Search

Ik hoop u duidelijk gemaakt te hebben dat er al veel bekend is over radiotherapie voor urogenitale tumoren, maar dat er ook nog veel te onderzoeken valt. Het is onze taak als radiotherapeut-oncologen om technieken en bestralingschema’s te ontwikkelen die de bijwerkingen van de behandeling doen verminderen. Het is noodzakelijk dat we het mechanisme van stralingsschade beter gaan begrijpen en dat we combinatiebehandelingen toepassen die betere resultaten leveren met minder bijwerkingen. De patiënt en zijn familie moeten centraal staan bij de beslissing welke behandeling voor hem of haar het meest geschikt is. We kunnen samen zeker beter met minder doen!

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: In 2007, we began the randomised phase 3 multicentre HYPRO trial to investigate the effect of hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with prostate cancer. Here, we examine whether patients experience differences in acute gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse effects. METHODS: In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b-T4 NX-0MX-0 prostate cancer, a PSA concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0-2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3.4 Gy in 6.5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint is 5-year relapse-free survival. Here we report data for the acute toxicity outcomes: the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. Non-inferiority of hypofractionation was tested separately for genitourinary and gastrointestinal acute toxic effects, with a null hypothesis that cumulative incidences of each type of adverse event were not more than 8% higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group. We scored acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic effects according to RTOG-EORTC criteria from both case report forms and patients' self-assessment questionnaires, at baseline, twice during radiotherapy, and 3 months after completion of radiotherapy. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Patient recruitment has been completed. This study is registered with www.controlled-trials.com, numbe

Background: In 2007, we began the randomised phase 3 multicentre HYPRO trial to investigate the effect of hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with prostate cancer. Here, we examine whether patients experience differences in acute gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse effects. Methods: In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b-T4 NX-0MX-0 prostate cancer, a PSA concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0-2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3·4 Gy in 6·5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint is 5-year relapse-free survival. Here we report data for the acute toxicity outcomes: the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. Non-inferiority of hypofractionation was tested separately for genitourinary and gastrointestinal acute toxic effects, with a null hypothesis that cumulative incidences of each type of adverse event were not more than 8% higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group. We scored a

Sexual dysfunction is very common after treatment of prostate cancer. Radiation therapy together with radical prostatectomy is the most effective treatment for localized disease. Percentages of erectile dysfunction (ED) reported in prospective studies after external-beam radiotherapy (RT) vary from 60-70%, and these are similar after brachytherapy. In randomized trials more realistic percentages of 30-40% are reported. Modern techniques do not seem to decrease post-radiation ED. No final conclusions can be drawn whether or not the radiation dose to the penile structures correlates with post-radiation ED in patients treated for prostate cancer. The etiology of ED after RT of prostate cancer is most probably multi-factorial. The phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-I) sildenafil and tadalafil have been shown to be effective to treat post-radiation ED in about half of the patients in randomized trials. Patients and their partners need to be adequately counselled on the effects of cancer treatment on their sexual life and relationship, and about the different treatment possibilities. Sexual counselling has not become yet a routine part of oncology care in most hospitals, but this should be provided. Due to the lack of robust data, prevention of post-radiation ED with PDE5-I cannot be recommended so far.

A recently published paper addressed the interesting topic of prevention of erectile dysfunction (ED) with tadalafil, a phosphodiesterase-type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) in patients undergoing radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. [1]Tadalafil 5 mg or placebo was administered once-daily for 24 weeks in patients undergoing external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or brachytherapy (BT) for prostate cancer. This randomized trial did not show superior efficacy of the active drug compared with placebo 4-6 weeks after stopping the study drug. Furthermore, patients younger than 65 years did not respond significantly better than older patients.