Search

BACKGROUND: Studies using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) dose escalation in in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients have indicated favorable outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate tolerance and tumor control outcomes in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with high-dose SBRT following our phase 1 trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 551 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with SBRT. INTERVENTION: Treatment with 37.5–40 Gy SBRT in five fractions directed to the prostate and seminal vesicles. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcome measurements included acute toxicities (3 mo after RT) and tumor control evaluation (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels at 3–6-mo intervals and post-treatment prostate biopsy at 2 yr). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities occurred in 1.8% of patients, and late grade 2 and 3 GI toxicities were observed in 3.4% and 0.4% of patients, respectively. Acute grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicities occurred in 10% of patients, and grade 3–5 acute GU toxicities were observed in 0.7% of patients. Late grade 2 and 3 GU toxicities were observed in 21.1% and 2.5% of patients, respectively. The use of a hydrogel rectal spacer was significantly associated with reduced late GI toxicity and lower odds of developing late GU toxicity. The median follow-up was 17 mo, and 53% of those with at least 2 yr of follow-up (103/193) had a biopsy performed. The 5-yr cumulative incidence of PSA failure was 2.1%, and the incidence of a positive 2-yr treatment biopsy was 12%. Limitations to this report include its retrospective nature and short follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS: Favorable short-term outcomes were achieved with high-dose SBRT for low- and intermediate-risk disease. Severe late toxicities were observed and favorable tumor control was found. PATIENT SUMMARY: We utilized stereotactic body radiotherapy, a form of external beam radiotherapy that delivers highly targeted high-dose treatment to the prostate, to treat over 500 localized prostate cancer patients in five sessions over 1.5 wk. Treatments were well tolerated without significant urinary or rectal side effects. Nearly 90% of those who underwent biopsies after treatment did not demonstrate residual active disease.

The purpose of this study was to perform in-vivo dosimetry using a diode rectal dosimeter in phantom and compare the dose delivered to the rectum between the dose measured by the diode dosimeter and the dose calculated by the treatment planning system in cervical cancer. The PTW T9112 diode detector calibrations were performed to find the correction factor. Then the calibrated diode detector was used to measure the radiation dose received in the rectum area in the in-house pelvic phantom. An Iridium-192 source was loaded into the phantom with 7 Gy, the measurements were 3 times per treatment plan, with 15 total plans studied. The average cumulative charge (nC) of each plan was converted to the absorbed dose (mGy) for comparison with the treatment planning system. Finally, to test the hypothesis that an absorbed dose from the detector and the treatment planning system were not significantly different, dependent t-test statistical analysis was applied with p-value0.05. For distance and direction correction factors, we found that the factors were approximately 1 at 5 cm and 180°. The percentage differences of radiation dose between the diode dosimeter and the treatment planning system were between -3.3 and 4.1%. Statistical analysis revealed that the doses from the detector and the treatment planning system were not statistically significant different. The comparison showed that the percent difference between diode dosimeter and treatment planning system was acceptable to perform the in vivo dosimetry in brachytherapy. Therefore, the diode detector may be a suitable candidate for a treatment verification system in cervical cancer brachytherapy to prevent the dose delivery errors that directly affect the prognosis and may cause complications for the patient.

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the toxicity of prostate and pelvic lymph node stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials Twenty-three patients with high-risk or lymph node-positive prostate cancer were treated with SBRT that delivered 37.5 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles, with concomitant treatment of the pelvic nodes to 25 Gy. In general, patients received neoadjuvant, concurrent, and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for a duration of 18 months. Toxicities were evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. The median follow-up was 19 months (range, 3-48 months). Results Acute grade 1 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were noted in 2 patients (9.1%). No patient experienced acute grade ≥2 GI toxicity. Acute genitourinary (GU) grade 1, 2, and 3 toxicities were observed in 7 patients (31.8%), 8 patients (36.4%), and 1 patient (4.5%), respectively. Late grade 2 GI and GU toxicities were observed in 2 patients (9.1%) and 6 patients (27.3%), respectively. No late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was noted. Late grade ≥3 GU (hemorrhagic cystitis) was noted in 1 patient (4.5%), which responded to laser fulguration. Conclusions SBRT with pelvic lymph node radiation therapy was feasible and well tolerated. The incidence of grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicities was uncommon. Continued follow-up will be required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of this approach for high-risk patients.

Additional file 1: Table S1. A comparison of treatment outcomes between CF-PMRT and HF-PMRT.

The conventional radiotherapy (CRT) in postmastectomy breast cancer is 1.8-2.0 Gy daily for 25 fractions, while hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) delivered dose in fewer fractions with larger radiation intensity. The present study compares the efficacy of HFRT and CRT.From 2004 to 2006, 215 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Sixty seven patients received CRT and 148 patients received HFRT (2.65 Gy in 16-18 fractions). Five-year locoregional control (LRC), disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicities were analyzed.Median follow-up was 39 months. Five-year LRC was 86.6% in CRT and 85.8% in HFRT (p = 0.852). Five-year DFS was 62.7% and 69.6% (p = 0.136) in CRTand HFRT respectively. Patients who received HFRT had significant increase in 5-year OS (62.7% and 73.0% (p = 0.048). No difference of toxicities including changes in chest wall appearance, skin fibrosis, brachial plexopathy, arm edema, pulmonary fibrosis, rib fractures and cardiovascular events was found between two groups.HFRT is as effective as CRT in postmastectomy breast cancer.