Localized volume effects for late rectal and anal toxicity after radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To identify dosimetric parameters derived from anorectal, rectal, and anal wall dose distributions that correlate with different late gastrointestinal (GI) complications after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this analysis, 641 patients from a randomized trial (68 Gy vs. 78 Gy) were included. Toxicity was scored with adapted Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) criteria and five specific complications. The variables derived from dose-volume histogram of anorectal, rectal, and anal wall were as follows: % receiving > or =5-70 Gy (V5-V70), maximum dose (Dmax), and mean dose (D(mean)). The anus was defined as the most caudal 3 cm of the anorectum. Statistics were done with multivariate Cox regression models. Median follow-up was 44 months. RESULTS: Anal dosimetric variables were associated with RTOG/EORTC Grade > or =2 (V5-V40, D(mean)) and incontinence (V5-V70, D(mean)). Bleeding correlated most strongly with anorectal V55-V65, and stool frequency with anorectal V40 and D(mean). Use of steroids was weakly related to anal variables. No volume effect was seen for RTOG/EORTC Grade > or =3 and pain/cramps/tenesmus. CONCLUSION: Different volume effects were found for various late GI complications. Therefore, to evaluate the risk of late GI toxicity, not only intermediate and high doses to the anorectal wall volume should be taken into account, but also the dose to the anal wall.

Long-term results of the Dutch randomized prostate cancer trial: impact of dose-escalation on local, biochemical, clinical failure, and survival.

PURPOSE: Nowadays, advanced irradiation techniques make it possible to escalate safely the dose in prostate cancer. We studied the effect of a higher dose on tumor control in a randomized trial with a median follow-up of 110 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with T1b-T4N0 prostate cancer (n=664) were randomized between 78 Gy and 68 Gy. Primary endpoint was biochemical and/or clinical failure (BCF) according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) guidelines (3 consecutive rises), and to Phoenix (nadir plus 2 µg/L). Secondary endpoints were clinical failure (CF), local failure (LF), prostate cancer death (PCD), and overall survival (OS). Explorative subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: BCF rate (HR=0.8; 20% less events) and LF rate (HR=0.5; 50% less events) were significantly lower in the 78 Gy arm (p<0.05). CF, PCD and OS were similar in both arms. A significant heterogeneity of treatment effect was found for PSA cutoffs between 7 and 10 µg/L. CONCLUSION: We observed significantly less BCF and LF in the high-dose arm. This suggests improvement of the therapeutic ratio. However, we observed similar rates of CF and PCD at the current update. More follow-up is needed to investigate which patients benefit in terms of prolonged OS.

Update of Dutch multicenter dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To update the analysis of the Dutch dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 669 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive 68 or 78 Gy. The patients were stratified by age, institution, use of neoadjuvant or adjuvant hormonal therapy, and treatment group. The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF), with failure defined as clinical or biochemical failure. Two definitions of biochemical failure were used: the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition (three consecutive increases in prostate-specific antigen level) and the Phoenix definition (nadir plus 2 microe secondary endpoints were freedom from clinical failure, overall survival, and genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 70 months, the FFF using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition was significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 54% vs. 47%, respectively; p = 0.04). The FFF using the Phoenix definition was also significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 56% vs. 45%, respectively; p = 0.03). However, no differences in freedom from clinical failure or overall survival were observed. The incidence of late Grade 2 or greater genitourinary toxicity was similar in both arms (40% and 41% at 7 years; p = 0.6). However, the cumulative incidence of late Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxicity was increased in the 78-Gy arm compared with the 68-Gy arm (35% vs. 25% at 7 years; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown a statistically significant improvement in FFF in prostate cancer patients treated with 78 Gy but with a greater rate of late gastrointestinal toxicity.

Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a dose of 78 Gy improves outcome compared with a conventional dose of 68 Gy for prostate cancer patients treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 1997 and February 2003, stage T1b-4 prostate cancer patients were enrolled onto a multicenter randomized trial comparing 68 Gy with 78 Gy. Patients were stratified by institution, age, (neo)adjuvant hormonal therapy (HT), and treatment group. Four treatment groups (with specific radiation volumes) were defined based on the probability of seminal vesicle involvement. The primary end point was freedom from failure (FFF). Failure was defined as clinical failure or biochemical failure, according to the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology definition. Other end points were freedom from clinical failure (FFCF), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 51 months. Of the 669 enrolled patients, 664 were included in the analysis. HT was prescribed for 143 patients. FFF was significantly better in the 78-Gy arm compared with the 68-Gy arm (5-year FFF rate, 64% v 54%, respectively), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.74 (P = .02). No significant differences in FFCF or OS were seen between the treatment arms. There was no difference in late genitourinary toxicity of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer grade 2 or more and a slightly higher nonsignificant incidence of late gastrointestinal toxicity of grade 2 or more. CONCLUSION: This multicenter randomized trial shows a significantly improved FFF in prostate cancer patients treated with a higher dose of radiotherapy.