4.7 Article

Phase II trial of hypofractionated image-guided intensitymodulated radiotherapy for localized prostate adenocarcinoma

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.04.049

Keywords

prostate carcinoma; hypofractionation; image guidance; conformal radiotherapy; treatment toxicity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess in a prospective trial the feasibility and late toxicity of hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Eligible patients had clinical stage T1c-2cNXMO disease. They received 60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks with intensity-modulated radiotherapy including daily on-line image guidance with intraprostatic fiducial markers. Results: Between June 2001 and March 2004, 92 patients were treated with hypofractionated RT. The cohort had a median prostate-specific antigen value of 7.06 ng/mL. The majority had Gleason grade 5-6 (38%) or 7 (59%) disease, and 82 patients had T1c-T2a clinical staging. Overall, 29 patients had low-risk, 56 intermediate-risk, and 7 high-risk disease. Severe acute toxicity (Grade 3-4) was rare, occurring in only 1 patient. Median follow-up was 38 months. According to the Phoenix definition for biochemical failure, the rate of biochemical control at 14 months was 97%. According to the previous American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition, biochemical control at 3 years was 76%. The incidence of late toxicity was low, with no severe (Grade >= 3) toxicity at the most recent assessment. Conclusions: Hypofractionated RT using 60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks with image guidance is feasible and is associated with low rates of late bladder and rectal toxicity. At early follow-up, biochemical outcome is comparable to that reported for conventionally fractionated controls. The findings are being tested in an ongoing, multicenter, Phase III trial. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available