Improvement in toxicity in high risk prostate cancer patients treated with image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared to 3D conformal radiotherapy without daily image guidance.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) facilitates the delivery of a very precise radiation dose. In this study we compare the toxicity and biochemical progression-free survival between patients treated with daily image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) without daily image guidance for high risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS:

A total of 503 high risk PCa patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) and endocrine treatment between 2000 and 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. 115 patients were treated with 3DCRT, and 388 patients were treated with IG-IMRT. 3DCRT patients were treated to 76 Gy and without daily image guidance and with 1-2 cm PTV margins. IG-IMRT patients were treated to 78 Gy based on daily image guidance of fiducial markers, and the PTV margins were 5-7 mm. Furthermore, the dose-volume constraints to both the rectum and bladder were changed with the introduction of IG-IMRT.

RESULTS:

The 2-year actuarial likelihood of developing grade > = 2 GI toxicity following RT was 57.3% in 3DCRT patients and 5.8% in IG-IMRT patients (p < 0.001). For GU toxicity the numbers were 41.8% and 29.7%, respectively (p = 0.011). On multivariate analysis, 3DCRT was associated with a significantly increased risk of developing grade > = 2 GI toxicity compared to IG-IMRT (p < 0.001, HR = 11.59 [CI: 6.67-20.14]). 3DCRT was also associated with an increased risk of developing GU toxicity compared to IG-IMRT.The 3-year actuarial biochemical progression-free survival probability was 86.0% for 3DCRT and 90.3% for IG-IMRT (p = 0.386). On multivariate analysis there was no difference in biochemical progression-free survival between 3DCRT and IG-IMRT.

CONCLUSION:

The difference in toxicity can be attributed to the combination of the IMRT technique with reduced dose to organs-at-risk, daily image guidance and margin reduction.

• Authors: Joen Sveistrup, Per Munck af Rosenschöld, Joseph O Deasy, Jung Hun Oh, Tobias Pommer, Peter Meidahl Petersen, Svend Aage Engelholm
• Journal: Radiation oncology (London, England) (Radiat Oncol) Vol. 9 Pg. 44 (Feb 04 2014) ISSN: 1748-717X [Electronic] England
• PMID: 24495815 (Publication Type: Comparative Study, Evaluation Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)

Topics

• Aged
• Disease-Free Survival
• Fiducial Markers
• Humans
• Imaging, Three-Dimensional (methods)
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Organs at Risk
• Prostatic Neoplasms (epidemiology, radiotherapy)
• Radiation Injuries (epidemiology, etiology)
• Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted (instrumentation, methods)
• Radiotherapy, Conformal (adverse effects, instrumentation, methods)
• Radiotherapy, Image-Guided (adverse effects, instrumentation, methods)
• Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated (adverse effects, instrumentation, methods)
• Retrospective Studies
• Risk Factors