4.2 Article

Chronic genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity of prostate cancer patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy with intensity-modulated versus 4-field technique

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.coc.0000256705.93441.a0

关键词

prostate cancer; radiotherapy; intensity modulation radiotherapy; toxicity; outcomes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare chronic GU and GI toxicity of pelvic radiotherapy delivered using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus conventional 4-field technique. Methods: The records of consecutive prostate cancer patients receiving RT at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 120 days were reviewed; 48 of these patients received a prostate boost preceded by pelvic radiotherapy (PRT), 14 with IMRT (IM-PRT), and 34 with 4-field (4F-PRT). Dosimetric endpoints for the bladder, rectum, composite, and target for the PRT plans were compared using the 2-tailed t test. Late RTOG GU and GI toxicity were compared using the X-2 test. Ordered logit regression analyses were performed using all major patient, disease, and treatment factors as covariates. Results: IM-PRT demonstrated superior bladder and rectum dosimetric endpoints over 4F-PRT for the PRT portion of the treatment and for the composite treatment at the expense of higher target inhomogeneity in the PRT portion of the treatment plan. Late GU toxicity was significantly lower in the IM-PRT group (P < 0.001), whereas late GI toxicity was similar in both groups (P = 0.44). When considering a similar follow-up interval in both groups, however, the difference in GU toxicity only reached a trend (P = 0.10). The regression analyses showed that no factor, including IMRT, reached significance in predicting GU or GI toxicity. Conclusion: Use of pelvic IMRT for prostate cancer patients was not associated with reduction of late GI toxicity but was associated with a small reduction of late GU toxicity. This reduction of late GU toxicity warrants further exploration in consortium studies.

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

4.2
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