-
Lionel Perrier,
Magali Morelle,
Pascal Pommier,
Jean-Léon Lagrange,
Agnès Laplanche,
Philippe Dudouet,
Stéphane Supiot,
Bruno Chauvet,
Tan-Dat Nguyen,
Gilles Crehange,
Véronique Beckendorf,
Françoise Pene,
Xavier Muracciole,
Jean-Marc Bachaud, Elisabeth Le Prisé,
Renaud de Crevoisier
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: This cost analysis aimed to quantify the cost of IGRT in relation to IGRT frequency and modality with Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) or orthogonal electronic portal imaging with fiducial markers (EPI-FM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients undergoing IGRT for localized prostate cancer were randomized into two prostate control frequencies (daily or weekly). Costs were calculated based on the micro-costing results according to hospitals' perspectives (in Euros, 2009) and the time horizon was radiation therapy. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were enrolled in seven French cancer centers. A total of 6865 fractions were individually analyzed. The mean total treatment fraction duration was 21.0min for daily CBCT and 18.3min for daily EPI-FM. Increasing the control frequency from weekly to daily increased the mean treatment fraction duration by 7.3min (+53%) for CBCT and 1.7min (+10%) for EPI-FM (p⩽0.01). The mean additional cost per patient of daily controls compared with weekly controls was €679 and €187 for CBCT and EPI-FM, respectively (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The incremental costs due to different prostate IGRT strategies are relatively moderate, suggesting that daily IGRT combined with intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) could be administered in cases of high-dose radiation delivery to the prostate.
Radiotherapy and Oncology 01/2013; · 5.58 Impact Factor
-
Véronique Beckendorf,
Stéphane Guerif, Elisabeth Le Prisé,
Jean-Marc Cosset,
Agnes Bougnoux,
Bruno Chauvet,
Naji Salem,
Olivier Chapet,
Sylvain Bourdain,
Jean-Marc Bachaud,
Philippe Maingon,
Jean-Michel Hannoun-Levi,
Luc Malissard,
Jean-Marc Simon,
Pascal Pommier,
Men Hay,
Bernard Dubray,
Jean-Léon Lagrange,
Elisabeth Luporsi,
Pierre Bey
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To perform a randomized trial comparing 70 and 80 Gy radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
A total of 306 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomized. No androgen deprivation was allowed. The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse according to the modified 1997-American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and Phoenix definitions. Toxicity was graded using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1991 criteria and the late effects on normal tissues-subjective, objective, management, analytic scales (LENT-SOMA) scales. The patients' quality of life was scored using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item cancer-specific and 25-item prostate-specific modules.
The median follow-up was 61 months. According to the 1997-American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition, the 5-year biochemical relapse rate was 39% and 28% in the 70- and 80-Gy arms, respectively (p = .036). Using the Phoenix definition, the 5-year biochemical relapse rate was 32% and 23.5%, respectively (p = .09). The subgroup analysis showed a better biochemical outcome for the higher dose group with an initial prostate-specific antigen level >15 ng/mL. At the last follow-up date, 26 patients had died, 10 of their disease and none of toxicity, with no differences between the two arms. According to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale, the Grade 2 or greater rectal toxicity rate was 14% and 19.5% for the 70- and 80-Gy arms (p = .22), respectively. The Grade 2 or greater urinary toxicity was 10% at 70 Gy and 17.5% at 80 Gy (p = .046). Similar results were observed using the LENT-SOMA scale. Bladder toxicity was more frequent at 80 Gy than at 70 Gy (p = .039). The quality-of-life questionnaire results before and 5 years after treatment were available for 103 patients with no differences found between the 70- and 80-Gy arms.
High-dose radiotherapy provided a better 5-year biochemical outcome with slightly greater toxicity.
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 12/2010; 80(4):1056-63. · 4.59 Impact Factor
-
Véronique Beckendorf,
Stéphane Guérif, Elisabeth Le Prisé,
Jean Marc Cosset,
Olivier Lefloch,
Bruno Chauvet,
Naji Salem,
Olivier Chapet,
Sylvain Bourdin,
Jean Marc Bachaud,
Philippe Maingon,
Jean-L Eon Lagrange,
Luc Malissard,
Jean-Marc Simon,
Pascal Pommier,
Men H Hay,
Bernard Dubray,
Elisabeth Luporsi,
Pierre Bey
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To describe treatments and acute tolerance in a randomized trial comparing 70 Gy and 80 Gy to the prostate in patients with localized prostate cancer.
Between September 1999 and February 2002, 306 patients were randomized to receive 70 Gy (153 patients) or 80 Gy (153 patients) in 17 institutions. Patients exhibited intermediate-prognosis tumors. If the risk of node involvement was greater than 10%, surgical staging was required. Previous prostatectomy was excluded, and androgen deprivation was not admitted. The treatment was delivered in two steps. PTV1-including seminal vesicles, prostate, and a 1-0.5-cm margin-received 46 Gy given with a 4-field conformal technique. PTV2, reduced to prostate with the same margins, irradiated with at least 5 fields. Dose was prescribed according to ICRU recommendations in the 70 Gy group, but adapted at the 80 Gy level.
All patients but one in the 80 Gy arm completed the treatment. In the 70 Gy arm, the mean dose to the PTV2 was 69.5 Gy. In the 80 Gy arm, the mean dose in the PTV2 was 78.5 Gy. Acute toxicity according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale during treatment was reported in 306 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the two arms: 12% had no toxicity, 80% complained of bladder toxicity, and 70% complained of rectal symptoms. Two months after the end of treatment, 43% of the 70 Gy level and 48% of the 80 Gy level complained of side effects, including 24% and 20% of sexual disorders. There was 6% and 2% of Grade 3 urinary and rectal toxicity. Five patients required a 10-29-day suspension of the treatment. Acute Grade 2 and 3 side effects were related to PTV and CTV1 size, which was the only independent predictive factor in multivariate analysis. Toxicity was not related to the center, age, arm of treatment, or selected data from dose-volume histogram of organ at risk.
Treatments were completed in respect to constraints. Acute toxicity was acceptable. Intensity of toxicity depended on target volumes.
International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics 12/2004; 60(4):1056-65. · 4.11 Impact Factor
