cohort, 11.4% were low-risk, 50% intermediate-risk, and 38.6% high-risk patients according to the D'Amico criteria. Median follow-up was 66 months (range 8-83 months). FFBF was 100%, 97.7%, and 90.7%; 5‑bRFS was 100%, 92.8%, and 70.4%; 5‑dMFS was 100%, 92.7%, and 70.4%; and 5‑CSS was 100%, 97.4%, and 89.8% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Grades 2 and 3 toxicity occurred at the following rates: acute GU toxicity 39.8% and 1.1%, acute GI toxicity 12.5% and 0%, late GU toxicity 19.3% and 4.5%, and late GI toxicity 4.5% and 1.1% of patients, respectively. No toxicity >grade 3 was observed. CONCLUSION: Risk-adapted dose-escalated IGRT with helical tomotherapy of up to 84 Gy is a feasible and well-tolerable treatment scheme with promising oncological results.
PURPOSE: To evaluate treatment outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer who were treated with dose-escalated primary image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 88 consecutive patients treated using helical tomotherapy with daily megavoltage CTs (MVCT). Patients were prescribed daily doses of 1.8 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) and 2 Gy to the clinical target volume (CTV). Low- and favorable intermediate-risk patients received a minimum total dose of 72 Gy to the PTV and up to 80 Gy to the CTV. Unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk patients received a minimum total dose of 75.6 Gy to the PTV and up to 84 Gy to the CTV. We assessed freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBF), 5‑year biochemical recurrence-free survival (5-bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (5-dMFS), and cancer-specific survival (5-CSS) as well as acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. RESULTS: Among our cohort, 11.4% were low-risk, 50% intermediate-risk, and 38.6% high-risk patients according to the D'Amico criteria. Median follow-up was 66 months (range 8-83 months). FFBF was 100%, 97.7%, and 90.7%; 5‑bRFS was 100%, 92.8%, and 70.4%; 5‑dMFS was 100%, 92.7%, and 70.4%; and 5‑CSS was 100%, 97.4%, and 89.8% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Grades 2 and 3 toxicity occurred at the following rates: acute GU toxicity 39.8% and 1.1%, acute GI toxicity 12.5% and 0%, late GU toxicity 19.3% and 4.5%, and late GI toxicity 4.5% and 1.1% of patients, respectively. No toxicity >grade 3 was observed. CONCLUSION: Risk-adapted dose-escalated IGRT with helical tomotherapy of up to 84 Gy is a feasible and well-tolerable treatment scheme with promising oncological results.
Authors: Martin Dolezel; Karel Odrazka; Milan Zouhar; Miloslava Vaculikova; Jana Sefrova; Jan Jansa; Petr Paluska; Tereza Kohlova; Jaroslav Vanasek; Josef Kovarik Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Deborah A Kuban; Lawrence B Levy; M Rex Cheung; Andrew K Lee; Seungtaek Choi; Steven Frank; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pirus Ghadjar; Andrew Jackson; Daniel E Spratt; Jung Hun Oh; Per Munck af Rosenschöld; Marisa Kollmeier; Ellen Yorke; Margie Hunt; Joseph O Deasy; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Maria Grazia Petrongari; Valeria Landoni; Biancamaria Saracino; Sara Gomellini; Stefano Arcangeli; Giuseppe Iaccarino; Paola Pinnarò; Giorgio Arcangeli; Lidia Strigari Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-12-13