Impact of image guidance on toxicity and tumour outcome in moderately hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer
- 137 Downloads
To report toxicity and efficacy outcome of moderately hypofractionated image-guided external-beam radiotherapy in a large series of patients treated for prostate cancer (PCa). Between 10/2006 and 12/2015, 572 T1-T3N0M0 PCa patients received 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions at 2.7 Gy/fraction: 344 patients (60%) with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and 228 (40%) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria and Houston definition (nadir + 2) were used for toxicity and biochemical failure evaluation, respectively. Median age was 74 years (interquartile range 69–77). Compared with 3D-CRT, in IMRT group more high-risk patients (29% vs 18%; P = 0.002) and more high-volume target (75% vs 60%; P < 0.001) were included. Acute gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity G > 1 were registered in 8% and in 11% IMRT and 3D-CRT patients, respectively, whereas late GI G > 1 were observed in 2% and 16% IMRT and 3D-CRT patients, respectively. Acute genito-urinary (GU) toxicity G > 1 were registered in 26% and 40% IMRT and 3D-CRT patients, respectively, whereas late GU G > 1 occurred in 5% IMRT and 15% 3D-CRT patients. Multivariate proportional hazard Cox models confirmed significantly greater risk of late toxicity with 3D-CRT compared to IMRT for GU > 1 (P = 0.004) and for GI > 1 (P < 0.001). With a median 4-year follow-up, overall survival (OS), clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) and biochemical PFS (bPFS) for the whole series were 91%, 92% and 91%, respectively. cPFS and bPFS were significantly different by risk groups. Multivariate Cox models for bPFS and cPFS showed no difference between irradiation techniques and a significant impact of risk group and initial PSA. Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy is a viable treatment option for localized PCa with excellent tumour control and satisfactory toxicity profile. IMRT seems associated with a reduction in toxicity, whereas tumour control was equal between IMRT and 3D-CRT patients and depended mainly on the risk category.
KeywordsProstate cancer Image-guided radiotherapy Hypofractionation Dose escalation
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
In this research, no animals were involved. All patients signed a written informed consent for radiation therapy and written informed consent for the use of the anonymized data for research or educational purpose. The study was performed within the Institutional Ethics Committee notification regarding clinical and dosimetric aspects of hypofractionated image-guided RT (IGRT) for PCa (CE Notification No. 79).
- 3.Jereczek-Fossa BA, Vavassori A, Fodor C, et al. Dose escalation for prostate cancer using the three-dimensional conformal dynamic arc technique: analysis of 542 consecutive patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:784–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.10.041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Pollack A, Hanlon AL, Horwitz EM, et al. Dosimetry and preliminary acute toxicity in the first 100 men treated for prostate cancer on a randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncology Biol Phys. 2006;64(2):518–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.07.970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Jean-Pierre P, Stoyanova R, Penedo F, et al. Treatment-related side effects and quality of life among prostate cancer patients treated with conventional versus hypofractionated intensity modulated radiotherapy: a phase III hypofractionation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hoffman KE, Skinner H, Pugh TJ, et al. Patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual function after hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer results from a randomized trial. Am J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun;41(6):558–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000325.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Prostate cancer. In. National comprehensive cancer network clinical practice guidelines in oncology, version 1.2016. Jenkinstown: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; March 2016. http://ww.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.asp.
- 15.ICRU. Report 62: prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU report 50). Bethesda: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1999.Google Scholar
- 18.Jereczek-Fossa BA, Cattani F, D’Onofrio A, et al. Dose distribution in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: comparison of two treatment techniques (six coplanar fields and two dynamic arcs). Radiother Oncol. 2006;81:294–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2006.10.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Roach M III, Hanks G, Thames T Jr. 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. 2006;65:965–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029.
- 22.Kupelian PA, Buchsbaum JC, Elsaikh MA, et al. Improvement in relapse-free survival throughout the PSA era in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy: Year of treatment an independent predictor of outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:629–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00630-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Shaikh T, Li T, Handorf EA, Johnson ME, et al. Long-term patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 randomized prospective trial of conventional versus hypofractionated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;15(4):722–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.12.034. 97) .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN97182923. Accessed 25 Nov 2018.
- 27.http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN85138529. Accessed 25 Nov 2018.
- 28.http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00331773. Accessed 25 Nov 2018.
- 29.http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00304759. Accessed 25 Nov 2018.
- 31.Incrocci L, Wortel RC, Alemayehu WG, et al. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for Patients with localized prostate cancer (HYPRO): final efficacy results from a randomized, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1061–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30070-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, et al. 5 year outcomes of a phase III randomised trial of conventional or hypofractionated high dose intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: report from the CHHiP Trial Investigators Group. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:712. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(16)31932-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Yu T, Zhang Q, Zheng T, et al. The effectiveness of intensity modulated radiation therapy versus three-dimensional radiation therapy in prostate cancer: A meta-analysis of the literatures. PloS ONE. 2016;11:e0154499. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154499.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 34.Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Charman SC, et al. National population-based study comparing treatment-related toxicity in men who received intensity modulated versus 3-dimensional conformal radical radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99(5):1253–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.07.040.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Wortel RC, Incrocci L, Pos FJ, et al. Late side effects after image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy compared to 3D-conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer: Results from 2 prospective cohorts. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(2):680–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.01.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Wortel RC, Incrocci L, Pos FJ, et al. Acute toxicity after image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy compared to 3D conformal radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91(4):737–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.12.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar