Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Viani,Gustavo
Publication Date: 2019
Other Authors: Hamamura,Ana Carolina, Faustino,Alexandre C.
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Download full: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000601105
Summary: ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare the treatment outcomes of a cohort of prostate cancer patients treated with conventional schedule using IMRT or 3DRT technique. Materials and Methods: Between 2010-2017, 485 men with localized prostate cancer were treated with conventional radiotherapy schedule with a total dose ≥74Gy using IMRT (231) or 3DCRT (254). Late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity were retrospectively evaluated according to modified RTOG criteria. The biochemical control was defined by the Phoenix criteria (nadir + 2ng/mL). The comparison between the groups included biochemical recurrence free survival (bRFS), overall survival (OS) and late toxicity. Results: With a median follow-up of 51 months (IMRT=49 and 3DRT=51 months), the maximal late GU for >=grade- 2 during the entire period of follow-up was 13.1% in the IMRT and 15.4% in the 3DRT (p=0.85). The maximal late GI ≥ grade- 2 in the IMRT was 10% and in the 3DRT 24% (p=0.0001). The 5-year bRFS for all risk groups with IMRT and 3D-CRT was 87.5% vs. 87.2% (p=0.415). Considering the risk-groups no significant difference for low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups between IMRT (low-95.3%, intermediate-86.2% and high-73%) and 3D-CRT (low-96.4%, intermediate-88.2% and high-76.6%, p=0.448) was observed. No significant differences for OS and DMFS were observed comparing treatment groups. Conclusion: IMRT reduces significantly the risk of late GI severe complication compared with 3D-CRT using conventional fractionation with a total dose ≥74Gy without any differences for bRFS and OS.
id SBU-1_4c8b4ac82d511d06eadf6208d57a61e8
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382019000601105
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?Radiotherapy, ConformalProstatic Neoplasmstoxicity [Subheading]ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare the treatment outcomes of a cohort of prostate cancer patients treated with conventional schedule using IMRT or 3DRT technique. Materials and Methods: Between 2010-2017, 485 men with localized prostate cancer were treated with conventional radiotherapy schedule with a total dose ≥74Gy using IMRT (231) or 3DCRT (254). Late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity were retrospectively evaluated according to modified RTOG criteria. The biochemical control was defined by the Phoenix criteria (nadir + 2ng/mL). The comparison between the groups included biochemical recurrence free survival (bRFS), overall survival (OS) and late toxicity. Results: With a median follow-up of 51 months (IMRT=49 and 3DRT=51 months), the maximal late GU for >=grade- 2 during the entire period of follow-up was 13.1% in the IMRT and 15.4% in the 3DRT (p=0.85). The maximal late GI ≥ grade- 2 in the IMRT was 10% and in the 3DRT 24% (p=0.0001). The 5-year bRFS for all risk groups with IMRT and 3D-CRT was 87.5% vs. 87.2% (p=0.415). Considering the risk-groups no significant difference for low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups between IMRT (low-95.3%, intermediate-86.2% and high-73%) and 3D-CRT (low-96.4%, intermediate-88.2% and high-76.6%, p=0.448) was observed. No significant differences for OS and DMFS were observed comparing treatment groups. Conclusion: IMRT reduces significantly the risk of late GI severe complication compared with 3D-CRT using conventional fractionation with a total dose ≥74Gy without any differences for bRFS and OS.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2019-11-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000601105International braz j urol v.45 n.6 2019reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0842info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessViani,GustavoHamamura,Ana CarolinaFaustino,Alexandre C.eng2019-12-12T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382019000601105Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2019-12-12T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?
title Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?
spellingShingle Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?
Viani,Gustavo
Radiotherapy, Conformal
Prostatic Neoplasms
toxicity [Subheading]
title_short Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?
title_full Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?
title_fullStr Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?
title_full_unstemmed Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?
title_sort Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?
author Viani,Gustavo
author_facet Viani,Gustavo
Hamamura,Ana Carolina
Faustino,Alexandre C.
author_role author
author2 Hamamura,Ana Carolina
Faustino,Alexandre C.
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Viani,Gustavo
Hamamura,Ana Carolina
Faustino,Alexandre C.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Radiotherapy, Conformal
Prostatic Neoplasms
toxicity [Subheading]
topic Radiotherapy, Conformal
Prostatic Neoplasms
toxicity [Subheading]
description ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare the treatment outcomes of a cohort of prostate cancer patients treated with conventional schedule using IMRT or 3DRT technique. Materials and Methods: Between 2010-2017, 485 men with localized prostate cancer were treated with conventional radiotherapy schedule with a total dose ≥74Gy using IMRT (231) or 3DCRT (254). Late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity were retrospectively evaluated according to modified RTOG criteria. The biochemical control was defined by the Phoenix criteria (nadir + 2ng/mL). The comparison between the groups included biochemical recurrence free survival (bRFS), overall survival (OS) and late toxicity. Results: With a median follow-up of 51 months (IMRT=49 and 3DRT=51 months), the maximal late GU for >=grade- 2 during the entire period of follow-up was 13.1% in the IMRT and 15.4% in the 3DRT (p=0.85). The maximal late GI ≥ grade- 2 in the IMRT was 10% and in the 3DRT 24% (p=0.0001). The 5-year bRFS for all risk groups with IMRT and 3D-CRT was 87.5% vs. 87.2% (p=0.415). Considering the risk-groups no significant difference for low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups between IMRT (low-95.3%, intermediate-86.2% and high-73%) and 3D-CRT (low-96.4%, intermediate-88.2% and high-76.6%, p=0.448) was observed. No significant differences for OS and DMFS were observed comparing treatment groups. Conclusion: IMRT reduces significantly the risk of late GI severe complication compared with 3D-CRT using conventional fractionation with a total dose ≥74Gy without any differences for bRFS and OS.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-11-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000601105
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000601105
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0842
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.45 n.6 2019
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318077202923520