Late toxicity of image-guided hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate: non-randomized comparison with conventional fractionation
To evaluate the incidence and predictors for late toxicity and tumor outcome after hypofractionated radiotherapy using three different image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) systems (hypo-IGRT) compared with conventional fractionation without image guidance (non-IGRT).
Methods and materials
We compared the late rectal and urinary toxicity and outcome in 179 prostate cancer patients treated with hypo-IGRT (70.2 Gy/26 fractions) and 174 non-IGRT patients (80 Gy/40 fractions). Multivariate analysis was performed to define predictors for late toxicity. 5- and 8-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.
Mean follow-up was 81 months for hypo-IGRT and 90 months for non-IGRT group. Mainly mild late toxicity was observed: Hypo-IGRT group experienced 65 rectal (30.9% G1/G2; 6.3% G3/G4) and 105 urinary events (56% G1/G2; 4% G3/G4). 5- and 8-year RFS rates were 87.5% and 86.8% (hypo-IGRT) versus 80.4% and 66.8% (non-IGRT). 5- and 8-year OS rates were 91.3% and 82.7% in hypo-IGRT and 92.2% and 84% in non-IGRT group. Multivariate analysis showed that hypo-IGRT is a predictor for late genitourinary toxicity, whereas hypo-IGRT, acute urinary toxicity and androgen deprivation therapy are predictors for late rectal toxicity. Advanced T stage and higher Gleason score (GS) were correlated with worse RFS.
A small increase in mild late toxicity, but not statistically significant increase in severe late toxicity in the hypo-IGRT group when compared with conventional non-IGRT group was observed. Our study confirmed that IGRT allows for safe moderate hypofractionation, offering a shorter overall treatment time, a good impact in terms of RFS and providing potentially more economic health care.
KeywordsHypofractionation Conventional fractionation Image-guided radiotherapy Prostate cancer Late toxicity
This work was partially supported by the research grants from the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC): IG-13218 and IG-14300 and research grants from Fondazione IEO-CCM and Fondazione Veronesi. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standard
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with the contents of this article.
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors
Research involving human participants
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual patients included in the study.
- 2.Zietman AL, Bae K, Slater JD et al (2010) Randomized trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long term results from Proton Radiation Oncology Group/American College Of Radiology 95–09. J Clin Oncol 28:1106–1111. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.8475 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 4.Arcangeli G, Saracino B, Gomellini S et al (2010) A prospective phase III randomized trial of hypofractionation vs. conventional fractionation in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78:11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1691 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Jereczek-Fossa BA, Vavassori A, Fodor C et al (2008) Dose escalation for prostate cancer using the three-dimensional conformal dynamic arc technique: analysis of 542 consecutive patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:784–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.10.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Miralbell R, Roberts SA, Zubizarreta et al (2012) Dose-fractionation sensitivity of prostate cancer deduced from radiotherapy outcomes of 5,969 patients in seven international institutional datasets: α/β = 1.4 (0.9–2.2) Gy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:e17–e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Jereczek-Fossa BA, Cattani F, D’Onofrio A et al (2006) Dose distribution in 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: comparison of two treatment techniques (six coplanar fields and two dynamic arcs). Radiother Oncol 81:294–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2006.10.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Pollack A, Hanlon AL, Horwitz EM et al (2006) Dosimetry and preliminary acute toxicity in the first 100 men treated for prostate cancer on a randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64:518–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.07.970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:965–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Prostate cancer. In: National Comprehensive Cancer network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, version 1.2007. Jenkinstown, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, March 2007 (http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.asp). Accessed 11 Sept 2018
- 18.Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H et al (2016) Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 17:1047–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hoffman KE, Voong KR, Pugh TJ et al (2014) Risk of Late toxicity in men receiving dose-escalated hypofractionated intensity modulated prostate radiation therapy: results from a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88:1074–1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.01.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Incrocci L, Wortel RC, Alemayehu WG et al (2016) Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localised prostate cancer (HYPRO): final efficacy results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 17:1061–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30070-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar