To compare late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of radiotherapy (RT) to localized fields for prostate cancer delivered using intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) versus conventional RT (ConvRT). The records of 461 patients were reviewed; 355 patients received IMRT and 106 received ConvRT. Late GU and GI toxicity were compared. Late GU toxicity rates were not significantly different (P ¼ 0.166); however, late GI toxicity rates were lower with IMRT (P ¼ 0.001). Regression analyses demonstrated that only IMRT use (P ¼ 0.006) predicted reduction in late GI toxicity but no factors correlated with late GU toxicity. IMRT did not influence late GU toxicity but was associated with a reduction of late GI toxicity over ConvRT.
Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has achieved widespread use for prostate cancer; however, in relation to this use, outcomes studies are still relatively sparse. We report a single-institutional experience in outcomes analysis with the use of IMRT for the primary management of prostate cancer. One hundred thirty consecutive patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate were treated at a single institution using IMRT with curative intent. Thirty-six (28%) patients were classified as low-risk, 69 (53%) as intermediate-risk, and 25 (19%) as high-risk. The median dose prescription was 76 Gy to the planning target volume. Sixty-five (50%) patients received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a median 4 months, starting 2 months prior to IMRT. Biochemical failure was defined as PSA < post-treatment nadir+2. Gastrointestinal (GI) and Genitourinary (GU) toxicity were defined by RTOG criteria. Median follow-up was 53 months. By NCCN risk category, 4-year biochemical control was 97%, 94%, and 87% for low, intermediate, and high-risk patients, respectively. Among disease factors, multivariable analysis demonstrated the strongest association between biochemical control and Gleason score < or =6 (p=0.0371). Therapy was well tolerated with no Grade 4 toxicity and limited grade 3 GI or GU toxicity. Acute Grade 3+ GI and GU toxicity rates were 0% and 2%, and maximal late Grade 3+ GI and GU toxicity rates were 5% and 6%, respectively. Late rectal toxicity was associated with higher volumes of RT to the rectum. By last follow-up late Grade 3+ toxicity was 2% for both GI and GU systems. In conclusion, patients treated with IMRT for prostate cancer have excellent rates of biochemical control and low rates of severe toxicity of treatment.
BACKGROUND: Substantial experimental evidence suggests that anticoagulants (ACs) may inhibit cancer growth and metastasis, although the limited data from clinical trials have been inconsistent. The potential antineoplastic effect of ACs was investigated in patients who received radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 662 patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate who received radiotherapy (RT) with curative intent. Among those 622 men, 243 (37%) were receiving ACs (warfarin, clopidogrel, and/or aspirin). All patients received external-beam RT, permanent seed implantation, or a combination of both. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values were monitored for biochemical control of disease. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 49 months, the biochemical control rate at 4-years was significantly better in patients who received ACs at 91% compared with 78% in patients who did not receive ACs (P ¼ .0002). The distant metastasis rate at 4 years also was reduced in the AC group compared with the non-AC group (1% vs 5%; P ¼ .0248). In subgroup analysis, the improvement in biochemical control was significant only for patients with high-risk disease. Along with Gleason score, T classification, and initial PSA, the use of AC therapy was associated independently with improved biochemical control in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: AC therapy was associated with an improvement in biochemical control in patients with prostate cancer who received RT with curative intent. The effect was most prominent in patients who had high-risk disease.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.