Clinical and Dosimetric Comparison Between Non-image Guided Radiation Therapy and Fiducial-Based Image Guided Radiation Therapy With or Without Reduced Margin in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer
{"title":"Clinical and Dosimetric Comparison Between Non-image Guided Radiation Therapy and Fiducial-Based Image Guided Radiation Therapy With or Without Reduced Margin in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer","authors":"Itsuko Serizawa PhD , Takuyo Kozuka PhD , Takashi Soyano MD , Kazuma Sasamura MD , Tatsuya Kamima Bsc , Hiroaki Kunogi PhD , Nozomi Kurihara MPh , Noboru Numao PhD , Shinya Yamamoto PhD , Junji Yonese PhD , Yasuo Yoshioka PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study aimed to compare the outcomes and toxicities between patients treated with image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) using fiducial markers and non-IGRT in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><p>In total, 518 patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer received IMRT with 78 Gy in 39 fractions after neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for at least 3 months. Of these patients, 371 were in the non-IGRT group and 147 in the IGRT group, including the IGRT-A group using the same margins as the non-IGRT group and the IGRT-B group using reduced margins. The median follow-up periods for the non-IGRT, IGRT-A, and IGRT-B groups were 99 months, 88 months, and 63 months, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates in the non-IGRT, IGRT-A, and IGRT-B groups were 88%, 95%, and 98% (non-IGRT vs IGRT-A, <em>P</em> = .396; IGRT-A vs IGRT-B, <em>P</em> = .426), respectively. Those for intermediate- and high-risk patients were 94%, 93%, and 96% (non-IGRT vs IGRT-A, <em>P</em> = .916; IGRT-A vs IGRT-B, <em>P</em> = .646), respectively, and 87%, 96%, and 100% (non-IGRT vs IGRT-A, <em>P</em> = .500; IGRT-A vs IGRT-B, <em>P</em> = .483), respectively. For the non-IGRT and IGRT-A groups, the rates of acute grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities and late grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities were 17% and 7% (<em>P</em> = .019), respectively, and 28% and 16% (<em>P</em> = .028), respectively. In the IGRT-A and IGRT-B groups, the rates of acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities were 45% and 21% (<em>P</em> = .003), respectively. All V60<sub>Gy</sub> = the volume at least received 60Gy and V70<sub>Gy</sub> = the volume at least received 70Gy values of the bladder and rectal walls in the IGRT-B group were smaller than those in the IGRT-A group.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>IGRT with fiducial markers results in lower acute and late toxicities compared with non-IGRT in IMRT for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Moreover, the toxicities are further decreased by reducing the margins in the treatment planning under IGRT. These processes do not decrease the biochemical recurrence-free survival rates.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"9 10","pages":"Article 101612"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109424001751/pdfft?md5=21c1fe3a4833e6fc62e3e79a2ce5fd19&pid=1-s2.0-S2452109424001751-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109424001751","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
This study aimed to compare the outcomes and toxicities between patients treated with image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) using fiducial markers and non-IGRT in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer.
Methods and Materials
In total, 518 patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer received IMRT with 78 Gy in 39 fractions after neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for at least 3 months. Of these patients, 371 were in the non-IGRT group and 147 in the IGRT group, including the IGRT-A group using the same margins as the non-IGRT group and the IGRT-B group using reduced margins. The median follow-up periods for the non-IGRT, IGRT-A, and IGRT-B groups were 99 months, 88 months, and 63 months, respectively.
Results
The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates in the non-IGRT, IGRT-A, and IGRT-B groups were 88%, 95%, and 98% (non-IGRT vs IGRT-A, P = .396; IGRT-A vs IGRT-B, P = .426), respectively. Those for intermediate- and high-risk patients were 94%, 93%, and 96% (non-IGRT vs IGRT-A, P = .916; IGRT-A vs IGRT-B, P = .646), respectively, and 87%, 96%, and 100% (non-IGRT vs IGRT-A, P = .500; IGRT-A vs IGRT-B, P = .483), respectively. For the non-IGRT and IGRT-A groups, the rates of acute grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities and late grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities were 17% and 7% (P = .019), respectively, and 28% and 16% (P = .028), respectively. In the IGRT-A and IGRT-B groups, the rates of acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities were 45% and 21% (P = .003), respectively. All V60Gy = the volume at least received 60Gy and V70Gy = the volume at least received 70Gy values of the bladder and rectal walls in the IGRT-B group were smaller than those in the IGRT-A group.
Conclusions
IGRT with fiducial markers results in lower acute and late toxicities compared with non-IGRT in IMRT for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Moreover, the toxicities are further decreased by reducing the margins in the treatment planning under IGRT. These processes do not decrease the biochemical recurrence-free survival rates.
期刊介绍:
The purpose of Advances is to provide information for clinicians who use radiation therapy by publishing: Clinical trial reports and reanalyses. Basic science original reports. Manuscripts examining health services research, comparative and cost effectiveness research, and systematic reviews. Case reports documenting unusual problems and solutions. High quality multi and single institutional series, as well as other novel retrospective hypothesis generating series. Timely critical reviews on important topics in radiation oncology, such as side effects. Articles reporting the natural history of disease and patterns of failure, particularly as they relate to treatment volume delineation. Articles on safety and quality in radiation therapy. Essays on clinical experience. Articles on practice transformation in radiation oncology, in particular: Aspects of health policy that may impact the future practice of radiation oncology. How information technology, such as data analytics and systems innovations, will change radiation oncology practice. Articles on imaging as they relate to radiation therapy treatment.