• Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. · Sep 2010

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    A prospective phase III randomized trial of hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

    • Giorgio Arcangeli, Biancamaria Saracino, Sara Gomellini, Maria Grazia Petrongari, Stefano Arcangeli, Steno Sentinelli, Simona Marzi, Valeria Landoni, Jack Fowler, and Lidia Strigari.
    • Department of Radiotherapy, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. arcangeli@ifo.it
    • Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010 Sep 1; 78 (1): 11-8.

    PurposeTo compare the toxicity and efficacy of hypofractionated (62 Gy/20 fractions/5 weeks, 4 fractions per week) vs. conventional fractionation radiotherapy (80 Gy/40 fractions/8 weeks) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.Methods And MaterialsFrom January 2003 to December 2007, 168 patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated or conventional fractionated schedules of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. All patients received a 9-month course of total androgen deprivation (TAD), and radiotherapy started 2 months thereafter.ResultsThe median (range) follow-up was 32 (8-66) and 35 (7-64) months in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation arms, respectively. No difference was found for late toxicity between the two treatment groups, with 3-year Grade 2 rates of 17% and 16% for gastrointestinal and 14% and 11% for genitourinary in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation groups, respectively. The 3-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were 87% and 79% in the hypofractionation and conventional fractionation groups, respectively (p = 0.035). The 3-year FFBF rates in patients at a very high risk (i.e., pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) >20 ng/mL, Gleason score >or=8, or T >or=2c), were 88% and 76% (p = 0.014) in the former and latter arm, respectively. The multivariate Cox analysis confirmed fractionation, iPSA, and Gleason score as significant prognostic factors.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that late toxicity is equivalent between the two treatment groups and that the hypofractionated schedule used in this trial is superior to the conventional fractionation in terms of FFBF.Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.