Moderately hypofractionated prostate-only versus whole-pelvis radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer: A retrospective real-world single-center cohort study

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
{"title":"Moderately hypofractionated prostate-only versus whole-pelvis radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer: A retrospective real-world single-center cohort study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The benefit of prophylactic whole pelvis radiation therapy (WPRT) in prostate cancer has been debated for decades, with evidence based mainly on conventional fractionation targeting pelvic nodes.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This retrospective cohort study aimed to explore the impact of adding moderately hypofractionated pelvic radiotherapy to prostate-only irradiation (PORT) on prognosis, toxicity, and quality of life in real-world settings.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Patients with high-risk and conventionally staged prostate cancer (cT1-3N0M0) treated with moderately hypofractionated WPRT or PORT, using external beam radiotherapy alone or combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy, at Örebro University Hospital between 2008 and 2021 were identified. Biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS) were compared using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards. Toxicity and quality of life measures were also analysed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among 516 patients (227 PORT, 289 WPRT), 5-year BFFS rates were 77 % (PORT) and 74 % (WPRT), adjusted HR=1.50 (95 % CI=0.88–2.55). No significant differences were found in MFS, PCSS, or OS in main analyses. WPRT was associated with a higher risk of acute grade ≥ 2 and 3 genitourinary toxicities whereas no differences in late toxicities or quality of life between PORT and WPRT were observed.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We found no significant differences in oncological outcomes or quality of life when comparing moderately hypofractionated PORT to WPRT. Some differences in toxicity patterns were observed. Despite caveats related to study design, our findings support the need for further research on WPRT’s impact on treatment-related and patient-reported outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10342,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240563082400123X/pdfft?md5=ac075aa12e590c33e0073f55b7bbef0e&pid=1-s2.0-S240563082400123X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240563082400123X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The benefit of prophylactic whole pelvis radiation therapy (WPRT) in prostate cancer has been debated for decades, with evidence based mainly on conventional fractionation targeting pelvic nodes.

Aim

This retrospective cohort study aimed to explore the impact of adding moderately hypofractionated pelvic radiotherapy to prostate-only irradiation (PORT) on prognosis, toxicity, and quality of life in real-world settings.

Materials and methods

Patients with high-risk and conventionally staged prostate cancer (cT1-3N0M0) treated with moderately hypofractionated WPRT or PORT, using external beam radiotherapy alone or combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy, at Örebro University Hospital between 2008 and 2021 were identified. Biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS) were compared using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards. Toxicity and quality of life measures were also analysed.

Results

Among 516 patients (227 PORT, 289 WPRT), 5-year BFFS rates were 77 % (PORT) and 74 % (WPRT), adjusted HR=1.50 (95 % CI=0.88–2.55). No significant differences were found in MFS, PCSS, or OS in main analyses. WPRT was associated with a higher risk of acute grade ≥ 2 and 3 genitourinary toxicities whereas no differences in late toxicities or quality of life between PORT and WPRT were observed.

Conclusion

We found no significant differences in oncological outcomes or quality of life when comparing moderately hypofractionated PORT to WPRT. Some differences in toxicity patterns were observed. Despite caveats related to study design, our findings support the need for further research on WPRT’s impact on treatment-related and patient-reported outcomes.

高风险前列腺癌的适度低分次前列腺单纯放疗与全骨盆放疗对比:回顾性真实世界单中心队列研究
这项回顾性队列研究旨在探讨在单纯前列腺照射(PORT)的基础上增加适度低分次盆腔放疗对预后、毒性和生活质量的影响。材料与方法2008年至2021年期间,厄勒布鲁大学医院对高风险、常规分期的前列腺癌患者(cT1-3N0M0)进行了鉴定,这些患者接受了适度低分次的WPRT或PORT治疗,并单独使用或联合使用了高剂量率近距离放射治疗。采用卡普兰-梅耶法(Kaplan-Meier method)和考克斯比例危险法(Cox proportional hazards)比较了无生化失败生存期(BFFS)、无转移生存期(MFS)、前列腺癌特异性生存期(PCSS)和总生存期(OS)。结果516例患者(227例PORT,289例WPRT)中,5年BFFS率分别为77%(PORT)和74%(WPRT),调整后HR=1.50(95% CI=0.88-2.55)。在主要分析中,MFS、PCSS 或 OS 均无明显差异。WPRT与急性≥2级和3级泌尿生殖系统毒性较高的风险相关,而PORT和WPRT在晚期毒性或生活质量方面没有发现差异。我们观察到毒性模式存在一些差异。尽管存在研究设计方面的注意事项,但我们的研究结果支持进一步研究 WPRT 对治疗相关结果和患者报告结果的影响的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
114
审稿时长
40 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信