Search

Purpose: To update the analysis of the Dutch dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: A total of 669 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive 68 or 78 Gy. The patients were stratified by age, institution, use of neoadjuvant or adjuvant hormonal therapy, and treatment group. The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF), with failure defined as clinical or biochemical failure. Two definitions of biochemical failure were used: the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition (three consecutive increases in prostate-specific antigen level) and the Phoenix definition (nadir plus 2 μg/L). The secondary endpoints were freedom from clinical failure, overall survival, and genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. Results: After a median follow-up of 70 months, the FFF using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition was significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 54% vs. 47%, respectively; p = 0.04). The FFF using the Phoenix definition was also significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 56% vs. 45%, respectively; p = 0.03). However, no differences in freedom from clinical failure or overall survival were observed. The incidence of late Grade 2 or greater genitourinary toxicity was similar in both arms (40% and 41% at 7 years; p = 0.6). However, the cumulative incidence of late Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxicity was increased in the 78-Gy arm compared with the 68-Gy arm (35% vs. 25% at 7 years; p = 0.04). Conclusion: The results of our study have shown a statistically significant improvement in FFF in prostate cancer patients treated with 78 Gy but with a greater rate of late gastrointestinal toxicity. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To identify dosimetric parameters derived from anorectal, rectal, and anal wall dose distributions that correlate with different late gastrointestinal (GI) complications after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: In this analysis, 641 patients from a randomized trial (68 Gy vs. 78 Gy) were included. Toxicity was scored with adapted Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) criteria and five specific complications. The variables derived from dose–volume histogram of anorectal, rectal, and anal wall were as follows: % receiving ≥5–70 Gy (V5–V70), maximum dose (Dmax), and mean dose (Dmean). The anus was defined as the most caudal 3 cm of the anorectum. Statistics were done with multivariate Cox regression models. Median follow-up was 44 months. Results: Anal dosimetric variables were associated with RTOG/EORTC Grade ≥2 (V5–V40, Dmean) and incontinence (V5–V70, Dmean). Bleeding correlated most strongly with anorectal V55–V65, and stool frequency with anorectal V40 and Dmean. Use of steroids was weakly related to anal variables. No volume effect was seen for RTOG/EORTC Grade ≥3 and pain/cramps/tenesmus. Conclusion: Different volume effects were found for various late GI complications. Therefore, to evaluate the risk of late GI toxicity, not only intermediate and high doses to the anorectal wall volume should be taken into account, but also the dose to the anal wall. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To identify dosimetric variables predictive of acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity and to determine whether hormonal therapy (HT) is independently associated with acute GI and GU toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with conformal radiotherapy (RT). Methods and Materials: This analysis was performed on 336 patients participating in a multicenter (four hospitals) randomized trial comparing 68 Gy and 78 Gy. The clinical target volume consisted of the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles, depending on the risk of seminal vesicle involvement. The margin from the clinical target volume to the planning target volume was 1 cm. For these patients, the treatment plan for a total dose of 68 Gy was used, because nearly all toxicity appeared before the onset of the 10-Gy boost. Acute toxicity (<120 days) was scored according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria. The dosimetric parameters were obtained from the relative and absolute dose–volume/surface histograms derived from the rectal wall (rectal wall volume receiving ≥5–65 Gy) and the bladder surface (bladder surface receiving ≥5–65 Gy). Additionally, relative and absolute dose–length histograms of the rectum were created, and the lengths of rectum receiving more than a certain dose over the whole circumference (rectal length receiving ≥5–65 Gy) were computed. The clinical variables taken into account for GI toxicity were neoadjuvant HT, hospital, and dose–volume group; for GU toxicity, the variables pretreatment GU symptoms, neoadjuvant HT, and transurethral resection of the prostate were analyzed. The variable neoadjuvant HT was divided into three categories: no HT, short-term neoadjuvant HT (started ≤3 months before RT), and long-term neoadjuvant HT (started >3 months before RT). Results: Acute GI toxicity Grade 2 or worse was seen in 46% of the patients. Patients with long-term neoadjuvant HT experienced less Grade 2 or worse toxicity (27%) compared with those receiving short-term neoadjuvant HT (50%) and no HT (50%). The volumes of the prostate and seminal vesicles were significantly smaller in both groups receiving neoadjuvant HT compared with those receiving no HT. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, including the two statistically significant clinical variables neoadjuvant HT and hospital, a volume effect was found for the relative, as well as absolute, rectal wall volumes exposed to intermediate and high doses. Of all the length parameters, the relative rectal length irradiated to doses of ≥5 Gy and ≥30 Gy and absolute lengths receiving ≥5–15 and 30 Gy were significant. Acute GU toxicity Grade 2 or worse was reported in 56% of cases. For patients with pretreatment GU symptoms, the rate was 93%. The use of short-term and long-term neoadjuvant HT resulted in more GU toxicity (73% and 71%) compared with no HT (50%). In multivariate analysis, containing the variables pretreatment symptoms and neoadjuvant HT, only the absolute dose–surface histogram parameters (absolute surface irradiated to ≥40, 45, and 65 Gy) were significantly associated with acute GU toxicity. Conclusion: A volume effect was found for acute GI toxicity for relative, as well as absolute, volumes. With regard to acute GU toxicity, an area effect was found, but only for absolute dose–surface histogram parameters. Neoadjuvant HT appeared to be an independent prognostic factor for acute toxicity, resulting in less acute GI toxicity, but more acute GU toxicity. The presence of pretreatment GU symptoms was the most important prognostic factor for GU symptoms during RT. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To compare acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects in prostate cancer patients randomized to receive 68 Gy or 78 Gy. Methods and materials: Between June 1997 and February 2003, 669 prostate cancer patients were randomized between radiotherapy with a dose of 68 Gy and 78 Gy, in 2 Gy per fraction and using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. All T stages with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <60 ng/mL were included, except any T1a and well-differentiated T1b-c tumors with PSA ≤4 ng/mL. Stratification was done for four dose–volume groups (according to the risk of seminal vesicles [SV] involvement), age, hormonal treatment (HT), and hospital. The clinical target volume (CTV) consisted of the prostate with or without the SV, depending on the estimated risk of SV invasion. The CTV–planning target volume (PTV) margin was 1 cm for the first 68 Gy and was reduced to 0.5 cm (0 cm toward the rectum) for the last 10 Gy in the 78 Gy arm. Four Dutch hospitals participated in this Phase III trial. Evaluation of acute and late toxicity was based on 658 and 643 patients, respectively. For acute toxicity (<120 days), the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scoring system was used and the maximum score was reported. Late toxicity (>120 days) was scored according to the slightly adapted RTOG/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. Results: The median follow-up time was 31 months. For acute toxicity no significant differences were seen between the two randomization arms. GI toxicity Grade 2 and 3 was reported as the maximum acute toxicity in 44% and 5% of the patients, respectively. For acute GU toxicity, these figures were 41% and 13%. No significant differences between both randomization arms were seen for late GI and GU toxicity, except for rectal bleeding requiring laser treatment or transfusion (p = 0.007) and nocturia (p = 0.05). The 3-year cumulative risk of late RTOG/EORTC GI toxicity grade ≥2 was 23.2% for 68 Gy, and 26.5% for 78 Gy (p = 0.3). The 3-year risks of late RTOG/EORTC GU toxicity grade ≥2 were 28.5% and 30.2% for 68 Gy and 78 Gy, respectively (p = 0.3). Factors related to acute GI toxicity were HT (p < 0.001), a higher dose–volume group (p = 0.01), and pretreatment GI symptoms (p = 0.04). For acute GU toxicity, prognostic factors were: pretreatment GU symptoms (p < 0.001), HT (p = 0.003), and prior transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (p = 0.02). A history of abdominal surgery (p < 0.001) and pretreatment GI symptoms (p = 0.001) were associated with a higher incidence of late GI grade ≥2 toxicity, whereas HT (p < 0.001), pretreatment GU symptoms (p < 0.001), and prior TURP (p = 0.006) were prognostic factors for late GU grade ≥2. Conclusions: Raising the dose to the prostate from 68 Gy to 78 Gy resulted in higher incidences of acute and late GI and GU toxicity, but these differences were not significant, except for late rectal bleeding requiring treatment and late nocturia. Other factors than the studied dose levels appeared to be important in predicting toxicity after radiotherapy, especially previous surgical interventions (abdominal surgery or TURP), hormonal therapy, and the presence of pretreatment symptoms. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]