Contemporary Issues in Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

Khor, Richard; Williams, Scott

doi:10.1016/j.hoc.2013.08.006

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 163 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of fiducials allows not only for visualization of the exact position of a prostate gland, but also for a significant reduction in radiotherapy planning margins [ 6 – 9 ]. Before the implementation of markers, bony matching techniques were used daily with two dimensional - planar orthogonal kV radiographs [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 10 – 12 ]. Other methods of IGRT include the use of ultrasound, megavoltage X-ray imaging, electromagnetic tracking, MRI or cone beam computed tomography [ 13 – 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of treatment outcome between fiducial-based and bone-based image guided radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purposeTo compare the clinical outcome in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy using two forms of image guidance: bone-based (BB) or fiducial-based (FB).Material and methodsThis retrospective study consisted of 180 patients treated with kV-kV image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) between the years 2008 and 2011. A total of 89 patients were aligned to pelvic bone (Group BB) and 91 patients to the fiducial implanted into prostate for image guidance (Group FB). Patients were treated to a total dose of 76 Gy in 38 fractions. The Cox Regression Model was used to evaluate the influence of clinical and treatment-related parameters on overall survival, biochemical progression and progression-free survival. Acute and late toxicity were evaluated based on the RTOG/EORTC criteria. Sexual function was assessed with QLQ PR-25 (EORTC QLQ forms). An assessment of the differences in patient daily set-up from the time of simulation was performed.ResultsThe incidence of acute G2/G3 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was similar between groups. In the BB group, 34 patients had G2 and 5 had G3 GU acute toxicity - compared to 40 patients with G2 and 2 with G3 in the FB group. G2 and G3 GI acute toxicity was observed respectively in 24 patients and in 1 patient in the BB group compared to 18 patients with G2 and 1 patient with G3 toxicity in the FB group. The five-year incidence of late ≥G2 GU toxicity was 12% in both groups (p = 0.98) and ≥ G2 GI toxicity 19% (BB) vs 15% (FB, p = 0.55), respectively. The five-year progression-free survival rate was 87% in BB and 81% in the FB Group (p = 0.15). The 5-year Overall Survival rate (OS) was 80% (BB) vs 91% % (FB, p = 0.20), but the difference was most pronounced in the intermediate-risk group: 5-year OS of 93% (FB) and 75% (BB), respectively (p = 0.06). No significant changes were observed in sexual or erectile functioning as compared to that specified at the beginning of radiotherapy and between the FB and BB Groups.ConclusionWhen comparing bone-based to fiducial-based techniques, no differences in clinical outcomes or late toxicity were seen in this population. However, intermediate risk prostate cancer patients are those who might benefit most from implementation of fiducial-based IGRT.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of treatment outcome between fiducial-based and bone-based image guided radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Radiotherapy (RT) is widely used in the treatment of prostate cancer because it can greatly improve local regional control of tumors 1 , 2 . However, some toxic effects of adjacent non‐cancerous tissues, including gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse effects, have been induced 3 , 4 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric comparison of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer: a meta‐analysis

Ren

Sun

Liu

et al. 2016

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are two main radiotherapy techniques. The aim of this study is to explore which is the preferred technique in prostate treatment through the related publications and meta‐analysis. Two authors independently identified all relevant articles available regarding eligibility criteria on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until December 2015. Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plot, and statistical analyses were performed with Stata software. P<0.05 was thought statistically significant. Ten studies comprised a total of 110 patients; in total 110 IMRT plans and 110 VMAT plans that were included in this study. V40, V60, and V70 of rectum were significantly decreased in VMAT than in IMRT. However, V50 of rectum and V40, V50, V60, V70 of bladder had no statistical differences between IMRI and VMAT plans. Compared with IMRT, the treatment time and MUs of VMAT were significantly lower. VMAT protects rectum better than IMRT and improves the delivery efficiency. VMAT may be the preferred modality for treating prostate cancer.PACS number(s): 87.55. D‐

show abstract

“…Androgens are important mitogens in prostate cancer in all phases of the disease. 13 The addition of ADT to XRT improves biochemical and survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced disease or with poor risk factors. 14 15 16 The studies comparing XRT with or without ADT are given in Table 3 .…”

Section: Role Of Androgen Deprivation Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

External beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Yılmaz

Aksu²,

Dillioğlugil³

2015

Asian J Androl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiotherapy (XRT) is a curative treatment option for prostate cancer (PCa). Recent XRT technologies allow higher dose therapy that lead to increased local control with less adjacent tissue damage. Additionally, receiving neo-adjuvant or adjuvant hormonotherapy (HT) during radiation therapy increases the curative effect. The aim of this paper is to review the current literature and guidelines on external beam radiation therapy for PCa. However, brachytherapy and radiosurgery, a recently evolving relatively new technology for the radiotherapeutic management of localized PCa, are beyond the scope of this paper.

show abstract

Contemporary Issues in Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

Cited by 4 publications

References 163 publications

A comparison of treatment outcome between fiducial-based and bone-based image guided radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients

A comparison of treatment outcome between fiducial-based and bone-based image guided radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients

Dosimetric comparison of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer: a meta‐analysis

External beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About