Cargando…

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer

The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D’Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kita, Nozomi, Shibamoto, Yuta, Takemoto, Shinya, Manabe, Yoshihiko, Yanagi, Takeshi, Sugie, Chikao, Tomita, Natsuo, Iwata, Hiromitsu, Murai, Taro, Hashimoto, Shingo, Ishikura, Satoshi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9303627/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35726342
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrac027
_version_ 1784751913829400576
author Kita, Nozomi
Shibamoto, Yuta
Takemoto, Shinya
Manabe, Yoshihiko
Yanagi, Takeshi
Sugie, Chikao
Tomita, Natsuo
Iwata, Hiromitsu
Murai, Taro
Hashimoto, Shingo
Ishikura, Satoshi
author_facet Kita, Nozomi
Shibamoto, Yuta
Takemoto, Shinya
Manabe, Yoshihiko
Yanagi, Takeshi
Sugie, Chikao
Tomita, Natsuo
Iwata, Hiromitsu
Murai, Taro
Hashimoto, Shingo
Ishikura, Satoshi
author_sort Kita, Nozomi
collection PubMed
description The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D’Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy. Overall, 165 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT using a sliding window technique, 66 were then treated with helical tomotherapy and 77 were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The median age of patients was 71 years. The median follow-up period was 75 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 95.5 and 91.6% in the 5-field IMRT group, 95.1 and 90.3% in the tomotherapy group and 93.0 and 88.6% in the VMAT group, respectively, with no significant differences among the three groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 7.3 and 6.2%, respectively, for all patients. Late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicities were less frequent in patients undergoing VMAT (0%) than in patients undergoing 5-field IMRT (7.3%) and those undergoing tomotherapy (11%) (P = 0.025), and this finding appeared to be correlated with the better rectal DVH parameters in patients undergoing VMAT. Other toxicities did not differ significantly among the three groups, although bladder dose-volume parameters were slightly worse in the tomotherapy group than in the other groups. Despite differences in the IMRT delivery methods, X-ray energies and daily registration methods, all modalities may be used as IMRT for localized prostate cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9303627
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93036272022-07-22 Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer Kita, Nozomi Shibamoto, Yuta Takemoto, Shinya Manabe, Yoshihiko Yanagi, Takeshi Sugie, Chikao Tomita, Natsuo Iwata, Hiromitsu Murai, Taro Hashimoto, Shingo Ishikura, Satoshi J Radiat Res Oncology / Medicine The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D’Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy. Overall, 165 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT using a sliding window technique, 66 were then treated with helical tomotherapy and 77 were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The median age of patients was 71 years. The median follow-up period was 75 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 95.5 and 91.6% in the 5-field IMRT group, 95.1 and 90.3% in the tomotherapy group and 93.0 and 88.6% in the VMAT group, respectively, with no significant differences among the three groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 7.3 and 6.2%, respectively, for all patients. Late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicities were less frequent in patients undergoing VMAT (0%) than in patients undergoing 5-field IMRT (7.3%) and those undergoing tomotherapy (11%) (P = 0.025), and this finding appeared to be correlated with the better rectal DVH parameters in patients undergoing VMAT. Other toxicities did not differ significantly among the three groups, although bladder dose-volume parameters were slightly worse in the tomotherapy group than in the other groups. Despite differences in the IMRT delivery methods, X-ray energies and daily registration methods, all modalities may be used as IMRT for localized prostate cancer. Oxford University Press 2022-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9303627/ /pubmed/35726342 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrac027 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japanese Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Oncology / Medicine
Kita, Nozomi
Shibamoto, Yuta
Takemoto, Shinya
Manabe, Yoshihiko
Yanagi, Takeshi
Sugie, Chikao
Tomita, Natsuo
Iwata, Hiromitsu
Murai, Taro
Hashimoto, Shingo
Ishikura, Satoshi
Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer
title Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer
title_full Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer
title_fullStr Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer
title_short Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer
title_sort comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer
topic Oncology / Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9303627/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35726342
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrac027
work_keys_str_mv AT kitanozomi comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer
AT shibamotoyuta comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer
AT takemotoshinya comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer
AT manabeyoshihiko comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer
AT yanagitakeshi comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer
AT sugiechikao comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer
AT tomitanatsuo comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer
AT iwatahiromitsu comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer
AT muraitaro comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer
AT hashimotoshingo comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer
AT ishikurasatoshi comparisonofintensitymodulatedradiotherapywiththe5fieldtechniquehelicaltomotherapyandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyforlocalizedprostatecancer