4.1 Article

Acute and late complications after hypofractionated intensity modulated radiotherapy in prostate cancer

Journal

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 269-278

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11604-017-0630-2

Keywords

Prostate cancer; Hypofractionation; Intensity modulated radiotherapy; Acute toxicity; Late toxicity

Funding

  1. Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants [H26-Cancer Policy-General-014]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16H07429, 15K19212] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The present study compared the complications associated with hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (Hypo-IMRT) of prostate cancer to conventionally fractionated IMRT (Conv-IMRT). Materials and methods Hypo-IMRT delivered 70 Gy in 28 fractions, whereas Conv-IMRT delivered 78 Gy in 39 fractions. Toxicity was graded with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, weekly during radiotherapy, 1 month after radiotherapy, and annually in both patient groups. Results The median follow-ups were 39.1 and 38.7 months for patients in the Hypo-and Conv-IMRT groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in rates of acute and late adverse events. The proportions of grade 2 acute genitourinary complications were 48.4 and 51.2% in the Hypo-and Conv-IMRT groups, respectively. The presence of a baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of ten or more was the only significant prognostic factor for grade 2 acute genitourinary toxicity. The incidence of grade 2 late rectal hemorrhage at 3 years was 3.2 and 3.5% in the Hypo-and Conv-IMRT groups, respectively. Small rectal volume was significantly associated with grade 2 late rectal hemorrhage. Conclusion Regarding acute and late adverse events, hypofractionated IMRT for prostate cancer was well tolerated and comparable with conventionally fractionated IMRT.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available