Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer
Abstract The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D’Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of radiation research 2022-07, Vol.63 (4), p.666-674 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 674 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 666 |
container_title | Journal of radiation research |
container_volume | 63 |
creator | Kita, Nozomi Shibamoto, Yuta Takemoto, Shinya Manabe, Yoshihiko Yanagi, Takeshi Sugie, Chikao Tomita, Natsuo Iwata, Hiromitsu Murai, Taro Hashimoto, Shingo Ishikura, Satoshi |
description | Abstract
The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D’Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy. Overall, 165 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT using a sliding window technique, 66 were then treated with helical tomotherapy and 77 were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The median age of patients was 71 years. The median follow-up period was 75 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 95.5 and 91.6% in the 5-field IMRT group, 95.1 and 90.3% in the tomotherapy group and 93.0 and 88.6% in the VMAT group, respectively, with no significant differences among the three groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 7.3 and 6.2%, respectively, for all patients. Late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicities were less frequent in patients undergoing VMAT (0%) than in patients undergoing 5-field IMRT (7.3%) and those undergoing tomotherapy (11%) (P = 0.025), and this finding appeared to be correlated with the better rectal DVH parameters in patients undergoing VMAT. Other toxicities did not differ significantly among the three groups, although bladder dose-volume parameters were slightly worse in the tomotherapy group than in the other groups. Despite differences in the IMRT delivery methods, X-ray energies and daily registration methods, all modalities may be used as IMRT for localized prostate cancer. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jrr/rrac027 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9303627</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A769112233</galeid><oup_id>10.1093/jrr/rrac027</oup_id><sourcerecordid>A769112233</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-9c79fed84bd13776bf818fbe5e45fc398aed29cbd294ac92410b5836dc477dab3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kt1qFTEUhYMo9li98gUCggg6bX5mJpObQjn4BwVv9Dpkkp2elEwyZjKV49v4pqacY6UgEkh2sr-1CJuF0EtKziiR_Pwm5_OctSFMPEIbylvZSNqJx2hD2lpz0pMT9GxZbkglSEeeohPeCdbzlm3Qr22aZp39kiJODvtYIC6-7Jsp2TXoAhZnbX0qO8h63uMfvuxwveCucR6CxQXMLvrvK7zDOwje6IBLmu55HS2-TWGdoGRv8F9XnQ3-A7mUcUhV6n_WzpzTUiqDjY4G8nP0xOmwwIvjeYq-fXj_dfupufry8fP28qox7UBKI42QDuzQjpZyIfrRDXRwI3TQds5wOWiwTJqxbq02krWUjN3Ae2taIawe-Sm6OPjO6ziBNRBL1kHN2U8671XSXj3sRL9T1-lWSU54z0Q1eHM0yKnOYylq8ouBEHSEtC6K9UIyLigfKvrqgF7rAMpHl6qjucPVpeglpYxxXqmzf1B1WZi8SRGcr-8PBG8PAlNHuGRw97-nRN1lRdWsqGNWKv36QKd1_i_4GzK6xCQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2679237138</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Kita, Nozomi ; Shibamoto, Yuta ; Takemoto, Shinya ; Manabe, Yoshihiko ; Yanagi, Takeshi ; Sugie, Chikao ; Tomita, Natsuo ; Iwata, Hiromitsu ; Murai, Taro ; Hashimoto, Shingo ; Ishikura, Satoshi</creator><creatorcontrib>Kita, Nozomi ; Shibamoto, Yuta ; Takemoto, Shinya ; Manabe, Yoshihiko ; Yanagi, Takeshi ; Sugie, Chikao ; Tomita, Natsuo ; Iwata, Hiromitsu ; Murai, Taro ; Hashimoto, Shingo ; Ishikura, Satoshi</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D’Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy. Overall, 165 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT using a sliding window technique, 66 were then treated with helical tomotherapy and 77 were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The median age of patients was 71 years. The median follow-up period was 75 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 95.5 and 91.6% in the 5-field IMRT group, 95.1 and 90.3% in the tomotherapy group and 93.0 and 88.6% in the VMAT group, respectively, with no significant differences among the three groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 7.3 and 6.2%, respectively, for all patients. Late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicities were less frequent in patients undergoing VMAT (0%) than in patients undergoing 5-field IMRT (7.3%) and those undergoing tomotherapy (11%) (P = 0.025), and this finding appeared to be correlated with the better rectal DVH parameters in patients undergoing VMAT. Other toxicities did not differ significantly among the three groups, although bladder dose-volume parameters were slightly worse in the tomotherapy group than in the other groups. Despite differences in the IMRT delivery methods, X-ray energies and daily registration methods, all modalities may be used as IMRT for localized prostate cancer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0449-3060</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1349-9157</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrac027</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35726342</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Care and treatment ; Health aspects ; Methods ; Oncology / Medicine ; Prostate cancer ; Radiation ; Radiotherapy</subject><ispartof>Journal of radiation research, 2022-07, Vol.63 (4), p.666-674</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japanese Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology. 2022</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Oxford University Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-9c79fed84bd13776bf818fbe5e45fc398aed29cbd294ac92410b5836dc477dab3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-9c79fed84bd13776bf818fbe5e45fc398aed29cbd294ac92410b5836dc477dab3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9303627/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9303627/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,1598,27903,27904,53769,53771</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kita, Nozomi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shibamoto, Yuta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takemoto, Shinya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manabe, Yoshihiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yanagi, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugie, Chikao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomita, Natsuo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iwata, Hiromitsu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murai, Taro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hashimoto, Shingo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishikura, Satoshi</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer</title><title>Journal of radiation research</title><description>Abstract
The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D’Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy. Overall, 165 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT using a sliding window technique, 66 were then treated with helical tomotherapy and 77 were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The median age of patients was 71 years. The median follow-up period was 75 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 95.5 and 91.6% in the 5-field IMRT group, 95.1 and 90.3% in the tomotherapy group and 93.0 and 88.6% in the VMAT group, respectively, with no significant differences among the three groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 7.3 and 6.2%, respectively, for all patients. Late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicities were less frequent in patients undergoing VMAT (0%) than in patients undergoing 5-field IMRT (7.3%) and those undergoing tomotherapy (11%) (P = 0.025), and this finding appeared to be correlated with the better rectal DVH parameters in patients undergoing VMAT. Other toxicities did not differ significantly among the three groups, although bladder dose-volume parameters were slightly worse in the tomotherapy group than in the other groups. Despite differences in the IMRT delivery methods, X-ray energies and daily registration methods, all modalities may be used as IMRT for localized prostate cancer.</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Oncology / Medicine</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiotherapy</subject><issn>0449-3060</issn><issn>1349-9157</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>TOX</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kt1qFTEUhYMo9li98gUCggg6bX5mJpObQjn4BwVv9Dpkkp2elEwyZjKV49v4pqacY6UgEkh2sr-1CJuF0EtKziiR_Pwm5_OctSFMPEIbylvZSNqJx2hD2lpz0pMT9GxZbkglSEeeohPeCdbzlm3Qr22aZp39kiJODvtYIC6-7Jsp2TXoAhZnbX0qO8h63uMfvuxwveCucR6CxQXMLvrvK7zDOwje6IBLmu55HS2-TWGdoGRv8F9XnQ3-A7mUcUhV6n_WzpzTUiqDjY4G8nP0xOmwwIvjeYq-fXj_dfupufry8fP28qox7UBKI42QDuzQjpZyIfrRDXRwI3TQds5wOWiwTJqxbq02krWUjN3Ae2taIawe-Sm6OPjO6ziBNRBL1kHN2U8671XSXj3sRL9T1-lWSU54z0Q1eHM0yKnOYylq8ouBEHSEtC6K9UIyLigfKvrqgF7rAMpHl6qjucPVpeglpYxxXqmzf1B1WZi8SRGcr-8PBG8PAlNHuGRw97-nRN1lRdWsqGNWKv36QKd1_i_4GzK6xCQ</recordid><startdate>20220701</startdate><enddate>20220701</enddate><creator>Kita, Nozomi</creator><creator>Shibamoto, Yuta</creator><creator>Takemoto, Shinya</creator><creator>Manabe, Yoshihiko</creator><creator>Yanagi, Takeshi</creator><creator>Sugie, Chikao</creator><creator>Tomita, Natsuo</creator><creator>Iwata, Hiromitsu</creator><creator>Murai, Taro</creator><creator>Hashimoto, Shingo</creator><creator>Ishikura, Satoshi</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>TOX</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220701</creationdate><title>Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer</title><author>Kita, Nozomi ; Shibamoto, Yuta ; Takemoto, Shinya ; Manabe, Yoshihiko ; Yanagi, Takeshi ; Sugie, Chikao ; Tomita, Natsuo ; Iwata, Hiromitsu ; Murai, Taro ; Hashimoto, Shingo ; Ishikura, Satoshi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-9c79fed84bd13776bf818fbe5e45fc398aed29cbd294ac92410b5836dc477dab3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Oncology / Medicine</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiotherapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kita, Nozomi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shibamoto, Yuta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takemoto, Shinya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manabe, Yoshihiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yanagi, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugie, Chikao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomita, Natsuo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iwata, Hiromitsu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murai, Taro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hashimoto, Shingo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishikura, Satoshi</creatorcontrib><collection>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of radiation research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kita, Nozomi</au><au>Shibamoto, Yuta</au><au>Takemoto, Shinya</au><au>Manabe, Yoshihiko</au><au>Yanagi, Takeshi</au><au>Sugie, Chikao</au><au>Tomita, Natsuo</au><au>Iwata, Hiromitsu</au><au>Murai, Taro</au><au>Hashimoto, Shingo</au><au>Ishikura, Satoshi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer</atitle><jtitle>Journal of radiation research</jtitle><date>2022-07-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>63</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>666</spage><epage>674</epage><pages>666-674</pages><issn>0449-3060</issn><eissn>1349-9157</eissn><abstract>Abstract
The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D’Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy. Overall, 165 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT using a sliding window technique, 66 were then treated with helical tomotherapy and 77 were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The median age of patients was 71 years. The median follow-up period was 75 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 95.5 and 91.6% in the 5-field IMRT group, 95.1 and 90.3% in the tomotherapy group and 93.0 and 88.6% in the VMAT group, respectively, with no significant differences among the three groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 7.3 and 6.2%, respectively, for all patients. Late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicities were less frequent in patients undergoing VMAT (0%) than in patients undergoing 5-field IMRT (7.3%) and those undergoing tomotherapy (11%) (P = 0.025), and this finding appeared to be correlated with the better rectal DVH parameters in patients undergoing VMAT. Other toxicities did not differ significantly among the three groups, although bladder dose-volume parameters were slightly worse in the tomotherapy group than in the other groups. Despite differences in the IMRT delivery methods, X-ray energies and daily registration methods, all modalities may be used as IMRT for localized prostate cancer.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>35726342</pmid><doi>10.1093/jrr/rrac027</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0449-3060 |
ispartof | Journal of radiation research, 2022-07, Vol.63 (4), p.666-674 |
issn | 0449-3060 1349-9157 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9303627 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Oxford Journals Open Access Collection; PubMed Central |
subjects | Cancer Care and treatment Health aspects Methods Oncology / Medicine Prostate cancer Radiation Radiotherapy |
title | Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T21%3A45%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20intensity-modulated%20radiotherapy%20with%20the%205-field%20technique,%20helical%20tomotherapy%20and%20volumetric%20modulated%20arc%20therapy%20for%20localized%20prostate%20cancer&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20radiation%20research&rft.au=Kita,%20Nozomi&rft.date=2022-07-01&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=666&rft.epage=674&rft.pages=666-674&rft.issn=0449-3060&rft.eissn=1349-9157&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jrr/rrac027&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA769112233%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2679237138&rft_id=info:pmid/35726342&rft_galeid=A769112233&rft_oup_id=10.1093/jrr/rrac027&rfr_iscdi=true |