Toxicity after three-dimensional radiotherapy for prostate cancer with RTOG 9406 dose level IV

被引:52
作者
Michalski, JM
Winter, K
Purdy, JA
Perez, CA
Ryu, JK
Parliament, MB
Valicenti, RK
Roach, M
Sandler, HM
Markoe, AM
Cox, JD
机构
[1] Washington Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiat Oncol, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
[2] Washington Univ, Sch Med, 3 Dimens Qual Assurance Ctr, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
[3] Univ Calif Davis, Sch Med, Sacramento, CA 95817 USA
[4] Univ Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[5] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[6] Univ Calif San Francisco, Sch Med, San Francisco, CA USA
[7] Univ Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[8] Univ Miami, Miami, FL 33152 USA
[9] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Houston, TX 77030 USA
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS | 2004年 / 58卷 / 03期
关键词
prostate cancer; toxicity; conformal therapy; dose escalation;
D O I
10.1016/S0360-3016(03)01578-5
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: This is the first report of the toxicity outcomes using dose level IV (74 Gy) on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study 9406 for Stage T1-T2 prostate adenocarcinoma. Methods and Materials: A total of 262 patients were entered in this cooperative group, Phase I-II, dose-escalation trial of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for localized prostate carcinoma treated to a dose of 74 Gy (Level IV), 256 patients were analyzable for toxicity. A minimal dose of 2 Gy/fraction was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). Patients were stratified according to the risk of seminal vesicle invasion on the basis of the Gleason score and presenting prostate-specific antigen level. Group 1 patients had clinical Stage T1-T2 tumors with a seminal vesicle invasion risk of <15%. Group 2 patients had clinical Stage T1-T2 tumors with a seminal vesicle invasion risk of ≥15%. Patients in Group 1 were prescribed 74 Gy to a prostate PTV. Patients in Group 2 were prescribed 54 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles (PTV1) followed by a boost to the prostate only (PTV2) to 74 Gy. PTV margins between 5 and 10 turn were required. Elective pelvic radiotherapy was not used. The frequency of late effects of Grade 3 or greater was compared with that for a similar group of patients treated in RTOG studies 7506 and 7706, with length of follow-up adjustments made for the interval from therapy completion. A second comparison was made with 206 patients treated to dose level II (73.8 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions) to see whether the fraction size affected toxicity. Results: The average months at risk for late Grade 3+ toxicity after therapy completion were 28.9 and 23.9 months for Group 1 and 2, respectively. Acute toxicity at dose level IV (74 Gy) was remarkably low, with Grade 3 acute effects reported in only 1% of Group 1 and 3% of Group 2 patients. No Grade 4 or 5 acute toxicities were reported. Late toxicity continued to be low compared with RTOG historical controls. One patient in Group 1 and 4 patients in Group 2 experienced Grade 3 bladder toxicity. Two patients in Group 2 experienced Grade 3 bowel toxicity. No Grade 4 or 5 late effects were reported. The rate of late Grade 2 toxicity (any type) was 23% and 16% in Group 1 and 2, respectively. The observed rate of Grade 3 or greater late effects for Group 1 (1 case) was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) than the 18.5 cases that would have been expected from the historical control data. The observed rate for Group 2 (6 cases) was also significantly lower (p = 0.0009) than the 21.3 cases expected. No statistically significant difference was noted in the rate of acute or late toxicity in patients who were treated to 73.8 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fraction or 74 Gy at 2.0 Gy/fraction. Patients treated with the larger 2.0-Gy fractions tended to have more Grade 3 or greater toxicity than patients treated with 1.8-Gy fractions (2% vs. 1%, p = 0.09). The results after the longer follow-up with dose level H suggest these differences may increase with additional follow-up. Conclusion: Tolerance to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with 74 Gy in 2-Gy fractions remains better than expected compared with historical controls. The magnitude of any effect from fraction size requires additional follow-up. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:735 / 742
页数:8
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]  
*AM JOINT COMM CAN, 1992, AJCC CANC STAG MAN
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1993, 50 ICRU
[3]   Fractionation and protraction for radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma [J].
Brenner, DJ ;
Hall, EJ .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1999, 43 (05) :1095-1101
[4]  
COX DR, 1972, J R STAT SOC B, V34, P187
[5]   Is the α/β ratio for prostate cancer low? [J].
D'Souza, WD ;
Thames, HD .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2001, 51 (01) :1-3
[6]   INDICATIONS FOR AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SEMINAL-VESICLE IRRADIATION DURING 3D CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE-CANCER [J].
DIAZ, A ;
ROACH, M ;
MARQUEZ, C ;
COLEMAN, L ;
PICKETT, B ;
WOLFE, JS ;
CARROLL, P ;
NARAYAN, P .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1994, 30 (02) :323-329
[7]  
Duchesne GM, 1999, INT J RADIAT ONCOL, V44, P747
[8]   A CLASS OF K-SAMPLE TESTS FOR COMPARING THE CUMULATIVE INCIDENCE OF A COMPETING RISK [J].
GRAY, RJ .
ANNALS OF STATISTICS, 1988, 16 (03) :1141-1154
[9]  
Kalbfleisch JD., 1980, STAT ANAL FAILURE TI, P167
[10]   A simple analytic derivation suggests that prostate cancer α/β ratio is low [J].
King, CR ;
Fowler, JF .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2001, 51 (01) :213-214