scholarly journals Randomized Trial of Hypofractionated External-Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31) ◽  
pp. 3860-3868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Pollack ◽  
Gail Walker ◽  
Eric M. Horwitz ◽  
Robert Price ◽  
Steven Feigenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Urinary Function ◽  
Conventional Fractionation ◽  
High Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Patients

Purpose To determine if escalated radiation dose using hypofractionation significantly reduces biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) in men treated primarily for prostate cancer. Patients and Methods Between June 2002 and May 2006, men with favorable- to high-risk prostate cancer were randomly allocated to receive 76 Gy in 38 fractions at 2.0 Gy per fraction (conventional fractionation intensity-modulated radiation therapy [CIMRT]) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions at 2.7 Gy per fraction (hypofractionated IMRT [HIMRT]); the latter was estimated to be equivalent to 84.4 Gy in 2.0 Gy fractions. High-risk patients received long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and some intermediate-risk patients received short-term ADT. The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of BCDF. Secondarily, toxicity was assessed. Results There were 303 assessable patients with a median follow-up of 68.4 months. No significant differences were seen between the treatment arms in terms of the distribution of patients by clinicopathologic or treatment-related (ADT use and length) factors. The 5-year rates of BCDF were 21.4% (95% CI, 14.8% to 28.7%) for CIMRT and 23.3% (95% CI, 16.4% to 31.0%) for HIMRT (P = .745). There were no statistically significant differences in late toxicity between the arms; however, in subgroup analysis, patients with compromised urinary function before enrollment had significantly worse urinary function after HIMRT. Conclusion The hypofractionation regimen did not result in a significant reduction in BCDF; however, it is delivered in 2.5 fewer weeks. Men with compromised urinary function before treatment may not be ideal candidates for this approach.

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer: Whole pelvis or prostate-only EBRT?

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 86-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Tharmalingam ◽  
Yatman Tsang ◽  
Ananya Choudhury ◽  
Peter Hoskin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Dose Rate ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy ◽  
High Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Patients

86 Background: In high-risk prostate cancer, the risk of occult lymph node metastases in the pelvic lymph nodes can be as high as 40%. However, the use of whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) in high-risk patients remains controversial with mixed retrospective evidence and two negative prospective trials. Data from a national UK database of patients treated with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy was reviewed to evaluate the benefit of pelvic treatment. Methods: From 2009 to 2013, 755 patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (clinical stage ≥T2c, Gleason score ≥7 or presenting prostate-specific antigen (pPSA) ≥10) were treated with EBRT and HDR brachytherapy. The pelvic nodes to the level of the common iliac chain were treated in 370 patients with a dose of 46Gy in 23 fractions. The remaining 385 patients received radiotherapy to the prostate only (PORT) at a dose of 37.5Gy in 15 fractions. A single dose of 15Gy was delivered with HDR brachytherapy in each case. Corresponding biologic effective doses to the prostate were 107Gy and 100Gy respectively (α/β = 1.5). 96.5% of patients received ADT with a median duration of 24 months. Biochemical failure was defined as a PSA rise of ≥2ng/ml above nadir. Analysis used log-rank and Cox univariate and multivariate tests. Results: Median follow-up was 4.5 years; 5-year biochemical progression-free survival rates for the WPRT versus the PORT arms were 88% vs 80% (p < 0.05) for all patients and 89% vs 76% (p < 0.05) for high-risk patients. Differences in bPFS remained significant (p < 0.05) after accounting for Gleason score, pPSA, T stage and ADT duration as co-variates. There was no difference in overall survival. Conclusions: Whole pelvis EBRT with HDR brachytherapy appears to significantly improves 5-year biochemical progression-free survival in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer compared to prostate-only EBRT and HDR brachytherapy which persists after allowing for covariates including presenting tumour parameters and ADT use. The PIVOTAL boost trial in the UK will assess this further in a prospective randomised study.

scholarly journals Cost and Toxicity Comparisons of Two IMRT Techniques for Prostate Cancer: A Micro-Costing Study and Weighted Propensity Score Analysis Based on a Prospective Study

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Masson ◽  
Martine Bellanger ◽  
Geneviève Perrocheau ◽  
Marc-André Mahé ◽  
David Azria ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Propensity Score Analysis ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gu Toxicity ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
The Mean

BackgroundIntensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has become the standard treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Two techniques of rotational IMRT are commonly used in this indication: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT). To the best of our knowledge, no study has compared their related costs and clinical effectiveness and/or toxicity in prostate cancer. We aimed to assess differences in costs and toxicity between VMAT and HT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer with pelvic irradiation.Material and MethodsWe used data from the “RCMI pelvis” prospective multicenter study (NCT01325961) including 155 patients. We used a micro-costing methodology to identify cost differences between VMAT and HT. To assess the effects of the two techniques on total actual costs per patient and on toxicity we used stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting.ResultsThe mean total cost for HT, €2019 3,069 (95% CI, 2,885–3,285) was significantly higher than the mean cost for VMAT €2019 2,544 (95% CI, 2,443–2,651) (p &lt;.0001). The mean ± SD labor and accelerator cost for HT was €2880 (± 583) and €1978 (± 475) for VMAT, with 81 and 76% for accelerator, respectively. Acute GI and GU toxicity were more frequent in VMAT than in HT (p = .021 and p = .042, respectively). Late toxicity no longer differed between the two groups up to 24 months after completion of treatment.ConclusionUse of VMAT was associated with lower costs for IMRT planning and treatment than HT. Similar stabilized long-term toxicity was reported in both groups after higher acute GI and GU toxicity in VMAT. The estimates provided can benefit future modeling work like cost-effectiveness analysis.

1019 poster HIGH-RISK PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS WITH INITIAL PSA100 NG/ML TREATED WITH EXTERNAL-BEAM RADIOTHERAPY.

2011 ◽  
Vol 99 ◽  
pp. S382
Author(s):  
B. Smolska-Ciszewska ◽  
G. Plewicki ◽  
M. Giglok ◽  
K. Behrendt ◽  
M. Gawkowska-Suwinska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
External Beam ◽  
High Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document