O. Marina

Comparison and limitations of DVH-based NTCP models derived from 3D-CRT and IMRT data for prediction of gastrointestinal toxicities in prostate cancer patients by using propensity score matched pair analysis.

PURPOSEnThis study compared normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modeling of chronic gastrointestinal toxicities following prostate cancer treatment for 2 treatment modalities. Possible factors causing discrepancies in optimal NTCP model parameters between 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and intensity modulated RT (IMRT) were analyzed and discussed, including the impact of patient characteristics, image guidance, toxicity scoring bias, and NTCP model limitations.nnnMETHODS AND MATERIALSnRectal wall dose-volume histograms of 1115 patients treated for prostate cancer under an adaptive radiation therapy protocol were used to model gastrointestinal toxicity grade ≥2 (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). A total of 457 patients were treated with 3D-CRT and 658 with IMRT. 3D-CRT patients were matched to IMRT patients based on various patient characteristics, using a propensity score-based algorithm. Parameters of the Lyman equivalent uniform dose and cut-off dose logistic regression NTCP models were estimated for the 2 matched treatment modalities and the combined group.nnnRESULTSnAfter they were matched, the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups contained 275 and 550 patients with a large discrepancy of 28.7% versus 7.8% toxicities, respectively (P<.001). For both NTCP models, optimal parameters found for the 3D-CRT groups did not fit the IMRT patients well and vice versa. Models developed for the combined data overestimated NTCP for the IMRT patients and underestimated NTCP for the 3D-CRT group.nnnCONCLUSIONSnOur analysis did not reveal a single definitive cause for discrepancies of model parameters between 3D-CRT and IMRT. Patient characteristics and bias in toxicity scoring, as well as image guidance alone, are unlikely causes of the large discrepancy of toxicities. Whether the cause was inherent to the specific NTCP models used in this study needs to be verified by future investigations. Because IMRT is increasingly used clinically, it is important that appropriate NTCP model parameters are determined for this treatment modality.

Comparison of dose-escalated, image-guided radiotherapy vs. dose-escalated, high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in a modern cohort of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients

PURPOSEnWe compared outcomes in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with dose-escalated adaptive image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) or dose-escalated high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-B).nnnMETHODS AND MATERIALSnPatients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria were treated with either CT-based off-line adaptive IGRT (n = 734) or HDR-B (n = 282). IGRT was delivered with 3D-conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a median dose of 77.4 Gy. For HDR-B, the whole pelvis received a median 46 Gy, and the prostate 2 implants of 9.5 Gy (n = 71), 10.5 Gy (n = 155), or 11.5 Gy (n = 56).nnnRESULTSnMedian followup was 3.7 years for IGRT and 8.0 years for HDR-B (p < 0.001). Eight-year biochemical control was 86% for IGRT and 91% for HDR-B (p = 0.22), disease-free survival 67% for IGRT and 79% for HDR-B (p = 0.006), and overall survival 75% for IGRT and 86% for HDR-B (p = 0.009). Cause-specific survival (8-year, 100% vs. 99%), freedom from distant metastases (98% vs. 97%), and freedom from local recurrence (98% vs. 98%) did not differ (p > 0.50 each). A worse prognosis group was defined by percent positive prostate biopsy cores >50%, perineural invasion, or stage T2b-c, encompassing 260 (35%) IGRT and 171 (61%) HDR-B patients. These patients evidenced a 5-year biochemical control of 96% for HDR-B and 87% for IGRT (p = 0.002).nnnCONCLUSIONSnDose-escalated IGRT and HDR-B both yield excellent clinical outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Improved biochemical control with HDR-B for patients with worse pretreatment characteristics suggests that a subgroup of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients may benefit from dual-modality treatment.

An age-corrected matched-pair study of erectile function in patients treated with dose-escalated adaptive image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy vs. high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSEnTo compare erectile dysfunction (ED) after adaptive dose-escalated image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) and high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy (HDR) monotherapy.nnnMETHODS AND MATERIALSnLow- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with IG-IMRT or HDR were matched on pretreatment ED, age, Gleason score, T-stage, and prostate specific antigen. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy were excluded. ED was graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4. Actuarial rates of ED were computed by the Kaplan-Meier method.nnnRESULTSnThere were 384 patients with median followup of 2.0 years (0.5-6.1) for IG-IMRT and 2.0 years (0.5-8.7) for HDR. The median IG-IMRT dose was 75.6xa0Gy and HDR dose 38xa0Gy in four fractions. For patients with no pretreatment ED, actuarial rates of requiring intervention (Grade ≥2 ED) at 3 years were 31% for IG-IMRT and 19% for HDR (p=0.23), and impotence despite medical intervention (Grade 3) were 0% for IG-IMRT and 6% for HDR (p=0.06). For patients with Grade 1 pretreatment ED, Grade ≥2 ED at 3 years were 47% for IG-IMRT and 34% for HDR (p=0.79), and Grade 3 ED were 15% in both groups (p=0.59). For patients with Grade 2 pretreatment ED, Grade 3 ED at 3 years were 22% for IG-IMRT and 37% for HDR (p=0.70). No variables were predictive of Grade ≥2 ED following treatment.nnnCONCLUSIONSnRates of ED requiring medical intervention for both IG-IMRT and HDR are low and equivalent. Even patients with ED before treatment are likely to maintain potency with medication use at 3 years following treatment.