Efficacy and toxicity of conventionally fractionated pelvic radiation with a hypofractionated simultaneous versus conventionally fractionated sequential boost for patients with high-risk prostate cancer

Academic Article

Abstract

  • Purpose. To determine if high-risk prostate cancer responds differently to hypofractionation. Material and methods. One hundred and fifty-seven men with NCCN high-risk (T3, PSA > 20, or Gleason ≥ 8) clinically localized prostate cancer treated between 1998 and 2010 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis. Eighty-two were treated with conventional WPRT with a conventionally fractionated sequential boost to the prostate (cRT), with the prostate receiving 75-77 Gy in 1.8-2.0 Gy fractions. Seventy-five were treated with pelvic IMRT with a hypofractionated simultaneous boost to the prostate (hRT), with the prostate receiving 70 Gy in 2.5 Gy fractions. The dose to the pelvic lymph nodes was 45 Gy in the cRT group and 50.4 Gy in the hRT group, both at 1.8 Gy per fraction. Ninety-two percent received neoadjuvant hormonal ablation therapy, typically beginning two months prior to the start of RT. Results. Median follow-up was 6.5 years for men receiving cRT and 3.7 years for those receiving hRT. The actuarial rate of biochemical control at four years was 88% for cRT and 94% for hRT (p = 0.82). The rates of early rectal and urinary grade ≥ 2 toxicities were 35% (29 of 82) and 49% (40 of 82) for the cRT group and 36% (27 of 75) and 44% (33 of 75) for the hRT group. The actuarial rate of late grade ≥ 2 rectal toxicity at four years was 25% for the cRT group and 13% for the hRT group (p = 0.037). The rate of late grade 3 rectal complications was 4% (3 of 82) for patients receiving cRT and 1% (1 of 75) for patients receiving hRT. Conclusion. Initial follow-up indicates equivalent biochemical control between regimens. Patients receiving hRT experienced fewer late rectal complications. © 2013 Informa Healthcare.
  • Published In

    Digital Object Identifier (doi)

    Author List

  • Mcdonald AM; Jacob R; Dobelbower MC; Kim RY; Fiveash JB
  • Start Page

  • 1181
  • End Page

  • 1188
  • Volume

  • 52
  • Issue

  • 6