4.7 Article

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, Proton Therapy, or Conformal Radiation Therapy and Morbidity and Disease Control in Localized Prostate Cancer

期刊

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 307, 期 15, 页码 1611-1620

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.460

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [RO1 AG023178, RO1 AG018833]
  2. University of North Carolina (UNC) Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) center from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  3. UNC Center of Excellence in Pharmacoepidemiology and Public Health
  4. Merck
  5. sanofi-aventis
  6. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Human Services as part of the DEcIDE [HHSA290-2005-0040-I-TO6]
  7. National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) at the NIH [2T32NR008856]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context There has been rapid adoption of newer radiation treatments such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton therapy despite greater cost and limited demonstrated benefit compared with previous technologies. Objective To determine the comparative morbidity and disease control of IMRT, proton therapy, and conformal radiation therapy for primary prostate cancer treatment. Design, Setting, and Patients Population-based study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked data from 2000 through 2009 for patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Main Outcome Measures Rates of gastrointestinal and urinary morbidity, erectile dysfunction, hip fractures, and additional cancer therapy. Results Use of IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy increased from 0.15% in 2000 to 95.9% in 2008. In propensity score-adjusted analyses (N=12 976), men who received IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy were less likely to receive a diagnosis of gastrointestinal morbidities (absolute risk, 13.4 vs 14.7 per 100 person-years; relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and hip fractures (absolute risk, 0.8 vs 1.0 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93) but more likely to receive a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction (absolute risk, 5.9 vs 5.3 per 100 person-years; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy patients were less likely to receive additional cancer therapy (absolute risk, 2.5 vs 3.1 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89). In a propensity score-matched comparison between IMRT and proton therapy (n=1368), IMRT patients had a lower rate of gastrointestinal morbidity (absolute risk, 12.2 vs 17.8 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79). There were no significant differences in rates of other morbidities or additional therapies between IMRT and proton therapy. Conclusions Among patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer, the use of IMRT compared with conformal radiation therapy was associated with less gastrointestinal morbidity and fewer hip fractures but more erectile dysfunction; IMRT compared with proton therapy was associated with less gastrointestinal morbidity. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1611-1620

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据