4.6 Review

Gastrointestinal/genitourinary adverse event after intensity modulated versus three-dimensional primary radiation therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 14, Issue 15, Pages 2878-2888

Publisher

IVYSPRING INT PUBL
DOI: 10.7150/jca.87626

Keywords

IMRT; 3D-CRT; Prostate cancer; Efficacy; Adverse event

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IMRT has significant advantages in radiation therapy for prostate cancer, reducing acute gastrointestinal adverse events but slightly increasing acute genitourinary adverse events. There is no significant difference in late gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse events. In terms of biochemical control, IMRT is significantly better than 3D-CRT.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available