4.4 Article

Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy - First UK Experience

Journal

CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 12, Pages 757-761

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2014.08.007

Keywords

Prostate; SBRT; stereotactic body radiotherapy; toxicity

Categories

Funding

  1. Accuray
  2. Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) combines image-guided radiotherapy with hypofractionation, both of which will probably result in improvements in patient outcomes in prostate cancer. Most clinical experience with this technique resides in North America. Here we present the first UK cohort to receive SBRT for prostate cancer. Materials and methods: Fifty-one prostate cancer patients (10 low risk, 35 intermediate risk and 6 high risk) were treated with 36.25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks and gold seed image guidance. All patients had toxicity International Prostate Symptom score (IPSS) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recorded prospectively and prostate-specific antigen was measured 3-6 monthly during follow-up. Results: The median IPSS was 6, 11, 8 and 5 at baseline, 1-3 weeks, 4-6 weeks and 7-12 weeks after treatment. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group genito-urinary and gastrointestinal toxicity of grade 2 was seen in 22% and 14%, respectively, at 1-3 weeks after treatment; no patient had grade 3+ toxicity at this time point, although two patients had grade 3 urinary frequency recorded during treatment. The median follow-up for the 42 patients who did not receive androgen deprivation was 14.5 months. Prostate-specific antigen at 13-18 months after treatment was 1.3 ng/ml. Conclusion: Prostate SBRT is a promising treatment for organ-confined prostate cancer and is currently being investigated in a UK-led phase III trial. (C) 2014 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available