Comparative toxicity outcomes of proton‐beam therapy versus intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the postoperative setting. Issue 23 (10th September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Santos, Patricia Mae G.; Barsky, Andrew R.; Hwang, Wei‐Ting; Deville, Curtiland; Wang, Xingmei; Both, Stefan; Bekelman, Justin E.; Christodouleas, John P.; Vapiwala, Neha
• Is Part Of: Cancer. Volume 125:Issue 23(2019)
• Page Start: 4278
• Page End: 4293
• Publication Date: 2019-09-10
• Subjects: adjuvant radiation -- gastrointestinal toxicity -- genitourinary toxicity -- intensity‐modulated radiation therapy -- postoperative radiation -- prostate cancer -- proton therapy -- salvage radiation; Cancer -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Cytopathology -- Periodicals; 616.99405
• DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32457
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0008-543X

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Despite increasing utilization of proton‐beam therapy (PBT) in the postprostatectomy setting, no data exist regarding toxicity outcomes relative to intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The authors compared acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PC) who received treatment with postprostatectomy IMRT versus PBT. Methods: With institutional review board approval, patients with PC who received adjuvant or salvage IMRT or PBT (70.2 gray with an endorectal balloon) after prostatectomy from 2009 through 2017 were reviewed. Factors including combined IMRT and PBT and/or concurrent malignancies prompted exclusion. A case‐matched cohort analysis was performed using nearest‐neighbor 3‐to‐1 matching by age and GU/GI disorder history. Logistic and Cox regressions were used to identify univariate and multivariate associations between toxicities and cohort/dosimetric characteristics. Toxicity‐free survival (TFS) was assessed using the Kaplan‐Meier method. Results: Three hundred seven men (mean ± SD age, 59.7 ± 6.3 years; IMRT, n = 237; PBT, n = 70) were identified, generating 70 matched pairs. The median follow‐up was 48.6 and 46.1 months for the IMRT and PBT groups, respectively. Although PBT was superior at reducing low‐range (volumes receiving 10% to 40% of the dose, respectively) bladder and rectal doses (all P ≤ .01), treatment modality was not associated with differences in clinician‐reported acute or late GU/GI toxicities (all P ≥ .05). Five‐year grade ≥2 GU and grade ≥1 GI TFS was 61.1% and 73.7% for IMRT, respectively, and 70.7% and 75.3% for PBT, respectively; and 5‐year grade ≥3 GU and GI TFS was >95% for both groups (all P ≥ .05). Conclusions: Postprostatectomy PBT minimized low‐range bladder and rectal doses relative to IMRT; however, treatment modality was not associated with clinician‐reported GU/GI toxicities. Future prospective investigation and ongoing follow‐up will determine whether dosimetric differences between IMRT and PBT confer clinically meaningful differences in long‐term outcomes. Abstract : Despite increasing utilization of proton‐beam therapy in the postprostatectomy setting, no data exist regarding toxicity outcomes relative to intensity‐modulated radiotherapy. In this case‐matched cohort analysis, the authors demonstrate that proton‐beam therapy is superior at minimizing low‐dose radiation to the bladder and rectum relative to intensity‐modulated radiotherapy; however, these dosimetric advantages are not associated with differences in clinician‐reported genitourinary/gastrointestinal toxicities.