A case‐matched study of toxicity outcomes after proton therapy and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND The authors assessed whether proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer (PCa) was associated with differing toxicity compared with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using case‐matched analysis. METHODS From 2010 to 2012, 394 patients who had localized PCa received 79.2 Gray...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer 2015-04, Vol.121 (7), p.1118-1127
Hauptverfasser: Fang, Penny, Mick, Rosemarie, Deville, Curtiland, Both, Stefan, Bekelman, Justin E., Christodouleas, John P., Guzzo, Thomas J., Tochner, Zelig, Hahn, Stephen M., Vapiwala, Neha
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1127
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1118
container_title Cancer
container_volume 121
creator Fang, Penny
Mick, Rosemarie
Deville, Curtiland
Both, Stefan
Bekelman, Justin E.
Christodouleas, John P.
Guzzo, Thomas J.
Tochner, Zelig
Hahn, Stephen M.
Vapiwala, Neha
description BACKGROUND The authors assessed whether proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer (PCa) was associated with differing toxicity compared with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using case‐matched analysis. METHODS From 2010 to 2012, 394 patients who had localized PCa received 79.2 Gray (Gy) relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) delivered with either PBT (181 patients) or IMRT (213 patients). Patients were case‐matched on risk group, age, and prior gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) disorders, resulting in 94 matched pairs. Both exact matching (risk group) and nearest‐neighbor matching (age, prior GI/GU disorders) were used. Residual confounding was adjusted for by using multivariable regression. Maximum acute and late GI/GU Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events‐graded toxicities were compared using univariate and multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS Bladder and rectum dosimetry variables were significantly lower for PBT versus IMRT (P ≤ .01). The median follow‐up was 47 months (range, 5‐65 months) for patients who received IMRT and 29 months (range, 5‐50 months) for those who received PBT. On multivariable analysis, which exploited case matching and included direct adjustment for confounders and independent predictors, there were no statistically significant differences between IMRT and PBT in the risk of grade ≥2 acute GI toxicity (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐1.24; P = .09), grade ≥2 acute GU toxicity (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.32‐1.51; P = .36), grade ≥2 late GU toxicity (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.22‐1.41; P = .22), and grade ≥2 late GI toxicity (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.53‐2.94; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS In this matched comparison of prospectively collected toxicity data on patients with PCa who received treatment with contemporary IMRT and PBT techniques and similar dose‐fractionation schedules, the risks of acute and late GI/GU toxicities did not differ significantly after adjustment for confounders and predictive factors. Cancer 2015;121:1118–1127. © 2014 American Cancer Society. In this patient‐level, matched comparison of prospectively collected toxicity data on patietns with localized prostate carcinoma who received treated with contemporary IMRT and PBT techniques and similar dose‐fractionation regimens, risks of acute and late GI and GU toxicities were not significantly different after careful adjustment for confounders and predictive factors.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/cncr.29148
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4368478</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1673379960</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5198-8fd565cb6cb6ad938c3defa9df249ebc615e673affbb0e691b018806d9a9a4e13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kd1qFDEUx4NY7Fq98QEklyJMm0zmI7kRyuIXlBZEwbtwJjlxIzOTNcmoe9dH8Bl9ErPdWuqNEEgO55ffSfgT8oyzU85YfWZmE09rxRv5gKw4U33FeFM_JCvGmKzaRnw-Jo9T-lrKvm7FI3Jct00tpFIrcn1ODST8ff1rgmw2aGnKi93R4GgOP73xuZyXbMKEiYLLGOk2hhxmmjcYYbujMFvq54xzKuzeE-wyQi6mCNZD9vdYF26up1z6Ze5sMD4hRw7GhE9v9xPy6c3rj-t31cXV2_fr84vKtFzJSjrbdq0ZurLAKiGNsOhAWVc3CgfT8Ra7XoBzw8CwU3xgXErWWQUKGuTihLw6eLfLMKE1OOcIo95GP0Hc6QBe_9uZ_UZ_Cd91IzrZ9LIIXtwKYvi2YMp68sngOMKMYUmal_GiV6pjBX15QE35a4ro7sZwpveR6X1k-iayAj-__7A79G9GBeAH4IcfcfcflV5frj8cpH8AiNOpOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1673379960</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A case‐matched study of toxicity outcomes after proton therapy and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Fang, Penny ; Mick, Rosemarie ; Deville, Curtiland ; Both, Stefan ; Bekelman, Justin E. ; Christodouleas, John P. ; Guzzo, Thomas J. ; Tochner, Zelig ; Hahn, Stephen M. ; Vapiwala, Neha</creator><creatorcontrib>Fang, Penny ; Mick, Rosemarie ; Deville, Curtiland ; Both, Stefan ; Bekelman, Justin E. ; Christodouleas, John P. ; Guzzo, Thomas J. ; Tochner, Zelig ; Hahn, Stephen M. ; Vapiwala, Neha</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND The authors assessed whether proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer (PCa) was associated with differing toxicity compared with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using case‐matched analysis. METHODS From 2010 to 2012, 394 patients who had localized PCa received 79.2 Gray (Gy) relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) delivered with either PBT (181 patients) or IMRT (213 patients). Patients were case‐matched on risk group, age, and prior gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) disorders, resulting in 94 matched pairs. Both exact matching (risk group) and nearest‐neighbor matching (age, prior GI/GU disorders) were used. Residual confounding was adjusted for by using multivariable regression. Maximum acute and late GI/GU Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events‐graded toxicities were compared using univariate and multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS Bladder and rectum dosimetry variables were significantly lower for PBT versus IMRT (P ≤ .01). The median follow‐up was 47 months (range, 5‐65 months) for patients who received IMRT and 29 months (range, 5‐50 months) for those who received PBT. On multivariable analysis, which exploited case matching and included direct adjustment for confounders and independent predictors, there were no statistically significant differences between IMRT and PBT in the risk of grade ≥2 acute GI toxicity (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐1.24; P = .09), grade ≥2 acute GU toxicity (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.32‐1.51; P = .36), grade ≥2 late GU toxicity (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.22‐1.41; P = .22), and grade ≥2 late GI toxicity (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.53‐2.94; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS In this matched comparison of prospectively collected toxicity data on patients with PCa who received treatment with contemporary IMRT and PBT techniques and similar dose‐fractionation schedules, the risks of acute and late GI/GU toxicities did not differ significantly after adjustment for confounders and predictive factors. Cancer 2015;121:1118–1127. © 2014 American Cancer Society. In this patient‐level, matched comparison of prospectively collected toxicity data on patietns with localized prostate carcinoma who received treated with contemporary IMRT and PBT techniques and similar dose‐fractionation regimens, risks of acute and late GI and GU toxicities were not significantly different after careful adjustment for confounders and predictive factors.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-543X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0142</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29148</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25423899</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Case-Control Studies ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gastrointestinal Diseases - etiology ; Gastrointestinal Diseases - pathology ; gastrointestinal toxicity ; genitourinary toxicity ; Humans ; intensity‐modulated radiation therapy ; Male ; Male Urogenital Diseases - etiology ; Male Urogenital Diseases - pathology ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Grading ; Neoplasm Staging ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; prostate cancer ; Prostatic Neoplasms - complications ; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; proton therapy ; Proton Therapy - adverse effects ; Radiation Injuries - etiology ; Radiation Injuries - pathology ; Radiometry ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - adverse effects</subject><ispartof>Cancer, 2015-04, Vol.121 (7), p.1118-1127</ispartof><rights>2014 American Cancer Society</rights><rights>2014 American Cancer Society.</rights><rights>2014 American Cancer Society. 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5198-8fd565cb6cb6ad938c3defa9df249ebc615e673affbb0e691b018806d9a9a4e13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5198-8fd565cb6cb6ad938c3defa9df249ebc615e673affbb0e691b018806d9a9a4e13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fcncr.29148$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fcncr.29148$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25423899$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fang, Penny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mick, Rosemarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deville, Curtiland</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Both, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bekelman, Justin E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christodouleas, John P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guzzo, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tochner, Zelig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hahn, Stephen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vapiwala, Neha</creatorcontrib><title>A case‐matched study of toxicity outcomes after proton therapy and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer</title><title>Cancer</title><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><description>BACKGROUND The authors assessed whether proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer (PCa) was associated with differing toxicity compared with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using case‐matched analysis. METHODS From 2010 to 2012, 394 patients who had localized PCa received 79.2 Gray (Gy) relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) delivered with either PBT (181 patients) or IMRT (213 patients). Patients were case‐matched on risk group, age, and prior gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) disorders, resulting in 94 matched pairs. Both exact matching (risk group) and nearest‐neighbor matching (age, prior GI/GU disorders) were used. Residual confounding was adjusted for by using multivariable regression. Maximum acute and late GI/GU Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events‐graded toxicities were compared using univariate and multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS Bladder and rectum dosimetry variables were significantly lower for PBT versus IMRT (P ≤ .01). The median follow‐up was 47 months (range, 5‐65 months) for patients who received IMRT and 29 months (range, 5‐50 months) for those who received PBT. On multivariable analysis, which exploited case matching and included direct adjustment for confounders and independent predictors, there were no statistically significant differences between IMRT and PBT in the risk of grade ≥2 acute GI toxicity (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐1.24; P = .09), grade ≥2 acute GU toxicity (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.32‐1.51; P = .36), grade ≥2 late GU toxicity (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.22‐1.41; P = .22), and grade ≥2 late GI toxicity (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.53‐2.94; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS In this matched comparison of prospectively collected toxicity data on patients with PCa who received treatment with contemporary IMRT and PBT techniques and similar dose‐fractionation schedules, the risks of acute and late GI/GU toxicities did not differ significantly after adjustment for confounders and predictive factors. Cancer 2015;121:1118–1127. © 2014 American Cancer Society. In this patient‐level, matched comparison of prospectively collected toxicity data on patietns with localized prostate carcinoma who received treated with contemporary IMRT and PBT techniques and similar dose‐fractionation regimens, risks of acute and late GI and GU toxicities were not significantly different after careful adjustment for confounders and predictive factors.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal Diseases - etiology</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal Diseases - pathology</subject><subject>gastrointestinal toxicity</subject><subject>genitourinary toxicity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>intensity‐modulated radiation therapy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Male Urogenital Diseases - etiology</subject><subject>Male Urogenital Diseases - pathology</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Grading</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>prostate cancer</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - complications</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>proton therapy</subject><subject>Proton Therapy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Radiation Injuries - etiology</subject><subject>Radiation Injuries - pathology</subject><subject>Radiometry</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - adverse effects</subject><issn>0008-543X</issn><issn>1097-0142</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kd1qFDEUx4NY7Fq98QEklyJMm0zmI7kRyuIXlBZEwbtwJjlxIzOTNcmoe9dH8Bl9ErPdWuqNEEgO55ffSfgT8oyzU85YfWZmE09rxRv5gKw4U33FeFM_JCvGmKzaRnw-Jo9T-lrKvm7FI3Jct00tpFIrcn1ODST8ff1rgmw2aGnKi93R4GgOP73xuZyXbMKEiYLLGOk2hhxmmjcYYbujMFvq54xzKuzeE-wyQi6mCNZD9vdYF26up1z6Ze5sMD4hRw7GhE9v9xPy6c3rj-t31cXV2_fr84vKtFzJSjrbdq0ZurLAKiGNsOhAWVc3CgfT8Ra7XoBzw8CwU3xgXErWWQUKGuTihLw6eLfLMKE1OOcIo95GP0Hc6QBe_9uZ_UZ_Cd91IzrZ9LIIXtwKYvi2YMp68sngOMKMYUmal_GiV6pjBX15QE35a4ro7sZwpveR6X1k-iayAj-__7A79G9GBeAH4IcfcfcflV5frj8cpH8AiNOpOQ</recordid><startdate>20150401</startdate><enddate>20150401</enddate><creator>Fang, Penny</creator><creator>Mick, Rosemarie</creator><creator>Deville, Curtiland</creator><creator>Both, Stefan</creator><creator>Bekelman, Justin E.</creator><creator>Christodouleas, John P.</creator><creator>Guzzo, Thomas J.</creator><creator>Tochner, Zelig</creator><creator>Hahn, Stephen M.</creator><creator>Vapiwala, Neha</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150401</creationdate><title>A case‐matched study of toxicity outcomes after proton therapy and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer</title><author>Fang, Penny ; Mick, Rosemarie ; Deville, Curtiland ; Both, Stefan ; Bekelman, Justin E. ; Christodouleas, John P. ; Guzzo, Thomas J. ; Tochner, Zelig ; Hahn, Stephen M. ; Vapiwala, Neha</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5198-8fd565cb6cb6ad938c3defa9df249ebc615e673affbb0e691b018806d9a9a4e13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal Diseases - etiology</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal Diseases - pathology</topic><topic>gastrointestinal toxicity</topic><topic>genitourinary toxicity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>intensity‐modulated radiation therapy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Male Urogenital Diseases - etiology</topic><topic>Male Urogenital Diseases - pathology</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Grading</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>prostate cancer</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - complications</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>proton therapy</topic><topic>Proton Therapy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Radiation Injuries - etiology</topic><topic>Radiation Injuries - pathology</topic><topic>Radiometry</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - adverse effects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fang, Penny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mick, Rosemarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deville, Curtiland</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Both, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bekelman, Justin E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christodouleas, John P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guzzo, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tochner, Zelig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hahn, Stephen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vapiwala, Neha</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fang, Penny</au><au>Mick, Rosemarie</au><au>Deville, Curtiland</au><au>Both, Stefan</au><au>Bekelman, Justin E.</au><au>Christodouleas, John P.</au><au>Guzzo, Thomas J.</au><au>Tochner, Zelig</au><au>Hahn, Stephen M.</au><au>Vapiwala, Neha</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A case‐matched study of toxicity outcomes after proton therapy and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer</atitle><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><date>2015-04-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>121</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1118</spage><epage>1127</epage><pages>1118-1127</pages><issn>0008-543X</issn><eissn>1097-0142</eissn><abstract>BACKGROUND The authors assessed whether proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer (PCa) was associated with differing toxicity compared with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using case‐matched analysis. METHODS From 2010 to 2012, 394 patients who had localized PCa received 79.2 Gray (Gy) relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) delivered with either PBT (181 patients) or IMRT (213 patients). Patients were case‐matched on risk group, age, and prior gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) disorders, resulting in 94 matched pairs. Both exact matching (risk group) and nearest‐neighbor matching (age, prior GI/GU disorders) were used. Residual confounding was adjusted for by using multivariable regression. Maximum acute and late GI/GU Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events‐graded toxicities were compared using univariate and multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS Bladder and rectum dosimetry variables were significantly lower for PBT versus IMRT (P ≤ .01). The median follow‐up was 47 months (range, 5‐65 months) for patients who received IMRT and 29 months (range, 5‐50 months) for those who received PBT. On multivariable analysis, which exploited case matching and included direct adjustment for confounders and independent predictors, there were no statistically significant differences between IMRT and PBT in the risk of grade ≥2 acute GI toxicity (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐1.24; P = .09), grade ≥2 acute GU toxicity (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.32‐1.51; P = .36), grade ≥2 late GU toxicity (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.22‐1.41; P = .22), and grade ≥2 late GI toxicity (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.53‐2.94; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS In this matched comparison of prospectively collected toxicity data on patients with PCa who received treatment with contemporary IMRT and PBT techniques and similar dose‐fractionation schedules, the risks of acute and late GI/GU toxicities did not differ significantly after adjustment for confounders and predictive factors. Cancer 2015;121:1118–1127. © 2014 American Cancer Society. In this patient‐level, matched comparison of prospectively collected toxicity data on patietns with localized prostate carcinoma who received treated with contemporary IMRT and PBT techniques and similar dose‐fractionation regimens, risks of acute and late GI and GU toxicities were not significantly different after careful adjustment for confounders and predictive factors.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>25423899</pmid><doi>10.1002/cncr.29148</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0008-543X
ispartof Cancer, 2015-04, Vol.121 (7), p.1118-1127
issn 0008-543X
1097-0142
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4368478
source Wiley Free Content; MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Case-Control Studies
Follow-Up Studies
Gastrointestinal Diseases - etiology
Gastrointestinal Diseases - pathology
gastrointestinal toxicity
genitourinary toxicity
Humans
intensity‐modulated radiation therapy
Male
Male Urogenital Diseases - etiology
Male Urogenital Diseases - pathology
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Grading
Neoplasm Staging
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
prostate cancer
Prostatic Neoplasms - complications
Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy
proton therapy
Proton Therapy - adverse effects
Radiation Injuries - etiology
Radiation Injuries - pathology
Radiometry
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - adverse effects
title A case‐matched study of toxicity outcomes after proton therapy and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T13%3A39%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20case%E2%80%90matched%20study%20of%20toxicity%20outcomes%20after%20proton%20therapy%20and%20intensity%E2%80%90modulated%20radiation%20therapy%20for%20prostate%20cancer&rft.jtitle=Cancer&rft.au=Fang,%20Penny&rft.date=2015-04-01&rft.volume=121&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1118&rft.epage=1127&rft.pages=1118-1127&rft.issn=0008-543X&rft.eissn=1097-0142&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/cncr.29148&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1673379960%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1673379960&rft_id=info:pmid/25423899&rfr_iscdi=true