Long-Term Clinical Results of IGRT in Prostate Cancer Treatment
Authors:
M.- Doležel 1 3; K.- Odrážka 3 5; J. Vaňásek 4; J. Štuk 4; A. Hlávka 4; M. Vítková 4; V. Ulrych 4; T. Kohlová 3,6; Z. Vlachová 1,2; A. Hafuda 7; I. Hartmann 2,8
Authors place of work:
Onkologická klinika FN Olomouc
1; LF UP Olomouc
2; 1. LF UK v Praze
3; Komplexní onkologické centrum, Multiscan s. r. o, Pardubická nemocnice, Nemocnice Pardubického kraje, a. s.
4; 3. LF UK v Praze
5; Onkologická klinika VFN Praha
6; Urologické oddělení, Pardubická nemocnice, Nemocnice Pardubického kraje, a. s.
7; Urologická klinika FN Olomouc
8
Published in the journal:
Klin Onkol 2020; 33(1): 49-54
Category:
Original Articles
doi:
https://doi.org/10.14735/amko202049
Summary
Background: The combination of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) plays a significant role in sparing normal tissue during prostate cancer treatment. We report the clinical outcomes of 260 patients treated with high-dose IGRT as well as the toxicity of high-dose IGRT in these patients.
Materials and methods: From September 2008 to February 2012, 260 men with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent radical radiotherapy. Two hundred patients were treated with IMRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) to the prostate and base of seminal vesicles using an adaptive protocol combining cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and kilovoltage image matching with individualized safety margin calculation. Sixty patients underwent treatment with the same prescribed dose using RapidArc with a reduced safety margin of 6 mm and daily online matching using CBCT. Late toxicity was scored prospectively according to the RTOG/FC-LENT scale.
Results: Eighteen patients (6.9%) experienced acute grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity. There was no acute grade 3 or 4 gastrointestinal toxicity. Thirty-nine patients (15%) experienced acute grade 2 genitourinary toxicity and 6 patients (2.3%) had grade 3 gerourinary toxicity. Genitourinary toxicity grade 4 was observed in 5 (1.9%) patients, due to installation of a urinary catheter. At a median follow up of 84.2 months, the estimated 7-year cumulative incidences of grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity were 4.4 and 7.1% respectively. The estimated 7-year prostate specific antigen relapse free survival was 97.1% for low-risk disease, 83.6% for intermediate-risk disease and 75% for high-risk patients.
Conclusion: The use of IMRT in combination with IGRT results in a low rate of late toxicity.
The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.
The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE recommendation for biomedical papers.
Submitted: 8. 9. 2019
Accepted: 25. 10. 2019
Keywords:
prostate cancer – toxicity – image guided radiotherapy
Zdroje
1. Hanks GE, Hanlon AL, Epstein B et al. Dose response in prostate cancer with 8–12 years follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 54 (2): 427–435.
2. Levegrün S, Jackson A, Zelefsky MJ et al. Risk group dependence of dose-response for biopsy outcome after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2002; 63 (1): 11–26. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8140 (02) 00062-2.
3. Zelefsky MJ, Leibel SA, Gaudin PB et al. Dose escalation with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy affects the outcome in prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41 (3): 491–500. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016 (98) 00091-1.
4. Al-Mamgani A, van Putten WL, Heemsbergen WD et al. Update of the Dutch multicenter dose escalation trial of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72 (4): 980–988. doi: 10.1016/
j.ijrobp.2008.02.073.
5. Dearnaley DP, Jovic G, Syndikus I et al. Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15 (4): 464–473. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045 (14) 70040-3.
6. Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L et al. Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70 (1): 67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.054.
7. Zietman AL, Bae K, Slater JD et al. 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 2010; 28 (7): 1106–1111. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.8475.
8. Pasalic D, Kuban DA, Allen PK et al. Dose escalation for prostate adenocarcinoma: a long-term update on the outcomes of a phase 3, single institution randomized clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104 (4): 790–797. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.02.045.
9. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Happersett L et al. Clinical experience with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000; 55 (3): 241–249. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8140 (99) 00100-0.
10. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M et al. High-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: early toxicity and biochemical outcome in 772 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 53 (5): 1111–1116. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016 (02) 02857-2.
11. Odrazka K, Zouhar M, Petera J et al. Comparison of rectal dose-volume constraints for IMRT prostate treatment planning. Phys Med 2005; 21 (4): 129–135. doi: 10.1016/S1120-1797 (05) 80001-8.
12. Cahlon O, Hunt M, Zelefsky MJ. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: supportive data for prostate cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2008; 18 (1): 48–57. doi: 10.1016/
j.semradonc.2007.09.007.
13. Dolezel M, Odrazka K, Vaculikova M et al. Dose escalation in prostate radiotherapy up to 82 Gy using simultaneous integrated boost: direct comparison of acute and late toxicity with 3D-CRT 74 Gy and IMRT 78 Gy. Strahlen-ther Onkol 2010; 186 (4): 197–202. doi: 10.1007/s00066-010-2065-x.
14. Dolezel M, Odrazka K, Zouhar M et al. Comparing morbidity and cancer control after 3D-conformal (70/74 Gy) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (78/82 Gy) for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2015; 191 (4): 338–346. doi: 10.1007/s00066-014-0806-y.
15. Vaňásek J, Odrážka K, Doležel M et al. Adaptivní
IG-IMRT karcinomu prostaty. Klin Onkol 2011; 24 (5):
361–366. doi: 10.14735/amko2011361.
16. van Herk M, Remeijer P, Rasch C et al. The probability of correct target dosage: dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47 (4): 1121–1135. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016 (00) 00518-6.
17. Vanasek J, Odrazka K, Dolezel M et al. Searching for an appropriate image-guided radiotherapy method in prostate cancer-implications for safety margin. Tumori 2014; 100 (5): 518–523. doi: 10.1700/1660.18168.
18. Dolezel M, Slezak P, Odrazka K et al. Interfraction variation in prostate cancer – analysis of 11726 cone-beam CT. J BUON 2015; 20 (4): 1081–1087.
19. Kupelian PA, Langen KM, Willoughby TR et al. Image-guided radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: treating a moving target. Semin Radiat Oncol 2008; 18 (1): 58–66. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2007.09.008.
20. Zelefsky MJ, Kollmeier M, Cox B et al. Improved clinical outcomes with high-dose image guided radiotherapy compared with non-IGRT for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84 (1): 125–129. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.11.047.
21. de Crevoisier R, Bayar MA, Pommier P et al. Daily versus weekly prostate cancer image guided radiation therapy: phase 3 multicenter. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102 (5): 1420–1429. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.07.2006.
22. Šefrová J, Paluska P, Odrážka K et al. Chronic gastrointestinal toxicity after external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Klin Onkol 2009; 22 (5): 233–241.
23. Hanlon AL, Schultheiss TE, Hunt MA et al. Chronic rectal bleeding after high-dose conformal treatment of prostate cancer warrants modification of existing morbidity scales. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 38 (1): 59–63. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016 (97) 00234-4.
24. Stalmeier PF, van Tol-Geerdink JJ, van Lin EN et al. Doctors’ and patients’ preferences for participation and treatment in curative prostate cancer radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (21): 3096–3100. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4955.
25. van Tol-Geerdink JJ, Stalmeier PF, van Lin EN et al. Do patients with localized prostate cancer treatment really want more aggressive treatment? J Clin Oncol 2006; 24 (28): 4581–4586. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.05.9592.
26. Dolezel M, Odrazka K, Vanasek J et al. Five-year results of IMRT for prostate cancer – toxicity. Klin Onkol 2013; 26 (6): 409–414. doi: 10.14735/amko2013409.
27. Odrazka K, Dolezel M, Vanasek J et al. Five-year results of IMRT for prostate cancer – tumor control. Klin Onkol 2013; 26 (6): 415–420. doi: 10.14735/amko2013415.
28. Crehange G, Mirjolet C, Gauthier M et al. Clinical impact of margin reduction on late toxicity and short-term biochemical control for patients treated with daily on-line image guided IMRT for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2012; 103 (2): 244–246. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.10.025.
29. Bryant C, Smith TL, Henderson RH et al. Five-year biochemical results, toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life after delivery of dose-escalated image guided proton therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95 (1): 422–434. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.
038.
30. Odrazka K, Dolezel M, Vanasek J et al. Time course of late rectal toxicity after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2010; 13 (2): 138–143. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2009.56.
31. Teshima T, Hanks GE, Hanlon AL et al. Rectal bleeding after conformal 3D treatment of prostate cancer: time to occurrence, response to treatment and duration of morbidity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 39 (1): 77–83. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016 (97) 00301-5.
32. Odrazka K, Dolezel M, Vanasek J et al. Late toxicity after conformal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: Impact of previous surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int J Urol 2010; 17 (9): 784–790. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02592.x.
33. Marks LB, Carroll PR, Dugan TC et al. The response of the urinary bladder, urethra, and ureter to radiation and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 31 (5): 1257–1280. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016 (94) 00431-J.
Štítky
Paediatric clinical oncology Surgery Clinical oncologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Clinical Oncology
2020 Číslo 1
- Spasmolytic Effect of Metamizole
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Metamizole in perioperative treatment in children under 14 years – results of a questionnaire survey from practice
- Current Insights into the Antispasmodic and Analgesic Effects of Metamizole on the Gastrointestinal Tract
- Obstacle Called Vasospasm: Which Solution Is Most Effective in Microsurgery and How to Pharmacologically Assist It?
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Side Effects and Efficacy of Immunotherapy
- The Important Role of STAT3 in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia Biology
- Immunotherapy-Associated Myocarditis
- Neurotoxicity and Immunotherapy