Investigation of bladder dose and volume factors influencing late urinary toxicity after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Background: We sought to identify the bladder dose–volume factors associated with an increased risk of late urinary toxicity among prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: This retrospective analysis included data from 128 prostate cancer patients treated on protoco...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics biology, physics, 2007-03, Vol.67 (4), p.1059-1065
Hauptverfasser: Cheung, M. Rex, M.D., Ph.D, Tucker, Susan L., Ph.D, Dong, Lei, Ph.D, de Crevoisier, Renaud, M.D, Lee, Andrew K., M.D., M.P.H, Frank, Steven, M.D, Kudchadker, Rajat J., Ph.D, Thames, Howard, Ph.D, Mohan, Radhe, Ph.D, Kuban, Deborah, M.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: We sought to identify the bladder dose–volume factors associated with an increased risk of late urinary toxicity among prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: This retrospective analysis included data from 128 prostate cancer patients treated on protocol with 2 Gy/fraction to 46 Gy followed by a boost to 78 Gy. The endpoint for this analysis was Grade 1 or greater late genitourinary (GU) toxicity occurring within two years of treatment. The Lyman-Kutcher-Burman, mean dose, threshold dose, and hottest volume models were fitted to the toxicity data using the maximum likelihood method. Results: Model fits based on dose–volume histograms tended to fit the toxicity data better than models based on dose–wall histograms. The hottest volume (hotspot) model was found to be the best-fitting model investigated. The best fit was for the hottest 2.9% of bladder (95% CI, 1.1–6.8%). This model has an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74. The hotspot model separated the patients into clinically meaningful subgroups with ∼25% of the patients who received
ISSN:0360-3016
1879-355X
DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.10.042