4.6 Review

Optimal scheduling of hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review and metanalysis of randomized clinical trials

期刊

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 22-29

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.07.003

关键词

Hypofractionated radiotherapy; Scheduling; Biochemical failure; Late toxicity; Localized prostate cancer

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We sought to determine the optimal hypofractionated regimens of moderately hypofractionated (HFRT) versus conventionally fractionated (CFRT) external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer (LPCA), having as primary endpoints the 5-year biochemical failure (BF) and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. Methods and materials: We performed a systematic literature review of the Medline and National Library of Medicine databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. Only phase III trials of CFRT versus moderate HFRT for LPCa, reporting 5-year BF and/or minimum 3-year late >= G2 toxicity rates were considered. Results: A total of 11 manuscripts reporting the outcomes of 8145 patients gathered from 9 randomized trials met the eligibility criteria. No significant difference between CFRT and HFRT was found in any of the investigated outcome measures. 80%, 15% and 29% isolevel curves for freedom from BF (FFBF), GI and GU toxicity, respectively, resulting from grouping the median values of all endpoints, were calculated as a function of both total dose (Dtot) and dose per fraction (d). Trials using fractionation schedules (d x n) lying above the FFBF and below toxicity isolevels are expected to produce the best therapeutic ratio. Conclusions: Our analysis indicates an optimal therapeutic window within which Dtot, d and n can be safely adjusted. Owing to both the risks of uncertainty due to inclusion of trials with d up to 3.5 Gy, and the exploitation of different cell killing mechanisms associated to larger d, the extrapolation to extremely hypo-fractionated regimens is not warranted.

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

4.6
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