局部前列腺癌的放射治疗:一项多中心分析,评估1293名患者接受近距离放射治疗和体外放射治疗后的肿瘤控制情况和后期毒性。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Strahlentherapie und Onkologie Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-15 DOI:10.1007/s00066-024-02222-w
Matthias Moll, Elisabeth Nechvile, Christian Kirisits, Oxana Komina, Thomas Pajer, Bettina Kohl, Marcin Miszczyk, Joachim Widder, Tomas-Hendrik Knocke-Abulesz, Gregor Goldner
{"title":"局部前列腺癌的放射治疗:一项多中心分析,评估1293名患者接受近距离放射治疗和体外放射治疗后的肿瘤控制情况和后期毒性。","authors":"Matthias Moll, Elisabeth Nechvile, Christian Kirisits, Oxana Komina, Thomas Pajer, Bettina Kohl, Marcin Miszczyk, Joachim Widder, Tomas-Hendrik Knocke-Abulesz, Gregor Goldner","doi":"10.1007/s00066-024-02222-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Comparing oncological outcomes and toxicity after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer using HDR- or LDR-mono-brachytherapy (BT), or conventionally (CF) or moderately hypofractionated (HF) external beam radiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Retrospectively, patients with low- (LR) or favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer treated between 03/2000 and 09/2022 in two centers were included. Treatment was performed using either CF with total doses between 74 and 78 Gy, HF with 2.4-2.6 Gy per fraction in 30 fractions, or LDR- or HDR-BT. Biochemical control (BC) according to the Phoenix criteria, and late gastrointestinal (GI), and genitourinary (GU) toxicity according to RTOG/EORTC criteria were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 1293 patients, 697 with LR and 596 with IR prostate cancer. Of these, 470, 182, 480, and 161 were treated with CF, HF, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT, respectively. For BC, we did not find a significant difference between treatments in LR and IR (p = 0.31 and 0.72). The 5‑year BC for LR was between 93 and 95% for all treatment types. For IR, BC was between 88% in the CF and 94% in the HF group. For CF and HF, maximum GI and GU toxicity grade ≥ 2 was between 22 and 27%. For LDR-BT, we observed 67% grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity. Maximum GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity was 9%. For HDR-BT, we observed 1% GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity and 19% GU grade ≥ 2 toxicity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All types of therapy were effective and well received. HDR-BT caused the least late toxicities, especially GI.</p>","PeriodicalId":21998,"journal":{"name":"Strahlentherapie und Onkologie","volume":" ","pages":"698-705"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11272802/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer: a multicenter analysis evaluating tumor control and late toxicity after brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy in 1293 patients.\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Moll, Elisabeth Nechvile, Christian Kirisits, Oxana Komina, Thomas Pajer, Bettina Kohl, Marcin Miszczyk, Joachim Widder, Tomas-Hendrik Knocke-Abulesz, Gregor Goldner\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00066-024-02222-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Comparing oncological outcomes and toxicity after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer using HDR- or LDR-mono-brachytherapy (BT), or conventionally (CF) or moderately hypofractionated (HF) external beam radiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Retrospectively, patients with low- (LR) or favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer treated between 03/2000 and 09/2022 in two centers were included. Treatment was performed using either CF with total doses between 74 and 78 Gy, HF with 2.4-2.6 Gy per fraction in 30 fractions, or LDR- or HDR-BT. Biochemical control (BC) according to the Phoenix criteria, and late gastrointestinal (GI), and genitourinary (GU) toxicity according to RTOG/EORTC criteria were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 1293 patients, 697 with LR and 596 with IR prostate cancer. Of these, 470, 182, 480, and 161 were treated with CF, HF, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT, respectively. For BC, we did not find a significant difference between treatments in LR and IR (p = 0.31 and 0.72). The 5‑year BC for LR was between 93 and 95% for all treatment types. For IR, BC was between 88% in the CF and 94% in the HF group. For CF and HF, maximum GI and GU toxicity grade ≥ 2 was between 22 and 27%. For LDR-BT, we observed 67% grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity. Maximum GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity was 9%. For HDR-BT, we observed 1% GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity and 19% GU grade ≥ 2 toxicity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All types of therapy were effective and well received. HDR-BT caused the least late toxicities, especially GI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Strahlentherapie und Onkologie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"698-705\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11272802/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Strahlentherapie und Onkologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-024-02222-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strahlentherapie und Onkologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-024-02222-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:比较使用HDR或LDR单次近距离放射治疗(BT)、常规(CF)或中度低分次(HF)体外放射治疗对局部前列腺癌进行初治后的肿瘤学结果和毒性:回顾性纳入2000年3月至2022年9月期间在两个中心接受治疗的低危(LR)或中危(IR)前列腺癌患者。治疗采用总剂量介于 74 和 78 Gy 之间的 CF、每分 30 次、每次 2.4-2.6 Gy 的 HF 或 LDR- 或 HDR-BT。根据菲尼克斯标准评估生化控制(BC),根据RTOG/EORTC标准评估晚期胃肠道(GI)和泌尿生殖系统(GU)毒性:我们确定了 1293 名患者,其中 697 名为 LR 型前列腺癌患者,596 名为 IR 型前列腺癌患者。其中,470、182、480 和 161 例分别接受了 CF、HF、LDR-BT 和 HDR-BT 治疗。在 BC 方面,我们没有发现 LR 和 IR 治疗方法之间存在显著差异(P = 0.31 和 0.72)。在所有治疗类型中,LR 的 5 年 BC 在 93% 到 95% 之间。对于 IR,CF 组的 BC 为 88%,HF 组为 94%。对于CF和HF,消化道和泌尿道毒性≥2级的最高比例在22%和27%之间。对于 LDR-BT,我们观察到 67% 的胃肠道毒性≥2 级。消化道毒性≥2级的比例最高为9%。对于HDR-BT,我们观察到1%的消化道毒性≥2级,19%的胃肠道毒性≥2级:结论:所有类型的治疗均有效,且反应良好。结论:所有类型的治疗都有效且疗效良好,HDR-BT引起的晚期毒性反应最少,尤其是消化道毒性反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer: a multicenter analysis evaluating tumor control and late toxicity after brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy in 1293 patients.

Background and purpose: Comparing oncological outcomes and toxicity after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer using HDR- or LDR-mono-brachytherapy (BT), or conventionally (CF) or moderately hypofractionated (HF) external beam radiotherapy.

Materials and methods: Retrospectively, patients with low- (LR) or favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer treated between 03/2000 and 09/2022 in two centers were included. Treatment was performed using either CF with total doses between 74 and 78 Gy, HF with 2.4-2.6 Gy per fraction in 30 fractions, or LDR- or HDR-BT. Biochemical control (BC) according to the Phoenix criteria, and late gastrointestinal (GI), and genitourinary (GU) toxicity according to RTOG/EORTC criteria were assessed.

Results: We identified 1293 patients, 697 with LR and 596 with IR prostate cancer. Of these, 470, 182, 480, and 161 were treated with CF, HF, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT, respectively. For BC, we did not find a significant difference between treatments in LR and IR (p = 0.31 and 0.72). The 5‑year BC for LR was between 93 and 95% for all treatment types. For IR, BC was between 88% in the CF and 94% in the HF group. For CF and HF, maximum GI and GU toxicity grade ≥ 2 was between 22 and 27%. For LDR-BT, we observed 67% grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity. Maximum GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity was 9%. For HDR-BT, we observed 1% GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity and 19% GU grade ≥ 2 toxicity.

Conclusion: All types of therapy were effective and well received. HDR-BT caused the least late toxicities, especially GI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
12.90%
发文量
141
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, published monthly, is a scientific journal that covers all aspects of oncology with focus on radiooncology, radiation biology and radiation physics. The articles are not only of interest to radiooncologists but to all physicians interested in oncology, to radiation biologists and radiation physicists. The journal publishes original articles, review articles and case studies that are peer-reviewed. It includes scientific short communications as well as a literature review with annotated articles that inform the reader on new developments in the various disciplines concerned and hence allow for a sound overview on the latest results in radiooncology research. Founded in 1912, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie is the oldest oncological journal in the world. Today, contributions are published in English and German. All articles have English summaries and legends. The journal is the official publication of several scientific radiooncological societies and publishes the relevant communications of these societies.
期刊最新文献
[Longterm outcome of definitive radiotherapy using IMRT vs. 3D-CRT in locally advanced, inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)]. Non-coding RNAs modulation in breast cancer radioresponse: mechanisms and therapeutic implications. Interstitial HDR brachytherapy for anal cancer-results and quality of life. Efficacy of palliative hemostatic radiotherapy for tumor bleeding and pain relief in locally advanced pelvic gynecological malignancies. Friedrich Dessauer-reflections on his political and personal sacrifices : In reply to: Benzaquen et al. "Friedrich Dessauer (1881-1963): The forgotten medical physicist, politician, and philosopher".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1