Willy Baccaglini1,2, Icaro T de Carvalho3, Felipe P A Glina4, Cristiano Linck Pazeto4, André Marantes4, Matheus Nascimento4, Artur Farias4, Lucas C Mendez5, Alessandro Tafuri6, Sidney Glina4. 1. Department of Urology, Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC, Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil. wbaccaglini@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. wbaccaglini@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Urology, Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC, Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Division of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, Western University, London, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare toxicities in relation to standard radiation treatments [conventional fractionation RT (CRT) and moderate hypofractionated RT (MRT)] with ultrahypofractionated RT (URT) in the treatment of patients with localized PCa. METHODS: A searched was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and LILACS to January 2020 for studies comparing URT to CRT and/or MRT in relation to genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in the treatment of patients with localized PCa. URT, MRT and CRT were defined as protocols delivering a daily dose of ≥5 Gy, 2.4-4.9 Gy, and <2.4 Gy per fractions regardless total dose, respectively. RESULTS: Eight studies with 2929 patients with localized PCa were included in the analysis. These eight studies did not find any difference between URT and MRT/CRT groups in relation to acute GU toxicity (21.0% × 23.8%, RD -0.04; 95% CI -0.13, 0.06; p = 0.46; I2 = 89%) and acute GI toxicity (4.9% × 6.9%, RD -0.03; 95% CI -0.07, 0.01; p = 0.21; I2 = 79%). Six studies did not find any difference between URT and MRT/CRT groups in relation to late GU toxicity (3.9% × 4.7%, RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.00; p = 0.16; I2 = 19%) and late GI toxicity (2.1% × 3.5%, RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 22%). CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that acute GU/GI and late GU/GI toxicity are similar between URT and standard protocols. More studies with longer follow-ups directed to oncology outcomes are warranted before any recommendation on this topic.
BACKGROUND: To compare toxicities in relation to standard radiation treatments [conventional fractionation RT (CRT) and moderate hypofractionated RT (MRT)] with ultrahypofractionated RT (URT) in the treatment of patients with localized PCa. METHODS: A searched was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and LILACS to January 2020 for studies comparing URT to CRT and/or MRT in relation to genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in the treatment of patients with localized PCa. URT, MRT and CRT were defined as protocols delivering a daily dose of ≥5 Gy, 2.4-4.9 Gy, and <2.4 Gy per fractions regardless total dose, respectively. RESULTS: Eight studies with 2929 patients with localized PCa were included in the analysis. These eight studies did not find any difference between URT and MRT/CRT groups in relation to acute GU toxicity (21.0% × 23.8%, RD -0.04; 95% CI -0.13, 0.06; p = 0.46; I2 = 89%) and acute GI toxicity (4.9% × 6.9%, RD -0.03; 95% CI -0.07, 0.01; p = 0.21; I2 = 79%). Six studies did not find any difference between URT and MRT/CRT groups in relation to late GU toxicity (3.9% × 4.7%, RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.00; p = 0.16; I2 = 19%) and late GI toxicity (2.1% × 3.5%, RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 22%). CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that acute GU/GI and late GU/GI toxicity are similar between URT and standard protocols. More studies with longer follow-ups directed to oncology outcomes are warranted before any recommendation on this topic.
Authors: Jeff M Michalski; Yan Yan; Deborah Watkins-Bruner; Walter R Bosch; Kathryn Winter; James M Galvin; Jean-Paul Bahary; Gerard C Morton; Matthew B Parliament; Howard M Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael S Hofman; John Violet; Rodney J Hicks; Justin Ferdinandus; Sue Ping Thang; Tim Akhurst; Amir Iravani; Grace Kong; Aravind Ravi Kumar; Declan G Murphy; Peter Eu; Price Jackson; Mark Scalzo; Scott G Williams; Shahneen Sandhu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Nancy P Mendenhall; Bradford S Hoppe; Romaine C Nichols; William M Mendenhall; Christopher G Morris; Zuofeng Li; Zhong Su; Christopher R Williams; Joseph Costa; Randal H Henderson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Carlos E Vargas; Matthew Q Schmidt; Joshua R Niska; William F Hartsell; Sameer R Keole; Lucius Doh; John Han-Chih Chang; Christopher Sinesi; Rossio Rodriquez; Mark Pankuch; Gary L Larson Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-02-23