Phase II study of a four-week hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy regimen for prostate cancer: Report on acute toxicity

Comparative evaluation of hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer

Background

The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate an efficacy and toxicity profile of hypofractionated radiotherapy (67.5 Gy in 25 fractions) to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions) in prostate cancer patients with intermediate and high-risk disease.

Materials and methods

From January 2015 to December 2018, 168 patients were randomized to hypofractionated radiation treatment and conventional fractionated radiation treatment schedules of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to the prostate and seminal vesicles. All the patients also received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy started after ADT.

Results

The median (range) follow-up was 51 (31-63) and 53 (33-64) months in the hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated regimes, respectively. The 3-year biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) rates were 86.9% and 73.8% in the hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated groups, respectively (p = 0.032, significant). The 3-year bNED rates in patients at a high risk [i.e., pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≥ 8, or T ≥ 2 c], were 87.9% and 73.5% (p = 0.007, significant) in the hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy groups, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found for late toxicity between the two groups, with 3-year grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity rates of 19% and 16.7% and 3-year grade 2 genitourinary toxicity rates of 15.5% and 11.9% in the hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Hypofractionated schedule is superior to the conventional fractionation schedule of radiation treatment in terms of bNED in intermediate and high grade prostate cancer patients. Also, the late toxicity is found to be equivalent between the two treatment groups.

Toxicity after moderately hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated prostate radiotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature

BACKGROUND

Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) currently represents the standard RT approach for all prostate cancer (PCa) risk categories. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature, focusing on acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) of moderate hypofractionation for localized PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search was performed and two independent reviewers selected the records according to the following Population (P) Intervention (I) Comparator (C) and Outcomes (O) (PICO) question: "In patients affected by localized PCa (P), moderately hypofractionated RT (defined as a treatment schedule providing a single dose per fraction of 3-4.5 Gy) (I) can be considered equivalent to conventionally fractionated RT (C) in terms of G > 2 GI and GU acute and late adverse events (O)?". Bias assessment was performed using Cochrane Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias.

RESULTS

Thirteen records were identified and a meta-analysis was performed. Risk of acute GI and GU > 2 adverse events in the moderately hypofractionated arm was increased by 9.8 % (95 %CI 4.8 %-14.7 %; I² = 57 %) and 1.5 % (95 % CI -1.5 %-4.4 %; I² = 0%), respectively.

DISCUSSION

Overall, majority of trials included in our meta-analysis suggested that moderately hypofractionated RT is equivalent, in terms of GI and GU adverse events, to conventional fractionation. Pooled analysis showed a trend to increased GI toxicity after hypofractionated treatment, but this might be related to dose escalation rather than hypofractionation.

A treatment planning study comparing IMRT techniques and cyber knife for stereotactic body radiotherapy of low-risk prostate carcinoma

PURPOSE

Comparing radiation treatment plans by using the same safety margins and dose objectives for all techniques, to ascertain the optimal radiation technique for the stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of low-risk prostate cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Treatment plans for 27 randomly selected patients were compared using intensity-modulated (IMRT) techniques as Sliding Window (SW), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT), as well as Cyber Knife (CK) system. The target dose was calculated to 36.25 Gy delivered in five fractions over 1 week. Dosimetric indices for target volume and organs at risk (OAR) as well as normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of late rectal and urinary bladder toxicities were analyzed.

RESULTS

The CK provided lower homogeneity in the target volume, but higher values for most of the conformity indices compared to the IMRT approaches. The SW demonstrated superior rectum sparing at medium-to-high dose range (V18 Gy - V32.6 Gy) compared to other techniques (p < 0.05). The whole urinary bladder experienced the best shielding by SW and VMAT at the medium dose (V18 Gy, p < 0.05 versus CK), however we obtained no relevant differences between techniques at the high dose. Generally, the CK demonstrated significantly superior rectum and bladder exposure at V18 Gy as compared to HT, SW, and VMAT. For the rectum, mean NTCP values were significantly superior for HT (NTCP = 2.3%, p < 0.05), and for urinary bladder, the NTCP showed no significant advantages for any technique.

CONCLUSION

No absolute dosimetric advantage was revealed to choose between CK or IMRT techniques for the SBRT of low-grade prostate cancer. Using the same safety margins and dose objectives, IMRT techniques demonstrated superior sparing of the rectum and bladder at a medium dose compared to CK. Comparing different IMRT approaches SW displayed superior rectum sparing at a medium-to-high dose range, whereas both SW and RA revealed superior bladder sparing compared to HT. HT demonstrated a significantly lower NTCP outcome compared to CK or IMRT techniques regarding the rectum. Radiation plans can be optimized further by an individual modification of dose objectives independent of the treatment plan strategy.

4 Weeks Versus 5 Weeks of Hypofractionated High-dose Radiation Therapy as Primary Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Interim Safety Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Trial

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) for localized prostate cancer is safe and effective. The question that remains is which hypofractionation schedule to implement. We compared 2 different HFRT regimens in the present study.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From June 2013 to July 2016, 160 patients with prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1), within this single-center phase III trial, to 56 Gy (16 fractions of 3.5 Gy; arm A) or 67 Gy (25 fractions of 2.68 Gy; arm B). Randomization was performed using computer-generated permuted blocks, stratified by previous transurethral resection of the prostate and the presence of a dominant intraprostatic lesion. Treatment allocation was not masked, and the clinicians were not blinded. The primary endpoint was acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity scale. An interim analysis of acute toxicity was planned at 160 patients to prove the safety of both treatment regimens. If ≥22 of 72 patients had grade ≥2 GI toxicity, the study arm would be rejected. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01921803).

RESULTS

In arm A, 20 patients (26%) and 1 patient (1%) developed acute grade 2 and grade 3 GI toxicity. In arm B, 16 patients (20%) reported acute grade 2 GI toxicity. In arm A, 42 (55%) and 5 (6%) patients developed acute grade 2 and grade 3 urinary toxicity. In arm B, 40 (49%) and 7 (9%) patients reported acute grade 2 and grade 3 urinary toxicity. Toxicity peaked during radiation therapy and resolved in the months after radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

With acute grade ≥2 GI toxicity reported in 21 of 77 patients in arm A and 16 of 82 patients in arm B, both treatment arms can be considered safe.

SHARP hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy is well tolerated in prostate cancer : Toxicity and quality of life assessment

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) is one of the most significant issues in prostate cancer treatment decisions. This study aimed to investigate the toxicity of hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) and QoL after treatment in localized prostate cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective single-center clinical study was performed in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. Patients received 33.5 Gy in 5 fractions (SHARP regimen). Acute and late toxicity was assessed according to RTOG/EORTC score. Patients filled out EORTC QLQ-C30 and prostate cancer-specific QLQ-PR25 questionnaires.

RESULTS

The analysis included 68 prostate cancer patients (55-83 years, median 73) with clinical stage T1c-T2cN0M0, median combined Gleason score of 6 (3-8), and median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 10 ng/mL (4-20 ng/mL). Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was given to 52 patients (76.5 %), and stopped in 31 patients (45.5 %) after 6 months; in 21 patients (31 %) after 2-3 years. Average and median follow-up was 24 months (18-45). Median nadir PSA level was 0.03 ng/mL for all patients and 0.6 ng/mL for patients without hormone treatment. No patients had PSA failure. There were no acute grade IV toxicities. One patient (1.5 %) developed grade III and 24 patients (35.3 %) grade II acute bladder toxicity. No one developed grade III and 7 patients (10.3 %) grade II acute rectal toxicity. No grade III or IV late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities were reported. Grade II late urinary symptoms were observed in 8 patients (11.8 %) and gastrointestinal symptoms in 3 patients (4.4 %). Global health status/QoL was good and improved during the observational period.

CONCLUSION

SBRT for prostate cancer patients is a well-tolerated treatment in terms of toxicity and QoL, has no negative impact on functioning and everyday life, with the important benefit of a short treatment period. However, long-term follow-up data are needed.

Early toxicity of hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Hypofractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HART) is now a feasible option for prostate cancer treatment apropos toxicity, biochemical control and shortening of treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate hypofractionated schedules in the treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2011-2014, 158 patients were treated using the RapidArc technique with IGRT. The target volume for low risk patients was the prostate alone with a prescribed dose of 20x3.0 Gy (EQD2=77 Gy). Targets volumes for intermediate and high risk patients were prostate and two thirds of the seminal vesicles with a prescribed dose 21-22x3.0/2.1 Gy (EQD2=81/45.4-84.9/47.5). Based on radiobiological modelling of early toxicity, we used four fractions per week in the low risk group and four fractions in odd weeks and three fractions in even weeks in intermediate and high risk groups. The RTOG/EORTC toxicity scale was used.

RESULTS

Early genitourinary (GU) toxicity was observed for grades 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 in 73 (46%), 60 (38%), 22 (14%), 0 and 3 (2%), respectively; early gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was recorded for grades 0, 1, 2 and 3 in 119 (75%), 37 (23%), and 2 (1%) patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A combination of moderate hypofractionation, number of fractions per week adapted to target volume and precise dose delivery technique with image guidance appears safe with low early toxicity. Longer follow up is needed to assess late toxicity and tumor control probability.

Quality of life outcomes from a dose-per-fraction escalation trial of hypofractionation in prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

This multi-institutional phase I/II trial explored patient-assessed tolerance of increasingly hypofractionated (HPFX) radiation for low/intermediate risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

347 patients enrolled from 2002 to 2010. Three increasing dose-per-fraction schedules of 64.7 Gy/22 fx, 58.08 Gy/16 fx and 51.6 Gy/12 fx were each designed to yield equivalent predicted late toxicity. Three quality of life (QoL) surveys were administered prior to treatment and annually upto 3 years.

RESULTS

Bowel QoL data at 3years revealed no significant difference among regimens (p=0.469). Bowel QoL for all regimens declined transiently, largely recovering by three years, with only the 22 fraction decrement reaching significance. Bladder outcomes at 3 years were comparable (p=0.343) although, for all patients combined, a significant decline was observed from the baseline (p=0.008). Spitzer quality of life data revealed similarly excellent, 3-year means (p=0.188). International erectile function data also revealed no significant differences at 3 years although all measures except intercourse satisfaction worsened post-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-year QoL changes for bowel, bladder and SQLI were modest and similar for 3 HPFX regimens spanning 2.94-4.3 Gy per fraction. These favorable patient-scored outcomes demonstrate the safety and tolerability of such regimens and may be leveraged to support further implementation of mild to moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in the setting of low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Moderate hypofractionation and simultaneous integrated boost by helical tomotherapy in prostate cancer: monoinstitutional report of acute tolerability assessment with different toxicity scales

INTRODUCTION

Based on radiobiology evidence, hypofractionated radiotherapy has the potential of improving treatment outcome in prostate cancer patients. In this study, we evaluated the safety, in terms of acutetoxicity, of using moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy delivered with Helical Tomotherapy (HT) to treat prostate cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2012 and April 2014, 42 consecutive patients were treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy using HT. All patients received 70 Gy in 28 fractions to PTV1, which included the prostate. In the intermediate risk group, 61.6 Gy were delivered to PTV2, which included the seminal vesicles. In high risk patients, the pelvic nodes were added (PTV3) and received 50.4 Gy. Acute toxicity was recorded prospectively with RTOG and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 3.0, retrospectively with CTCAE 4.0. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) was measured at baseline and 3 months after end of treatment, to investigate health related quality of life with regards to bladder and gastrointestinal function.

RESULTS

Acute toxicity was acceptable, independently from the system used to score side effects. Moderate genitourinary toxicity was more frequent than gastrointestinal toxicity. No correlation between acute side effects and patients' characteristics or physical dose parameters was registered. EPIC evaluation showed a negligible difference in urinary and bowel function post-treatment, that did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience confirms the safety of moderate hypofractionation delivered with HT in prostate cancer patients with low, intermediate and high risk.

Prostate hypofractionated radiation therapy with injection of hyaluronic acid: acute toxicities in a phase 2 study

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) in prostate cancer can be developed only if the risk of rectal toxicity is controlled. In a multicenter phase 2 trial, hypofractionated irradiation was combined with an injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) to preserve the rectal wall. Tolerance of the injection and acute toxicity rates are reported.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study was designed to assess late grade 2 toxicity rates. The results described here correspond to the secondary objectives. Acute toxicity was defined as occurring during RT or within 3 months after RT and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. HA tolerance was evaluated with a visual analog scale during the injection and 30 minutes after injection and then by use of the Common Terminology Criteria at each visit.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2012, 36 patients with low-risk to intermediate-risk prostate cancer were included. The HA injection induced a mean pain score of 4.6/10 ± 2.3. Thirty minutes after the injection, 2 patients still reported pain (2/10 and 3/10), which persisted after the intervention. Thirty-three patients experienced at least 1 acute genitourinary toxicity and 20 patients at least 1 acute gastrointestinal toxicity. Grade 2 toxicities were reported for 19 patients with urinary obstruction, frequency, or both and for 1 patient with proctitis. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities were reported. At the 3-month visit, 4 patients described grade 2 obstruction or frequency, and no patients had any grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

The injection of HA makes it possible to deliver hypofractionated irradiation over 4 weeks with a dose per fraction of > 3 Gy, with limited acute rectal toxicity.

Acute toxicity of hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Dose-escalated hypofractionated radiotherapy (hfrt) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (imrt), with inclusion of the pelvic lymph nodes (plns), plus androgen suppression therapy (ast) in high-risk prostate cancer patients should improve patient outcomes, but acute toxicity could limit its feasibility.

METHODS

Our single-centre phase ii prospective study enrolled 40 high-risk prostate cancer patients. All patients received hfrt using imrt with daily mega-voltage computed tomography imaging guidance, with 95% of planning target volumes (ptv68 and ptv50) receiving 68 Gy and 50 Gy (respectively) in 25 daily fractions. The boost volume was targeted to the involved plns and the prostate (minus the urethra plus 3 mm and minus 3 mm from adjacent rectal wall) and totalled up to 75 Gy in 25 fractions. Acute toxicity scores were recorded weekly during and 3 months after radiotherapy (rt) administration.

RESULTS

For the 37 patients who completed rt and the 3-month follow-up, median age was 65.5 years (range: 50-76 years). Disease was organ-confined (T1c-T2c) in 23 patients (62.1%), and node-positive in 5 patients (13.5%). All patients received long-term ast. Maximum acute genitourinary (gu) and gastrointestinal (gi) toxicity peaked at grade 2 in 6 of 36 evaluated patients (16.6%) and in 4 of 31 evaluated patients (12.9%) respectively. Diarrhea and urinary frequency were the chief complaints. Dose-volume parameters demonstrated no correlation with toxicity. The ptv treatment objectives were met in 36 of the 37 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This hfrt dose-escalation trial in high-risk prostate cancer has demonstrated the feasibility of administering 75 Gy in 25 fractions with minimal acute gi and gu toxicities. Further follow-up will report late toxicities and outcomes.

Early closure of phase II prospective study on acute and late tolerance of hypofractionated radiotherapy in low-risk prostate cancer patients

AIM

To assess acute and late toxicity of hypofractionated radiotherapy, its efficacy and impact on quality of life in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since August 2006 to October 2007, 15 prostate cancer patients with favorable clinical features, aged 54-74 years (mean 67 years) entered the study. Tumor stage in the majority (73%) of patients was T2a, the mean pretreatment PSA value was 7.2 ng/ml (range 5-10.9 ng/ml). The study group was treated 3 times a week with 4 Gy per fraction to the total dose of 60 Gy within 5 weeks. 3D conformal treatment planning was used with no fiducial markers. Acute and late toxicity was evaluated using modified EORTC/RTOG/LENT scoring systems. Patients regularly filled the EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaires.

RESULTS

All patients completed radiotherapy according to the plan. During radiotherapy, 26% of patients had grade 1-2 rectal symptoms. The incidence of acute urinary toxicity score was 26%, 60%, and 14% for grade 0-1, 2 and 3, respectively. One year after RT, the incidence of grade 2 GI toxicity was 27%, which was the reason for an early closure of the accrual. Grade 2 late urinary toxicity was noted in 20% of patients. The mean PSA level was 0.61 ng/ml after 24 months and 0.47 ng/ml after 36 months (range: 0.06-1.54 ng/ml).

CONCLUSIONS

Low number of patients does not allow to determine the influence of hypofractionation on unsatisfactory tolerance of this regimen. Suboptimal (from the present day's perspective) target localization (no fiducial markers) could potentially explain higher than expected late GI reactions in our series.

Image-guided hypofractionated radiotherapy in low-risk prostate cancer patients

Aim. To evaluate efficacy and toxicity of image-guided hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) in the treatment of low-risk prostate cancer. Outcomes and toxicities of this series of patients were compared to another group of 32 low-risk patients treated with conventional fractionation (CFRT). Methods. Fifty-nine patients with low-risk prostate cancer were analysed. Total dose for the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles was 60 Gy delivered in 20 fractions. Results. The median follow-up was 30 months. The actuarial 4-year overall survival, biochemical free survival, and disease specific survival were 100%, 97.4%, and 97.4%, respectively. Acute grade 1-2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity rates were 11.9% and 40.7%, respectively. Grade 1 GI and GU late toxicity rates were 8.5% and 13.6%, respectively. No grade ≥2 late toxicities were recorded. Acute grade 2-3 GU toxicity resulted significantly lower (P = 0.04) in HFRT group compared to the CFRT group. The cumulative 4-year incidence of grade 1-2 GU toxicity was significantly higher (P < 0.001) for HFRT patients. Conclusions. Our study demonstrated that hypofractionated regimen provided excellent biochemical control in favorable risk prostate cancer patients. The incidence of GI and GU toxicity was low. However, HFRT presented higher cumulative incidence of low-grade late GU toxicity than CFRT.

Is biochemical relapse-free survival after profoundly hypofractionated radiotherapy consistent with current radiobiological models?

AIMS

The α/β ratio for prostate cancer is thought to be low and less than for the rectum, which is usually the dose-limiting organ. Hypofractionated radiotherapy should therefore improve the therapeutic ratio, increasing cure rates with less toxicity. A number of models for predicting biochemical relapse-free survival have been developed from large series of patients treated with conventional and moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to test these models when significant numbers of patients treated with profoundly hypofractionated radiotherapy were included.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature with regard to hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer was conducted, focussing on data recently presented on prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy. For the work described here, we have taken published biochemical control rates for a range of moderately and profoundly fractionated schedules and plotted these together with a range of radiobiological models, which are described.

RESULTS

The data reviewed show consistency between the various radiobiological model predictions and the currently observed data.

CONCLUSION

Current radiobiological models provide accurate predictions of biochemical relapse-free survival, even when profoundly hypofractionated patients are included in the analysis.

Hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer: dose delivery uncertainty due to interfractional motion

PURPOSE

The α-to-β (α/β) ratio for prostate tumor is likely lower than that for the surrounding normal organs, such as rectum and bladder (≈ 3 Gy). As a result, hypofractionation is expected to improve the therapeutic ratio in prostate radiation therapy. However, with the use of fewer, larger fractions, the accuracy of treatment dose delivery becomes more influenced by the physical uncertainties resulting from motion and radiobiological uncertainties in the α/β ratio of the prostate tumor. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of interfractional motion on treatment dose delivery within the likely range of the tumor α/β ratio.

METHODS

Serial CT images acquired at simulation and daily treatment for three prostate patients were studied retrospectively. A conventional 3D-conformal proton plan was created for each patient, delivering 25 fractions of 2 Gy to ITV1 (internal target volume, expanded from the prostate and clinically involved seminal vesicles) followed by 14 fractions to ITV2 (expanded from the prostate). The plans were renormalized for a series of hypofractionated protocols of between five and 28 fractions. The fractional doses were computed on daily CT and were mapped onto simulation CT using deformable registration. In each course, the doses from the fractions with the lowest D97% of the ITV2 were summed to approximate the lower limit (worst case) of target coverage. The uncertainty in dose and coverage was estimated as the deviation of the worst case from the nominal plan.

RESULTS

For treatments in 28 to five fractions, the uncertainty arising from interfractional motion ranged from ≈ 1% to 4% for V100% and ≈ 2% to 6% for D100% of the ITV2. The uncertainties in V95% and D95% were both minimal (<1%) for all protocols. For tumors with a low α/β of 1.0 Gy, the treatment in five fractions could deliver an additional 21.0 and 17.4 GyEQD2 to 95% and 100% of the ITV2, respectively, compared to that in 28 fractions. This advantage disappeared for tumors with α/β > 2.5 Gy, assuming the worst case for interfractional motion.

CONCLUSIONS

In hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer, the dosimetric uncertainties due to interfractional motion were minimal for the ITV2 coverage at 95% isodose level and the dose received by 95% of the ITV2. Although hypofractionation could yield an increase in equivalent dose to the target for tumors with low α/β, the gain was cancelled out by the uncertainty due to interfractional motion for tumors with α/β > 2.5 Gy.

Transformation of physical DVHs to radiobiologically equivalent ones in hypofractionated radiotherapy analyzing dosimetric and clinical parameters: a practical approach for routine clinical practice in radiation oncology

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to transform DVHs from physical to radiobiological ones as well as to evaluate their reliability by correlations of dosimetric and clinical parameters for 50 patients with prostate cancer and 50 patients with breast cancer, who were submitted to Hypofractionated Radiotherapy. Methods and Materials. To achieve this transformation, we used both the linear-quadratic model (LQ model) and the Niemierko model. The outcome of radiobiological DVHs was correlated with acute toxicity score according to EORTC/RTOG criteria. Results. Concerning the prostate radiotherapy, there was a significant correlation between RTOG acute rectal toxicity and D₅₀ (P < 0.001) and V₆₀ (P = 0.001) dosimetric parameters, calculated for α/β = 10 Gy. Moreover, concerning the breast radiotherapy there was a significant correlation between RTOG skin toxicity and V_≥60 dosimetric parameter, calculated for both α/β = 2.3 Gy (P < 0.001) and α/β = 10 Gy (P < 0.001). The new tool seems reliable and user-friendly. Conclusions. Our proposed model seems user-friendly. Its reliability in terms of agreement with the presented acute radiation induced toxicity was satisfactory. However, more patients are needed to extract safe conclusions.

Acute toxicity profile in prostate cancer with conventional and hypofractionated treatment

Purpose

To compare the acute toxicities in radical treatment of prostate cancer between conventional schedule (C-ARM) with 78 Gy/39 fractions and hypofractionation conformal treatment (H-ARM) with 69 Gy/23 fractions.

Methods and material

This prospective double arm study consisted of 217 patients with prostate cancer, 112 in H-ARM and 105 in C-ARM arm. C-ARM received conventional six- field conformal radiotherapy with 78 Gy in 39 fractions while H-ARM received hypofractionation with 69 Gy in 23 fractions. Weekly assessment of acute reactions was done during treatment and with one, and 3 months using RTOG scale. Univariated analysis was performed to evaluate differences between the incidences of acute reaction in the treatment arms. Variables with p value less than 0.1 were included in the multivariated logistic regression.

Results

There was no difference between H-ARM versus C-ARM for severity and incidence in genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) acute toxicity. During the treatment comparing H-ARM with C-ARM no differences was observed for GI toxicity (grade 0–3; H-ARM = 45.5%, 34%, 18.7% and 1.8% versus C-ARM = 47.6%, 35.2%, 17.2% and 0). For acute GU toxicity no difference was detected between H-ARM (grade 0–3; 22.3%, 54.5%, 18.7% and 4.5%) and C-ARM (grade 0–3; 25.8%, 53.3%, 17.1% and 3.8%).

At the 3- months follow-up, persistent Grade > =2 acute GU and GI toxicity were 2.5% and 1.8% in H-ARM versus 5.7% and 3% in C-ARM (p > 0.05). In univariated and multivariated analyses, there was not any dosimetric predictor for GI and GU toxicity.

Conclusions

Our data demonstrate that hypofractionated radiotherapy achieving high biological effective dose using conformal radiotherapy is feasible for prostate cancer, being well tolerated with minimal severe acute toxicity.

Hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer

There are radiobiological rationales supporting hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. The recent advancements in treatment planning and delivery allow sophisticated radiation treatments to take advantage of the differences in radiobiology of prostate cancer and the surrounding normal tissues. The preliminary results from clinical studies indicate that abbreviated fractionation programs can result in successful treatment of localized prostate cancer without escalation of late toxicity.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a preliminary report

AIMS

We report the results of a retrospective study of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using a Cyberknife for prostate cancer.

METHODS

In all 29 patients were treated with hypofractionated SBRT using a Cyberknife at median 36 Gy in five fractions. All the patients were treated with a radical aim. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was evaluated at baseline and after radiotherapy. Acute (≤3 months) and late (>3 months) urinary and rectal toxicities were recorded according to the CTCAE version 4.0.

RESULTS

The median duration of follow up was 41 months. PSA values decreased in a time-dependent way. The median PSA nadir was 0.329 ng/mL, achieved after a median of 23 months' follow up. Two patients had a PSA failure according to the definition of nadir + 2 ng/mL. Eight patients (28%) had a benign PSA bounce at median 9 months after radiotherapy. CTCAE Grade 2 and 3 late urinary toxicities were reported in 3 and 3%, respectively. One patient had exacerbated urinary symptoms and received an operation. There were no severe late rectal toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary findings of our study suggest SBRT is feasible for prostate cancer treatment. Further studies with more patients and longer follow-up duration are required.

Review of hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer has become of increasing interest with the recognition of a potential improvement in therapeutic outcome with treatments delivered in large-sized daily fractions. In addition, hypofractionation offers a reduction in fraction number and produces attractive cost and increased convenience for patients. There is convincing evidence, by several clinical trials, that biochemical control is significantly improved with higher administered radiation doses to the prostate gland. Furthermore, the improved radiation delivery techniques such as 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) or, better, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allow high administered doses to the prostate while sparing the normal surrounding tissues. Several studies of the radiobiology of prostate cancer suggest that it may be more susceptible to large fraction sizes compared with conventional fractionation of external beam radiation.

Hypofractionated helical tomotherapy using 2.5-2.6 Gy daily fractions for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the tolerability of hypofractionated helical tomotherapy (HT) in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated 48 patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the prostate (cT1-T3N0M0) who were treated with hypofractionated HT from August 2008 through July 2011. Hypofractionated regimens included: 68.04 Gy at 2.52 Gy/fraction, 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction, and 70.2 Gy at 2.6 Gy/fraction. Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was scored using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scoring system.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were treated with 68.04 Gy, 5 patients with 70 Gy, and 11 with 70.2 Gy. The median age at diagnosis was 69 years (range 49-87) and the median follow-up 11 months (range 7-40). Grade 2 acute GI toxicity occurred in 9 patients (19 %). No grade 3 or higher acute GI toxicity was observed. Grade 2 and 3 acute GU toxicities occurred in 19 and 6 % of patients, respectively. The incidence of late grade 2 GI and GU toxicity was 4 and 2 %, respectively. No grade 3 or higher late toxicities were observed. Multivariate analysis showed that patients treated at 2.6 Gy/fraction or those who received a total radiation dose ≥70 Gy had higher rates of grade ≥2 acute GU toxicity (P = 0.004 and P = 0.048, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Hypofractionated HT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer is well tolerated with no grade 3 or higher early or late GI and GU toxicities. Further research is needed to assess definitive late toxicity and tumor control.

Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To report long-term results and patterns of failure after conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This randomized phase III trial compared conventional fractionation (80 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction in 8 weeks) vs hypofractionation (62 Gy at 3.1 Gy per fraction in 5 weeks) in combination with 9-month androgen deprivation therapy in 168 patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from local failure (FFLF), and freedom from distant failure (FFDF) were analyzed.

RESULTS

In a median follow-up of 70 months, biochemical failure (BF) occurred in 35 of the 168 patients (21%) in the study. Among these 35 patients, local failure (LF) only was detected in 11 (31%), distant failure (DF) only in 16 (46%), and both LF and DF in 6 (17%). In 2 patients (6%) BF has not yet been clinically detected. The risk reduction by hypofractionation was significant in BF (10.3%) but not in LF and DF. We found that hypofractionation, with respect to conventional fractionation, determined only an insignificant increase in the actuarial FFBF but no difference in FFLF and FFDF, when considering the entire group of patients. However, an increase in the 5-year rates in all 3 endpoints-FFBF, FFLF, and FFDF-was observed in the subgroup of patients with a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) level of 20 ng/mL or less. On multivariate analysis, the type of fractionation, iPSA level, Gleason score of 4+3 or higher, and T stage of 2c or higher have been confirmed as independent prognostic factors for BF. High iPSA levels and Gleason score of 4+3 or higher were also significantly associated with an increased risk of DF, whereas T stage of 2c or higher was the only independent variable for LF.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm the isoeffectiveness of the 2 fractionation schedules used in this study, although a benefit in favor of hypofractionation cannot be excluded in the subgroup of patients with an iPSA level of 20 ng/mL or less. The α/β ratio might be more appropriately evaluated by FFLF than FFBF results, at least in high-risk disease.

Dose-escalated simultaneous integrated-boost treatment of prostate cancer patients via helical tomotherapy

PURPOSE

The goal of this work was to assess the feasibility of moderately hypofractionated simultaneous integrated-boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) with helical tomotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer regarding acute side effects and dose-volume histogram data (DVH data).

METHODS

Acute side effects and DVH data were evaluated of the first 40 intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated with a definitive daily image-guided SIB-IMRT protocol via helical tomotherapy in our department. The planning target volume including the prostate and the base of the seminal vesicles with safety margins was treated with 70 Gy in 35 fractions. The boost volume containing the prostate and 3 mm safety margins (5 mm craniocaudal) was treated as SIB to a total dose of 76 Gy (2.17 Gy per fraction). Planning constraints for the anterior rectal wall were set in order not to exceed the dose of 76 Gy prescribed to the boost volume. Acute toxicity was evaluated prospectively using a modified CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) score.

RESULTS

SIB-IMRT allowed good rectal sparing, although the full boost dose was permitted to the anterior rectal wall. Median rectum dose was 38 Gy in all patients and the median volumes receiving at least 65 Gy (V65), 70 Gy (V70), and 75 Gy (V75) were 13.5%, 9%, and 3%, respectively. No grade 4 toxicity was observed. Acute grade 3 toxicity was observed in 20% of patients involving nocturia only. Grade 2 acute intestinal and urological side effects occurred in 25% and 57.5%, respectively. No correlation was found between acute toxicity and the DVH data.

CONCLUSION

This institutional SIB-IMRT protocol using daily image guidance as a precondition for smaller safety margins allows dose escalation to the prostate without increasing acute toxicity.

Toxicity report of once weekly radiation therapy for low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma: preliminary results of a phase I/II trial

Background

Increasing clinical data supports a low α/β ratio for prostate adenocarcinoma, potentially lower than that of surrounding normal tissues. A hypofractionated, weekly radiation therapy (RT) schedule should result in improved tumour control, reduced acute toxicity, and similar or decreased late effects. We report the toxicity profile of such treatment.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a multi-institution phase I/II trial of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for favourable-risk prostate cancer (T1a-T2a, Gleason ≤ 6 and PSA < 10 ng/ml). RT consisted of 45 Gy in nine 5 Gy fractions, once weekly. Primary end-points were feasibility and late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RTOG scale), while secondary end-points included acute GI toxicity, acute and late genitourinary (GU) toxicity, biochemical control, and survival.

Results

Between 2006 and 2008, 80 patients were treated. No treatment interruptions occurred. The median follow-up is 33 months (range: 20-51). Maximal grade 1, 2, and 3 acute (< 3 months) GU toxicity was 29%, 31% and 5% respectively (no grade 4). Acute GI grade 1 toxicity was reported in 30% while grade 2 occurred in 14% (no grade 3 or 4). Crude late grade ≥ 3 toxicity rates at 31 months were 2% for both GU and GI toxicity. Cumulative late grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity at 3 years was 11%. Two patients had PSA failure according to the Phoenix definition. The three-year actuarial biochemical control rate is 97%.

Conclusions

Weekly RT with 45 Gy in 9 fractions is feasible and results in comparable toxicity. Long term tumour control and survival remain to be assessed.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a promising treatment option for prostate cancer. Hypofractionation regimens, such as SBRT, may be more advantageous compared with conventional regimens because low α:β ratio of prostate cancer has high sensitivity to dose per fraction. In addition, a smaller and tighter margin with SBRT is expected to provide a low toxicity rate without reducing tumor control. The purpose of this article is to examine radiobiological, technical and clinical aspects of SBRT for prostate cancer.

Late morbidity and oncological outcome after radical hypofractionated radiotherapy in men with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that three-dimensional hypofractionated radiotherapy (3D-HFRT) is well tolerated and not worse than 3-D conventional RT (3D-CRT) for oncological outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 162 men with hystologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma were included in the analysis. In all, 82 men were treated with 3D-HFRT (15 fractions of 3.62 Gy delivered 3 times/week; a total dose of 54.3 Gy). This group was retrospectively compared with 80 men who met the same inclusion criteria and who were treated with 3D-CRT (39 fractions of 2 Gy delivered daily; a total dose of 78 Gy). A short course of hormone therapy was administered concomitantly with the RT.

RESULTS

Only one (1.7%) patient in the 3D-CRT group and two (4.0%) in the 3D-HFRT group had Grade 3 genitourinary toxicity. There was late gastrointestinal morbidity of ≥ grade 3 in only 5.1% of men treated with 3D-HFRT and in 4.0% of men treated with 3D-CRT. In both groups there was no Grade 4 toxicity. At the median (range) follow-up of 45 (39.4-51) months for the 3D-HFRT group and 57.5 (54.9-59.1) months for 3D-CRT group the progression rate was 18/82 (21.9%) and 20/80 (25.0%), respectively, with no significant worsening in the risk of biochemical failure (BCF; log-rank test, P= 0.222).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, men with clinically localized prostate cancer had similar levels of morbidity irrespective of whether they received HFRT or CRT without any worsening in the early risk of BCF. Thus, the present data provide some clinical evidence to justify trends already emerging toward HF regimens for treating clinically localised prostate cancer.

Dosimetric and physical comparison of IMRT and CyberKnife plans in the treatment of localized prostate cancer

AIM

The aim of our study was the dosimetric and physical evaluation of the CK and IMRT treatment plans for 16 patients with localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is one of the recent technical advances in radiotherapy. The prostate is a well suited site to be treated with IMRT. The challenge of accurately delivering the IMRT needs to be supported by new advances such as image-guidance and four-dimensional computed conformal radiation therapy (4DCRT) tomography. CyberKnife (CK) provides real time orthogonal X-ray imaging of the patient during treatment course to follow gold fiducials installed into the prostate and to achieve motion correlation between online acquired X-ray imaging and digital reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) which are obtained from planning computed tomography images by translating and rotating the treatment table in five directions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Sixteen IMRT and CK plans were performed to be compared in terms of conformity (CI), heterogeneity indices (HI), percentage doses of 100% (V100), 66% (V66), 50% (V50), 33% (V33) and 10% (V10) volumes of the bladder and rectum. Dose-volume histograms for target and critical organs, (CI) and indices (HI) and isodose lines were analyzed to evaluate the treatment plans.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences in the percentage rectal doses delivered to V10, V33, and V50 of the rectum were detected in favor of the CK plans (p values; <0.001, <0.001 and 0.019, respectively). The percentage doses for V66 and V100 of the rectum were larger in CK plans (13%, 2% in IMRT and 21%, 3% in CK plans, respectively). Percentage bladder doses for V10 and V33 were significantly lower in CK plans [96% in IMRT vs 48% in CK (p < 0.001) and 34% in IMRT vs 24% in CK (p = 0.047)]. Lower percentage doses were observed for V50, V66 of the bladder for the IMRT. They were 5.4% and 3.45% for IMRT and 13.4% and 8.05% for CK, respectively. Median CI of planning target volume (PTV) for IMRT and CK plans were 0.94 and 1.23, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both systems have a very good ability to create highly conformal volumetric dose distributions. Median HI of PTV for IMRT and CK plans were 1.08 and 1.33, respectively (p < 0.001).

Dose Escalation Study with Two Different Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques for Localized Prostate Cancer: Acute Toxicity

To assess acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with a sequential dose escalation hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) study using two different delivery methods. Since 2003, 88 and 48 patients were sequentially treated to 56 Gy and to 60 Gy (4 Gy/fraction twice weekly), respectively. IMRT with 6 MV beams was delivered with five fields in Geneva and with nine in Barcelona. Acute GI and GU side effects were scored weekly during treatment and 6 weeks after treatment completion using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity scale. Clinical, technical, and dosimetric parameters were analyzed in order to assess for a potential correlation with toxicity.

Grade 1–2, GU and GI toxicities during and 6 weeks after treatment completion were 64%, and 24%, and 35% and 12%, respectively. Only one Grade 4 GU toxicity, consisting of transitory urinary obstruction, was observed. Patients treated to 60 Gy in Geneva presented a higher rate of Grade 1–2 GU toxicity ( p = 0.01), while patients treated to both 56 and 60 Gy in Barcelona presented a higher Grade 1–2 GI toxicity ( p = 0.02). A lower rate of rectal toxicity was observed in the subgroup of 22 patients treated with a rectal balloon ( p = 0.02). The use of androgen deprivation therapy was associated with a higher rate of Grade 1–2 GU toxicity after the end of the treatment ( p = 0.02). Dose escalation with either 14 × 4 Gy or 15 × 4 Gy delivered with two different IMRT techniques is feasible and is associated with a tolerable acute toxicity.

A prospective phase III randomized trial of hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation in patients with high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the toxicity and efficacy of hypofractionated (62 Gy/20 fractions/5 weeks, 4 fractions per week) vs. conventional fractionation radiotherapy (80 Gy/40 fractions/8 weeks) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From January 2003 to December 2007, 168 patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated or conventional fractionated schedules of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. All patients received a 9-month course of total androgen deprivation (TAD), and radiotherapy started 2 months thereafter.

RESULTS

The median (range) follow-up was 32 (8-66) and 35 (7-64) months in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation arms, respectively. No difference was found for late toxicity between the two treatment groups, with 3-year Grade 2 rates of 17% and 16% for gastrointestinal and 14% and 11% for genitourinary in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation groups, respectively. The 3-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were 87% and 79% in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation groups, respectively (p = 0.035). The 3-year FFBF rates in patients at a very high risk (i.e., pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) >20 ng/mL, Gleason score >or=8, or T >or=2c), were 88% and 76% (p = 0.014) in the former and latter arm, respectively. The multivariate Cox analysis confirmed fractionation, iPSA, and Gleason score as significant prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that late toxicity is equivalent between the two treatment groups and that the hypofractionated schedule used in this trial is superior to the conventional fractionation in terms of FFBF.

A randomized trial comparing hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated three-dimensional external-beam radiotherapy for localized prostate adenocarcinoma : a report on acute toxicity

PURPOSE

To compare acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity between patient groups with localized prostate adenocarcinoma, treated with conventionally fractionated (CFRT) and hypofractionated (HFRT) three-dimensional conformal external-beam radiotherapy (3D-CRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

91 patients were enrolled into a randomized study with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. 44 men in the CFRT arm were irradiated with 74 Gy in 37 fractions at 2 Gy per fraction for 7.5 weeks. 47 men in the HFRT arm were treated with 57 Gy in 17 fractions for 3.5 weeks, given as 13 fractions of 3 Gy plus four fractions of 4.5 Gy. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the prostate and the base of seminal vesicles. The CTV-to-PTV (planning target volume) margin was 8-10 mm. Study patients had portal imaging and/or simulation performed on the first fractions and repeated at least weekly.

RESULTS

No acute grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed. The grade 2 GU acute toxicity proportion was significantly lower in the HFRT arm: 19.1% versus 47.7% (chi(2)-test, p = 0.003). The grade 2 GU acute toxicity-free survival was significantly better in the HFRT arm (log-rank test, p = 0.008). The median duration of overall GI acute toxicity was shorter with HFRT: 3 compared to 6 weeks with CFRT (median test, p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

In this first evaluation, the HFRT schedule is feasible and induces acceptable or even lower acute toxicity compared with the toxicities in the CFRT schedule. Extended follow-up is needed to justify this fractionation schedule's safety in the long term.

Subjective and objective measures of late genitourinary morbidity following hypofractionated radiotherapy in men with prostate cancer

To value the late genitourinary (GU) morbidity in men treated with a hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen for prostate cancer. Patients with intermediate risk factors according to D'Amico's criteria were selected. The hypofractionated schedule consisted of 15 fractions of 3.63 Gy delivered three times per week for a total dose of 54.3 Gy. Significant changes in storage-symptoms were not found. A significant transient worsening in the score of late effects of normal tissue late effects normal tissue task force (LENT)-subjective, objective, management, analytic (SOMA) urinary-function domain was observed at 12 months with subsequent improvement at 28 months. The assessment of voiding-symptoms and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) showed that no significant difference was measurable at 12 and 28 months. For PVR, a transient increase at 12 months with a subsequent decrease at 28 months was measured. No significant increase in alpha-blockers usage and in the percentage of men with pathological nonintubated uroflowmetry (NIF) was observed at 12 and 28 months. Finally, patients did not perceive any clinical worsening in their quality of life (QoL) as attested by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)-QoL. Our study seems to suggest that our hypofractionated radiotherapy schedule for the treatment of prostate cancer is safe in terms of late urinary morbidity. Further study will be required to confirm our results.

Hypofractionation for prostate cancer

Hypofractionation for prostate cancer was originally carried out in the pursuit of efficiency and convenience but has now attracted greatly renewed interest based upon a hypothesis that prostate cancers have a higher sensitivity to fraction size, reflected in a low alpha/beta ratio, than do late responding organs at risk such as the rectum or bladder. Tumor control and acceptable toxicity outcomes from several hypofractionation or brachytherapy analyses do in fact support an alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer that is low, perhaps even lower that that for the normal organs that ordinarily constrain the delivery of radiation therapy. However, many of these studies lack sufficient patient numbers and follow-up, are clouded by dose inhomogeneity issues in the case of brachytherapy, or delivered effective doses that were too low by contemporary standards. Thus, the clinical efficacy of the approach has yet to be fully validated. However, a number of newer prospective trials, some randomized, are underway or have reached accrual but await sufficient follow-up for analysis. These studies, which cover a wide range of doses per fraction, should ultimately be capable of validating the utility of prostate hypofractionation and the models that predict its effects. With hypofractionation's significant potential for therapeutic gain, cost savings, and improved patient convenience, the future management of localized prostate cancer could be profoundly altered in the process.

Urinary toxicity after high dose intensity modulated radiotherapy as primary therapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Urinary toxicity plays a major role in the quality of life (QOL) of patients treated with external beam radiotherapy as primary therapy for prostate cancer. In this study we report on: (1) Incidence of acute and late GU toxicity after intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer at Ghent University Hospital (GUH). (2) Time evolution of pre-IMRT and IMRT-induced acute and late GU toxicity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

At GUH, 260 patients with a follow-up of > or = 12 months were treated with IMRT for prostate cancer. The incidence and evolution of GU toxicity were recorded.

RESULTS

Acute grades 3, 2 and 1 GU toxicity occurred in 8%, 42% and 42% of the patients, respectively. Late grades 3, 2 and 1 GU toxicity occurred in 3%, 19% and 40% of the patients, respectively. During therapy baseline grade 1 symptoms increased into grade 2 acute GU toxicity in 48%. After 1 and 2 years, 60% and 70% of the patients, respectively, had less GU symptoms when compared to the pre-treatment status.

CONCLUSION

IMRT induces mild GU toxicity. There is an improvement in pre-IMRT obstructive miction disorders.