Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Comparative effectiveness of moderate hypofractionation with volumetric modulated arc therapy versus conventional 3D-radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy

M. Moll, D. D'Andrea, A. Zaharie, B. Grubmüller, C. Paschen, S. Zehetmayer, SF. Shariat, J. Widder, G. Goldner

. 2022 ; 198 (8) : 719-726. [pub] 20220313

Jazyk angličtina Země Německo

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22025121

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer is well established for definitive treatment, but not well defined in the postoperative setting. The purpose of this analysis was to assess oncologic outcomes and toxicity in a large cohort of patients treated with conventionally fractionated three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy (CF) and hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy (HF) after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Between 1994 and 2019, a total of 855 patients with prostate carcinoma were treated by postoperative radiotherapy using CF (total dose 65-72 Gy, single fraction 1.8-2 Gy) in 572 patients and HF (total dose 62.5-63.75 Gy, single fraction 2.5-2.55 Gy) in 283 patients. The association of treatment modality with biochemical control, overall survival (OS), and gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was assessed using logistic and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two modalities regarding biochemical control rates (77% versus 81%, respectively, for HF and CF at 24 months and 58% and 64% at 60 months; p = 0.20). OS estimates after 5 years: 95% versus 93% (p = 0.72). Patients undergoing HF had less frequent grade 2 or higher acute GI or GU side effects (p = 0.03 and p = 0.005, respectively). There were no differences in late GI side effects between modalities (hazard ratio 0.99). Median follow-up was 23 months for HF and 72 months for CF (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For radiation therapy of resected prostate cancer, our analysis of this largest single-centre cohort (n = 283) treated with hypofractionation with advanced treatment techniques compared with conventional fractionation did not yield different outcomes in terms of biochemical control and toxicities. Prospective investigating of HF is merited.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22025121
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20221031100336.0
007      
ta
008      
221017s2022 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00066-022-01909-2 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)35284951
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Moll, Matthias $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. matthias.moll@meduniwien.ac.at $1 https://orcid.org/0000000155238866
245    10
$a Comparative effectiveness of moderate hypofractionation with volumetric modulated arc therapy versus conventional 3D-radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy / $c M. Moll, D. D'Andrea, A. Zaharie, B. Grubmüller, C. Paschen, S. Zehetmayer, SF. Shariat, J. Widder, G. Goldner
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer is well established for definitive treatment, but not well defined in the postoperative setting. The purpose of this analysis was to assess oncologic outcomes and toxicity in a large cohort of patients treated with conventionally fractionated three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy (CF) and hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy (HF) after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Between 1994 and 2019, a total of 855 patients with prostate carcinoma were treated by postoperative radiotherapy using CF (total dose 65-72 Gy, single fraction 1.8-2 Gy) in 572 patients and HF (total dose 62.5-63.75 Gy, single fraction 2.5-2.55 Gy) in 283 patients. The association of treatment modality with biochemical control, overall survival (OS), and gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was assessed using logistic and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two modalities regarding biochemical control rates (77% versus 81%, respectively, for HF and CF at 24 months and 58% and 64% at 60 months; p = 0.20). OS estimates after 5 years: 95% versus 93% (p = 0.72). Patients undergoing HF had less frequent grade 2 or higher acute GI or GU side effects (p = 0.03 and p = 0.005, respectively). There were no differences in late GI side effects between modalities (hazard ratio 0.99). Median follow-up was 23 months for HF and 72 months for CF (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For radiation therapy of resected prostate cancer, our analysis of this largest single-centre cohort (n = 283) treated with hypofractionation with advanced treatment techniques compared with conventional fractionation did not yield different outcomes in terms of biochemical control and toxicities. Prospective investigating of HF is merited.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a prostata $x patologie $7 D011467
650    _2
$a prostatektomie $7 D011468
650    12
$a nádory prostaty $x patologie $x radioterapie $x chirurgie $7 D011471
650    _2
$a hypofrakcionace při ozařování $7 D000069473
650    12
$a radioterapie s modulovanou intenzitou $x metody $7 D050397
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a D'Andrea, David $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Zaharie, Alexandru $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Grubmüller, Bernhard $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Paschen, Christopher $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria $u Division of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Zehetmayer, Sonja $u Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Section for Medical Statistics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation $u Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
700    1_
$a Widder, Joachim $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Goldner, Gregor $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
773    0_
$w MED00010658 $t Strahlentherapie und Onkologie $x 1439-099X $g Roč. 198, č. 8 (2022), s. 719-726
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35284951 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20221017 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20221031100334 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1854695 $s 1176411
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 198 $c 8 $d 719-726 $e 20220313 $i 1439-099X $m Strahlentherapie und Onkologie $n Strahlenther Onkol $x MED00010658
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20221017

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace