scholarly journals OC-0374 GWAS identifies new susceptibility loci for late toxicity following prostate cancer radiotherapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 133 ◽  
pp. S186
Author(s):  
C. West ◽  
S. Kerns ◽  
L. Dorling ◽  
G. Barnett ◽  
D. Dearnaley ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. e148-e154 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Whalley ◽  
G. Hruby ◽  
F. Alfieri ◽  
A. Kneebone ◽  
T. Eade

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2702
Author(s):  
Ercole Mazzeo ◽  
Luca Triggiani ◽  
Luca Frassinelli ◽  
Alessia Guarneri ◽  
Sara Bartoncini ◽  
...  

Background and purpose: Two previous “Patterns Of Practice” surveys (POP I and POP II), including more than 4000 patients affected by prostate cancer treated with radical external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 1980 and 2003, established a “benchmark” Italian data source for prostate cancer radiotherapy. This report (POP III) updates the previous studies. Methods: Data on clinical management and outcome of 2525 prostate cancer patients treated by EBRT from 2004 to 2011 were collected and compared with POP II and, when feasible, also with POP I. This report provides data on clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, radiation therapy management, and toxicity as collected within the framework of POP III. Results: More than 50% of POP III patients were classified as low or intermediate risk using D’Amico risk categories as in POP II; 46% were classified as ISUP grade group 1. CT scan, bone scan, and endorectal ultrasound were less frequently prescribed. Dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), image guided radiotherapy (IGRT), and hypofractionated RT were more frequently offered during the study period. Treatment was commonly well tolerated. Acute toxicity improved compared to the previous series; late toxicity was influenced by prescribed dose and treatment technique. Five-year overall survival, biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and disease specific survival were similar to those of the previous series (POP II). BRFS was better in intermediate- and high-risk patients treated with ≥ 76 Gy. Conclusions: This report highlights the improvements in radiotherapy planning and dose delivery among Italian Centers in the 2004–2011 period. Dose-escalated treatments resulted in better biochemical control with a reduction in acute toxicity and higher but acceptable late toxicity, as not yet comprehensively associated with IMRT/IGRT. CTV-PTV margins >8 mm were associated with increased toxicity, again suggesting that IGRT—allowing for tighter margins—would reduce toxicity for dose escalated RT. These conclusions confirm the data obtained from randomized controlled studies.


2015 ◽  
Vol 88 (1054) ◽  
pp. 20150110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynsey J Hamlett ◽  
Andrew J McPartlin ◽  
Edward J Maile ◽  
Gareth Webster ◽  
Ric Swindell ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Daryl Lim Joon ◽  
Michael Chao ◽  
Angelina Piccolo ◽  
Michal Schneider ◽  
Nigel Anderson ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 100331
Author(s):  
Beatrice Detti ◽  
Gianluca Ingrosso ◽  
Carlotta Becherini ◽  
Andrea Lancia ◽  
Emanuela Olmetto ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Daryoush Khoramian ◽  
Soroush Sistani ◽  
Bagher Farhood

Abstract Aim: In radiation therapy, accurate dose distribution in target volume requires accurate treatment setup. The set-up errors are unwanted and inherent in the treatment process. By achieving these errors, a set-up margin (SM) of clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) can be determined. In the current study, systematic and random set-up errors that occurred during prostate cancer radiotherapy were measured by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). The obtained values were used to propose the optimum CTV-to-PTV margin in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Materials and methods: A total of 21 patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) participated in this study. A total of 280 portal images were acquired during 12 months. Gross, population systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors were obtained based on the portal images in Anterior–Posterior (AP), Medio-Lateral (ML) and Superior–Inferior (SI) directions. The SM of CTV to PTV were then calculated and compared by using the formulas presented by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 62, Stroom and Heijmen and Van Herk et al. Results: The findings showed that the population systematic errors during prostate cancer radiotherapy in AP, ML and SI directions were 1·40, 1·95 and 1·94 mm, respectively. The population random errors in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·09, 1·85 and 2·29 mm, respectively. The SM of CTV to PTV calculated in accordance with the formula of ICRU 62 in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·51, 2·68 and 3·00 mm, respectively. And according to Stroom and Heijmen, formula were 4·23, 5·19 and 5·48 mm, respectively. And Van Herk et al. formula were 4·96, 6·17 and 6·45 mm, respectively. Findings: The SM of CTV to PTV in all directions, based on the formulas of ICRU 62, Stroom and Heijmen and van Herk et al., were equal to 2·73, 4·98 and 5·86 mm, respectively; these values were obtained by averaging the margins in all directions.


2006 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 883-891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer C. O’Daniel ◽  
Lei Dong ◽  
Lifei Zhang ◽  
Renaud de Crevoisier ◽  
He Wang ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document