Clinical outcomes with high-dose image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) compared with non-IGRT for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12-12
Author(s):  
Michael J. Zelefsky ◽  
Marisa Kollmeier ◽  
Brett Wayne Cox ◽  
Xin Pei ◽  
Margie Hunt
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
High Dose ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Fiducial Markers ◽  
Image Guided Radiotherapy ◽  
Image Guided ◽  
Risk Patients

12 Background: To compare toxicity profiles and biochemical tumor control outcomes between patients treated with high-dose image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods: 186 patients with prostate cancer were treated with IGRT to a dose of 86.4 Gy with daily correction of the target position based upon kilovoltage imaging of implanted prostatic fiducial markers. This group of patients was retrospectively compared with a similar cohort of 190 patients who were treated with IMRT to the same prescription dose without, implanted fiducial markers in place (non-IGRT). In both groups the margins used for the prostate were the same. The median follow-up time was 2.8 years (range, 2-4 years). Results: A significant reduction in late urinary toxicity was observed for IGRT patients compared with the non-IGRT patients. The 3-year likelihood of urinary toxicity for the IGRT and non-IGRT cohorts were 10.4% and 20.0%, respectively (p=0.02).Multivariate analysis identifying predictors for late urinary toxicity demonstrated that, in addition to the baseline IPSS, IGRT was associated with significantly less late urinary toxicity compared with non-IGRT. The incidence of late rectal toxicity was low for both treatment groups (1.0% and 1.6%, respectively; p = 0.81). No differences in prostate-specific antigen relapse–free survival outcomes were observed for low- and intermediate-risk patients when treated with IGRT and non-IGRT. For high-risk patients a significant improvement was observed at 3-years for patients treated with IGRT compared with non-IGRT. Conclusions: IGRT is associated with a reduction in late urinary toxicity and improvement in biochemical tumor control after definitive high-dose external beam radiotherapy compared with high-dose IMRT. These data suggest that, for definitive radiotherapy, the placement of fiducial markers and daily tracking of target positioning should be the preferred mode of external beam radiotherapy delivery for the treatment of prostate cancer.

scholarly journals The Use of Ultrasound Imaging in the External Beam Radiotherapy Workflow of Prostate Cancer Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saskia M. Camps ◽  
Davide Fontanarosa ◽  
Peter H. N. de With ◽  
Frank Verhaegen ◽  
Ben G. L. Vanneste
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Ultrasound Imaging ◽  
Organs At Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Image Guided Radiotherapy

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is one of the curative treatment options for prostate cancer patients. The aim of this treatment option is to irradiate tumor tissue, while sparing normal tissue as much as possible. Frequent imaging during the course of the treatment (image guided radiotherapy) allows for determination of the location and shape of the prostate (target) and of the organs at risk. This information is used to increase accuracy in radiation dose delivery resulting in better tumor control and lower toxicity. Ultrasound imaging is harmless for the patient, it is cost-effective, and it allows for real-time volumetric organ tracking. For these reasons, it is an ideal technique for image guidance during EBRT workflows. Review papers have been published in which the use of ultrasound imaging in EBRT workflows for different cancer sites (prostate, breast, etc.) was extensively covered. This new review paper aims at providing the readers with an update on the current status for prostate cancer ultrasound guided EBRT treatments.

Rectal toxicity results for patients treated with HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy versus dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5-5
Author(s):  
Jacob Samuel Parzen ◽  
Hong Ye ◽  
Gary S. Gustafson ◽  
Alvaro Martinez ◽  
Evelyn Sebastian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Rectal Bleeding ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
High Dose Rate ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Dose ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy ◽  
Rectal Toxicity ◽  
Rectal Pain

5 Background: We present a large retrospective analysis comparing rectal toxicity following high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy as monotherapy relative to dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for patients with localized prostate cancer. Methods: 2683 patients treated with HDR or EBRT between 1994 and 2017 were included. 545 (20.3%) received HDR and 2138 (79.7%) EBRT. HDR fractionation was 38 Gy/4 fractions (n=321), 24 Gy/2 (n=96), or 27 Gy/2 (n=128). EBRT patients received a median dose of 75.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions [range 70.2-82.8 Gy], using either 3D conformal or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). All EBRT patients underwent 3D image guidance via an off-line adaptive process. Treatment was directed to prostate only (n=780) or prostate and seminal vesicles (n=1351). No nodal therapy was given. Target volume for HDR patients included the prostate with no expansion. Acute and chronic gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was defined as occurring ≤ 6 and > 6 months, respectively, after radiotherapy and was graded per CTCAE version 3.0. Toxicity variables were analyzed with χ2 test. Results: Median follow-up was 7.5 years (7.4 years for EBRT and 7.9 years for HDR). 69.1% of EBRT patients received IMRT with the remainder treated using 3D conformal technique. Compared to EBRT, HDR was associated with decreased rates of acute grade ≥ 2 diarrhea (0.7% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001), rectal pain/tenesmus (0.6% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.001), and rectal bleeding (0% vs. 1.6%, p=0.001). Rates of chronic grade ≥ 2 rectal bleeding (1.3% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001) and radiation proctitis (0.9% vs. 3.3%, p=0.001) favored HDR over EBRT. Rates of any chronic rectal toxicity grade ≥ 2 were 2.4% vs. 10.5% (p < 0.001) for HDR vs. EBRT, respectively. For the 1478 EBRT patients treated with IMRT, acute and chronic rates of any grade ≥ 2GI toxicity were 4.2% and 5.6%, respectively, compared to 1.5% (p=0.002) and 2.4% (p=0.002), respectively, for HDR patients. Conclusions: In appropriately selected patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing definitive radiation therapy, HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective strategy for reducing acute and chronic rectal toxicity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document