Literature DB >> 32004582

Erectile Dysfunction and Absorbed Dose to Penile Base Structures in a Randomized Trial Comparing Ultrahypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Elisabeth Rasmusson1, Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson2, Elinore Wieslander3, Peter Höglund4, Anders Widmark5, Per Fransson6, Elisabeth Kjellén2, Per Nilsson7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To study the relationships between absorbed dose to penile base structures and erectile dysfunction (ED) in patients treated with ultrahypofractionated (UHF) radiation therapy (RT) or conventionally fractionated (CF) RT for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This dose-response study comprises 673 patients (57%) of the 1180 per-protocol patients included in the HYPO-RT-PC trial (median follow-up 5, years), where patients were randomized to CF (39 × 2.0 Gy, 8 weeks) or UHF (7 × 6.1 Gy, 2.5 weeks). No androgen deprivation therapy was allowed. Only patients with erectile function sufficient for intercourse at baseline and complete RT data were included in this study. Erectile function was assessed by physician at regular follow-ups. The main endpoint was severe ED (EDs). The penile bulb (PB) and crus were retrospectively delineated on the treatment planning computed tomography scans. Dose-volume descriptors were derived from EQD2 converted dose matrices (α/β = 3 Gy). Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression and logistic regression were used to find predictors for EDS.
RESULTS: No significant difference in EDs was found between CF and UHF. During the follow-up period, EDs occurred in 27% of the patients in both treatment groups. Average (median) PB mean dose, Dmean, was 24.5 (20.2) in CF and 18.7 (13.1) Gy3 in UHF. Age was the only significant predictor for EDs in Cox analyses. All dose-volume variables contributed significantly in univariable logistic regression at 2-year follow-up. Age and near maximum dose (D2%) were significant predictors for EDs in multivariable logistic regression analyses at both 1 and 2 years.
CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of EDS was similar in the CF and UHF treatment groups. Age at radiation therapy was the strongest predictor for EDs, followed by dose to PB, and was most evident for younger patients. We propose D2 % <50 Gy3 and Dmean <20 Gy3 to the PB as the primary objectives to be applied in the treatment planning process.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32004582     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  4 in total

1.  Assessing Inter-Fraction Changes in The Size and Position of The Penile Bulb During Daily MR-Guided Radiation Therapy to The Prostate Bed: Do We Need to Adjust How We Plan Radiation in The Post-Radical Prostatectomy Setting to Reduce Risk of Erectile Dysfunction?

Authors:  Amit Roy; Olga Green; Randall Brenneman; Walter Bosch; Hiram A Gay; Jeff M Michalski; Brian C Baumann
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 3.121

2.  A comparison of a moderately hypofractionated IMRT planning technique used in a randomised UK external beam radiotherapy trial with an in-house technique for localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ian Gleeson
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2020-03-19

3.  Sexual organ-sparing with hydrogel spacer injections for rectal cancer radiotherapy: a feasibility pilot study.

Authors:  Vérane Achard; Frederic Ris; Michel Rouzaud; Giacomo Puppa; Nicolas C Buchs; Thomas De Perrot; Thibaud Koessler; Cristina Picardi; Thomas Zilli
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Dosimetric feasibility of neurovascular bundle-sparing stereotactic body radiotherapy with periprostatic hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer to preserve erectile function.

Authors:  Mark E Hwang; Mark Mayeda; Hiram Shaish; Carl D Elliston; Catherine S Spina; Sven Wenske; Israel Deutsch
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 3.039

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.