• Darius Norkus, Albert Miller, Juozas Kurtinaitis, Uwe Haverkamp, Sergey Popov, Franz-Josef Prott, and Konstantinas Povilas Valuckas.
• Department of Radiotherapy, Institute of Oncology, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. dnorkus@takas.lt
• Strahlenther Onkol. 2009 Nov 1; 185 (11): 715-21.

PurposeTo compare acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity between patient groups with localized prostate adenocarcinoma, treated with conventionally fractionated (CFRT) and hypofractionated (HFRT) three-dimensional conformal external-beam radiotherapy (3D-CRT).Patients And Methods91 patients were enrolled into a randomized study with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. 44 men in the CFRT arm were irradiated with 74 Gy in 37 fractions at 2 Gy per fraction for 7.5 weeks. 47 men in the HFRT arm were treated with 57 Gy in 17 fractions for 3.5 weeks, given as 13 fractions of 3 Gy plus four fractions of 4.5 Gy. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the prostate and the base of seminal vesicles. The CTV-to-PTV (planning target volume) margin was 8-10 mm. Study patients had portal imaging and/or simulation performed on the first fractions and repeated at least weekly.ResultsNo acute grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed. The grade 2 GU acute toxicity proportion was significantly lower in the HFRT arm: 19.1% versus 47.7% (chi(2)-test, p = 0.003). The grade 2 GU acute toxicity-free survival was significantly better in the HFRT arm (log-rank test, p = 0.008). The median duration of overall GI acute toxicity was shorter with HFRT: 3 compared to 6 weeks with CFRT (median test, p = 0.017).ConclusionIn this first evaluation, the HFRT schedule is feasible and induces acceptable or even lower acute toxicity compared with the toxicities in the CFRT schedule. Extended follow-up is needed to justify this fractionation schedule's safety in the long term.

45 keywords...

hide…