Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, Proton Therapy, or Conformal Radiation Therapy and Morbidity and Disease Control in Localized Prostate Cancer

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 04/2012; 307(15):1611-20. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.460
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There has been rapid adoption of newer radiation treatments such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton therapy despite greater cost and limited demonstrated benefit compared with previous technologies.
To determine the comparative morbidity and disease control of IMRT, proton therapy, and conformal radiation therapy for primary prostate cancer treatment.
Population-based study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked data from 2000 through 2009 for patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.
Rates of gastrointestinal and urinary morbidity, erectile dysfunction, hip fractures, and additional cancer therapy.
Use of IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy increased from 0.15% in 2000 to 95.9% in 2008. In propensity score-adjusted analyses (N = 12,976), men who received IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy were less likely to receive a diagnosis of gastrointestinal morbidities (absolute risk, 13.4 vs 14.7 per 100 person-years; relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and hip fractures (absolute risk, 0.8 vs 1.0 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93) but more likely to receive a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction (absolute risk, 5.9 vs 5.3 per 100 person-years; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy patients were less likely to receive additional cancer therapy (absolute risk, 2.5 vs 3.1 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89). In a propensity score-matched comparison between IMRT and proton therapy (n = 1368), IMRT patients had a lower rate of gastrointestinal morbidity (absolute risk, 12.2 vs 17.8 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79). There were no significant differences in rates of other morbidities or additional therapies between IMRT and proton therapy.
Among patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer, the use of IMRT compared with conformal radiation therapy was associated with less gastrointestinal morbidity and fewer hip fractures but more erectile dysfunction; IMRT compared with proton therapy was associated with less gastrointestinal morbidity.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study goals were to characterize gastrointestinal effects of proton therapy (PT) in a large cohort of patients treated for prostate cancer, identify factors associated with rectal bleeding (RB), and compare RB between patients receiving investigational protocols versus those in outcome-tracking protocols. A total of 1285 consecutive patients were treated with PT between August 2006 and May 2010. Potential pre-existing clinical and treatment-related risk factors for rectal toxicity were recorded. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 was used to score toxicity. Transient RB was the predominant grade 2 or higher (GR2+) toxicity after PT, accounting for 95% of gastrointestinal events. GR1 RB occurred in 217 patients (16.9%), GR2 RB in 187 patients (14.5%), and GR3 in 11 (0.9%) patients. There were no GR4 or GR5 events. Univariate analyses showed correlations between GR2+ RB and anticoagulation therapy (P=.008) and rectal and rectal wall dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters (P<.001). On multivariate analysis, anticoagulation therapy (P=.0034), relative volume of rectum receiving 75 Gy (V75; P=.0102), and relative rectal wall V75 (P=.0017) were significant predictors for G2+ RB. Patients treated with investigational protocols had toxicity rates similar to those receiving outcome-tracking protocols. PT was associated with a low rate of GR2+ gastrointestinal toxicity, predominantly transient RB, which was highly correlated with anticoagulation and rectal DVH parameters. Techniques that limit rectal exposure should be used when possible. Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 11/2014; 91(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.08.353 · 4.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the association of technological capacity with prostate cancer quality of care. Technological capacity was conceptualized as a market's ability to provide prostate cancer treatment with new technology, including robotic prostatectomy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). In this retrospective cohort study, we used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database from 2004 to 2009 to identify men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (n = 46,274). We measured technological capacity as the number of providers performing robotic prostatectomy or IMRT per population in a health care market. We used multilevel logistic regression analysis to assess the association of technological capacity with receiving quality care according to a set of nationally endorsed quality measures, while adjusting for patient and market characteristics. Overall, our findings were mixed with only subtle differences in quality of care comparing high-tech with low-tech markets. High robotic prostatectomy capacity was associated with better adherence to some quality measures, such as avoiding unnecessary bone scans (79.8% vs 73.0%; P = .003) and having follow-up with urologists (67.7% vs 62.6%; P = .023). However, for most measures, neither high robotic prostatectomy nor high-IMRT capacity was associated with significant increases in adherence rates. In fact, for 1 measure (treatment by a high-volume provider), high-IMRT capacity was associated with lower performance (23.4% vs 28.5%; P <.001). Our findings suggest that new technology is not clearly associated with higher quality of care. To improve quality, more specific efforts will be needed. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Urology 10/2014; 84(5). DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.067 · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the influence of timing of salvage and adjuvant radiation therapy on outcomes after prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we identified prostate cancer patients diagnosed during 1995-2007 who had one or more adverse pathological features after prostatectomy. The final cohort of 6,137 eligible patients included men who received prostatectomy alone (n = 4,509) or with adjuvant (n = 894) or salvage (n = 734) radiation therapy. Primary outcomes were genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and erectile dysfunction events and survival after treatment(s). Radiation therapy after prostatectomy was associated with higher rates of gastrointestinal and genitourinary events, but not erectile dysfunction. In adjusted models, earlier treatment with adjuvant radiation therapy was not associated with increased rates of genitourinary or erectile dysfunction events compared to delayed salvage radiation therapy. Early adjuvant radiation therapy was associated with lower rates of gastrointestinal events that salvage radiation therapy, with hazard ratios of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.67-0.95) for procedure-defined and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.59, 0.83) for diagnosis-defined events. There was no significant difference between ART and non-ART groups (SRT or RP alone) for overall survival (HR = 1.13 95% CI = (0.96, 1.34) p = 0.148). Radiation therapy after prostatectomy is associated with increased rates of gastrointestinal and genitourinary events. However, earlier radiation therapy is not associated with higher rates of gastrointestinal, genitourinary or sexual events. These findings oppose the conventional belief that delaying radiation therapy reduces the risk of radiation-related complications.
    PLoS ONE 02/2015; 10(2):e0118430. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0118430 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 2, 2014