Justin D Anderson, Molly M Voss, Brady S Laughlin, Allison E Garda, Khaled Aziz, Trey C Mullikin, Michael G Haddock, Ivy A Petersen, Todd A DeWees, Sujay A Vora
{"title":"子宫癌质子束治疗与调强放疗的疗效比较。","authors":"Justin D Anderson, Molly M Voss, Brady S Laughlin, Allison E Garda, Khaled Aziz, Trey C Mullikin, Michael G Haddock, Ivy A Petersen, Todd A DeWees, Sujay A Vora","doi":"10.14338/IJPT-22-00020.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in patients with endometrial cancer receiving adjuvant pelvic radiation therapy with proton beam therapy (PT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients with uterine cancer treated with curative intent who received either adjuvant PT or IMRT between 2014 and 2020 were identified. Patients were enrolled into a prospective registry using a gynecologic-specific subset of PRO-CTCAE designed to assess symptom impact on daily living. Questions included gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms of diarrhea, flatulence, bowel incontinence, and constipation in addition to other pertinent gynecologic, urinary, and other general symptoms. Symptom-based questions were on a 0- to 4-point scale, with grade 3+ symptoms occurring frequently or almost always. Patient-reported toxicity was analyzed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment. Unequal variance <i>t</i> tests were used to determine if treatment type was a significant factor in baseline-adjusted PRO-CTCAE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-seven patients met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two received PT and 45 patients received IMRT. Brachytherapy boost was delivered in 73% of patients. Median external beam dose was 45 Gy for both PT and IMRT (range, 45-58.8 Gy). When comparing PRO-CTCAE, PT was associated with less diarrhea at EOT (<i>P</i> = .01) and at 12 months (<i>P</i> = .24) than IMRT. Loss of bowel control at 12 months was more common in patients receiving IMRT (<i>P</i> = .15). Any patient reporting grade 3+ GI toxicity was noted more frequently with IMRT (31% versus 9%, <i>P</i> = .09).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Adjuvant PT is a promising treatment for patients with uterine cancer and may reduce patient-reported GI toxicity as compared with IMRT.</p>","PeriodicalId":36923,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","volume":"9 3","pages":"10-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875825/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of Proton Beam Therapy Compared With Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Uterine Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Justin D Anderson, Molly M Voss, Brady S Laughlin, Allison E Garda, Khaled Aziz, Trey C Mullikin, Michael G Haddock, Ivy A Petersen, Todd A DeWees, Sujay A Vora\",\"doi\":\"10.14338/IJPT-22-00020.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in patients with endometrial cancer receiving adjuvant pelvic radiation therapy with proton beam therapy (PT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients with uterine cancer treated with curative intent who received either adjuvant PT or IMRT between 2014 and 2020 were identified. Patients were enrolled into a prospective registry using a gynecologic-specific subset of PRO-CTCAE designed to assess symptom impact on daily living. Questions included gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms of diarrhea, flatulence, bowel incontinence, and constipation in addition to other pertinent gynecologic, urinary, and other general symptoms. Symptom-based questions were on a 0- to 4-point scale, with grade 3+ symptoms occurring frequently or almost always. Patient-reported toxicity was analyzed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment. Unequal variance <i>t</i> tests were used to determine if treatment type was a significant factor in baseline-adjusted PRO-CTCAE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-seven patients met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two received PT and 45 patients received IMRT. Brachytherapy boost was delivered in 73% of patients. Median external beam dose was 45 Gy for both PT and IMRT (range, 45-58.8 Gy). When comparing PRO-CTCAE, PT was associated with less diarrhea at EOT (<i>P</i> = .01) and at 12 months (<i>P</i> = .24) than IMRT. Loss of bowel control at 12 months was more common in patients receiving IMRT (<i>P</i> = .15). Any patient reporting grade 3+ GI toxicity was noted more frequently with IMRT (31% versus 9%, <i>P</i> = .09).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Adjuvant PT is a promising treatment for patients with uterine cancer and may reduce patient-reported GI toxicity as compared with IMRT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36923,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Particle Therapy\",\"volume\":\"9 3\",\"pages\":\"10-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875825/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Particle Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-22-00020.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-22-00020.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Outcomes of Proton Beam Therapy Compared With Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Uterine Cancer.
Purpose: To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in patients with endometrial cancer receiving adjuvant pelvic radiation therapy with proton beam therapy (PT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).
Materials and methods: Patients with uterine cancer treated with curative intent who received either adjuvant PT or IMRT between 2014 and 2020 were identified. Patients were enrolled into a prospective registry using a gynecologic-specific subset of PRO-CTCAE designed to assess symptom impact on daily living. Questions included gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms of diarrhea, flatulence, bowel incontinence, and constipation in addition to other pertinent gynecologic, urinary, and other general symptoms. Symptom-based questions were on a 0- to 4-point scale, with grade 3+ symptoms occurring frequently or almost always. Patient-reported toxicity was analyzed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment. Unequal variance t tests were used to determine if treatment type was a significant factor in baseline-adjusted PRO-CTCAE.
Results: Sixty-seven patients met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two received PT and 45 patients received IMRT. Brachytherapy boost was delivered in 73% of patients. Median external beam dose was 45 Gy for both PT and IMRT (range, 45-58.8 Gy). When comparing PRO-CTCAE, PT was associated with less diarrhea at EOT (P = .01) and at 12 months (P = .24) than IMRT. Loss of bowel control at 12 months was more common in patients receiving IMRT (P = .15). Any patient reporting grade 3+ GI toxicity was noted more frequently with IMRT (31% versus 9%, P = .09).
Discussion: Adjuvant PT is a promising treatment for patients with uterine cancer and may reduce patient-reported GI toxicity as compared with IMRT.