CLINICAL TOXICITIES AND DOSIMETRIC PARAMETERS AFTER WHOLE-PELVIS VERSUS PROSTATE-ONLY INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY FOR PROSTATE CANCER

被引:31
|
作者
Deville, Curtiland [1 ]
Both, Stefan [1 ]
Hwang, Wei-Ting [2 ]
Tochner, Zelig [1 ]
Vapiwala, Neha [1 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Univ Penn, Dept Radiat Oncol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Hosp Univ Penn, Dept Biostat & Epidemiol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
Pelvic nodal irradiation; Whole pelvis; IMRT; Toxicity; Prostate cancer; PHASE-III TRIAL; EXTERNAL-BEAM RADIOTHERAPY; DOSE-VOLUME CONSTRAINTS; LATE RECTAL TOXICITY; ANDROGEN SUPPRESSION; GASTROINTESTINAL TOXICITY; CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY; ONCOLOGY GROUP-9413; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; NEOADJUVANT;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.043
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: To assess whether whole-pelvis (WP) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is associated with increased toxicity compared with prostate-only (PO) IMRT. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively analyzed all patients with prostate cancer undergoing definitive IMRT to 79.2 Gy with concurrent androgen deprivation at our institution from November 2005 to May 2007 with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Thirty patients received initial WP IMRT to 45 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions, and thirty patients received PO IMRT. Study patients underwent computed tomography simulation and treatment planning by use of predefined dose constraints. Bladder and rectal dose volume histograms, maximum genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grade, and late Grade 2 or greater toxicity-free survival curves were compared between the two groups by use of the Student t test, Fisher exact test, and Kaplan-Meier curve, respectively. Results: Bladder minimum dose, mean dose, median dose, volume receiving 5 Gy, volume receiving 20 Gy, volume receiving 40 Gy, and volume receiving 45 Gy and rectal minimum dose, median dose, and volume receiving 20 Gy were significantly increased in the WP group (all p values < 0.01). Maximum acute GI toxicity was limited to Grade 2 and was significantly increased in the WP group at 50% vs. 13% the PO group (p = 0.006). With a median follow-up of 24 months (range, 12-35 months), there was no difference in late GI toxicity (p = 0.884) or in acute or late GU toxicity. Conclusions: Despite dosimetric differences in the volume of bowel, bladder, and rectum irradiated in the low-dose and median-dose regions, WP IMRT results only in a clinically significant increase in acute GI toxicity, in comparison to PO IMRT, with no difference in GU or late GI toxicity. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:763 / 772
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Long-term outcomes of whole-pelvis radiation therapy using volumetric modulated arc therapy for high-risk prostate cancer
    Takemura, Reiko
    Ishii, Kentaro
    Hosokawa, Yukinari
    Morimoto, Hideyuki
    Matsuda, Shogo
    Ogino, Ryo
    Shibuya, Keiko
    JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH, 2023, 64 (05) : 850 - 856
  • [42] Toxicity of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Potential Comparison Bias
    Arcangeli, Stefano
    De Bari, Berardino
    Alongi, Filippo
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 32 (30) : 3454 - 3454
  • [43] Simulation of an HDR Prostate Boost with Stereotactic Intensity-Modulated Proton Versus Photon Radiation Therapy: A Dosimetric Comparison Study
    Remick, J.
    Sabouri, P.
    Zhu, M.
    Kwok, Y.
    Bentzen, S. M.
    Kaiser, A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2019, 105 (01): : E771 - E772
  • [44] Treatment outcomes and late toxicities of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for 1091 Japanese patients with localized prostate cancer
    Tanaka, Hidekazu
    Yamaguchi, Takahiro
    Hachiya, Kae
    Kamei, Shingo
    Ishihara, Satoshi
    Hayashi, Masahide
    Ogawa, Shinichi
    Nishibori, Hironori
    Goshima, Satoshi
    Matsuo, Masayuki
    REPORTS OF PRACTICAL ONCOLOGY AND RADIOTHERAPY, 2018, 23 (01) : 28 - 33
  • [45] Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of head and neck cancer: A dosimetric comparison
    Nguyen, My-Lien
    Cantrell, J. Nathan
    Ahmad, Salahuddin
    Henson, Christina
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2021, 46 (03) : 259 - 263
  • [46] Responses of Medulloblastoma Cells to Radiation Dosimetric Parameters in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy
    Park, J.
    Park, J.
    Rogalla, S.
    Woo, D.
    Lee, D.
    Park, H.
    Contag, C.
    Suh, T.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3330 - 3330
  • [47] Preliminary results of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer
    Natsuo Tomita
    Norihito Soga
    Yuji Ogura
    Norio Hayashi
    Hidetoshi Shimizu
    Takashi Kubota
    Junji Ito
    Kimiko Hirata
    Yukihiko Ohshima
    Hiroyuki Tachibana
    Takeshi Kodaira
    Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 2012, 138 : 1931 - 1936
  • [48] Whole Pelvis Versus Prostate-Only Radiotherapy With or Without Short-Course Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Mortality Risk
    Braunstein, Lior Z.
    Chen, Ming-Hui
    Dosoretz, Daniel E.
    Salenius, Sharon A.
    Katin, Michael J.
    Nanda, Akash
    D'Amico, Anthony V.
    CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER, 2015, 13 (06) : 555 - 561
  • [49] Racial Differences in Diffusion of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
    Cobran, Ewan K.
    Chen, Ronald C.
    Overman, Robert
    Meyer, Anne-Marie
    Kuo, Tzy-Mey
    O'Brien, Jonathon
    Sturmer, Til
    Sheets, Nathan C.
    Goldin, Gregg H.
    Penn, Dolly C.
    Godley, Paul A.
    Carpenter, William R.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MENS HEALTH, 2016, 10 (05) : 399 - 407
  • [50] Preliminary results of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer
    Tomita, Natsuo
    Soga, Norihito
    Ogura, Yuji
    Hayashi, Norio
    Shimizu, Hidetoshi
    Kubota, Takashi
    Ito, Junji
    Hirata, Kimiko
    Ohshima, Yukihiko
    Tachibana, Hiroyuki
    Kodaira, Takeshi
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2012, 138 (11) : 1931 - 1936