Cargando…
Gastrointestinal/genitourinary adverse event after intensity modulated versus three-dimensional primary radiation therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis
Objective: Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers in the world. The potential benefits of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) over three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for PCa primary radiation therapy treatment have not yet been clarified. Therefore, this...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Ivyspring International Publisher
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10539562/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37781069 http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/jca.87626 |
Sumario: | Objective: Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers in the world. The potential benefits of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) over three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for PCa primary radiation therapy treatment have not yet been clarified. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether IMRT could improve clinical outcomes in comparison with 3D-CRT in patients diagnosed with PCa. Materials and methods: Relevant studies were identified through searching related databases till December, 2022. Hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as pooled statistics for all analyses. Results: The incidence of grade 2 or worse acute adverse gastrointestinal (GI) event was analyzed and the pooled data revealed a clear decreasing trend in the IMRT compared with 3D-CRT (RR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.84, p=0.002). IMRT slightly increased the grade ≥ 2 acute genitourinary (GU) adverse event in comparison with the 3D-CRT (RR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.02-1.19, p=0.015). The IMRT and the 3D-CRT of patients showed no substantial differences in grade ≥ 2 late GI adverse event (RR =0.62, 95% CI: 0.36-1.09, p=0.1). In those included studies, there was no significant difference between IMRT and 3D-CRT in grade 2-4 late GU adverse event (RR =1.08, 95% CI: 0.77-1.51, p=0.65). There was a significant difference in biochemical control favoring IMRT (RR =1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.22, p=0.002). IMRT showed modest increase in biochemical control in comparison with 3D-CRT. Conclusion: In general, based on the above results, IMRT should be considered as a better choice for the treatment of PCa. More randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the subset of patients diagnosed with PCa. |
---|