ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Several prospective randomized trials have shown that hypofractionation has the same efficacy and safety as the conventional fractionation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. There are many benefits of hypofractionation, including a more convenient schedule for the patients and better use of resources, which is especially important in low- and middle-income countries like Brasil. Based on these data, the Brazilian Society of Radiotherapy (Sociedade Brasileira de Radioterapia) organized this consensus to guide and support the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer in Brasil. METHODS: The relevant literature regarding moderate hypofractionation (mHypo) and ultra-hypofractionation (uHypo) was reviewed and discussed by a group of experts from public and private centers of different parts of Brasil. Several key questions concerning clinical indications, outcomes and technological requirements for hypofractionation were discussed and voted. For each question, consensus was reached if there was an agreement of at least 75% of the panel members. RESULTS: The recommendations are described in this article. CONCLUSION: This initiative will assist Brazilian radiation oncologists and medical physicists to safely treat localized prostate cancer patients with hypofractionation.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated , Brazil , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Radiation Dose Hypofractionation , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: Several prospective randomized trials have shown that hypofractionation has the same efficacy and safety as the conventional fractionation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. There are many benefits of hypofractionation, including a more convenient schedule for the patients and better use of resources, which is especially important in low- and middle-income countries like Brasil. Based on these data, the Brazilian Society of Radiotherapy (Sociedade Brasileira de Radioterapia) organized this consensus to guide and support the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer in Brasil. METHODS: The relevant literature regarding moderate hypofractionation (mHypo) and ultra-hypofractionation (uHypo) was reviewed and discussed by a group of experts from public and private centers of different parts of Brasil. Several key questions concerning clinical indications, outcomes and technological requirements for hypofractionation were discussed and voted. For each question, consensus was reached if there was an agreement of at least 75% of the panel members. RESULTS: The recommendations are described in this article. CONCLUSION: This initiative will assist Brazilian radiation oncologists and medical physicists to safely treat localized prostate cancer patients with hypofractionation.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated , Brazil , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Radiation Dose HypofractionationABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Context Currently, standard treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer (MPCa) is androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Recent studies suggested that local treatment of MPCa is related to increase of survival of those patients, as observed in other tumors. Objective To evaluate the impact of local treatment on overall survival and cancer specific survival in 3 and 5 years in patients with MPCa. Materials and Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of population studies published at PubMed, Scielo, Lilacs, Cochrane and EMBASE databases until June 2016. Several large cohorts and Post-Roc studies were included, that evaluated patients with MPCa submitted to local treatment (LT) using radiotherapy (RDT), surgery (RP) or brachytherapy (BCT) or not submitted to local treatment (NLT). Results 34.338 patients were analyzed in six included papers, 31.653 submitted to NLT and 2.685 to LT. Overall survival in three years was significantly higher in patients submitted to LT versus NLT (64.2% vs. 44.5%; RD 0.19, 95% CI, 0.17-0.21; p<0.00001; I2=0%), as well as in five years (51.9% vs. 23.6%; RD 0.30, 95% CI, 0.11-0.49; p<0.00001; I2=97%). Sensitive analysis according to type of local treatment showed that surgery (78.2% and 45.0%; RD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.26-0.35; p<0.00001; I2=50%) and radiotherapy (60.4% and 44.5%; RD 0.17, 95% CI, 0.12-0.22; p<0.00001; I2=67%) presented better outcomes. Conclusion LT using RDT, RP or BCT seems to significantly improve overall survival and cancer-specific survival of patients with metastatic prostatic cancer. Prospective and randomized studies must be performed in order to confirm our results.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/mortality , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Disease-Free Survival , Neoplasm MetastasisABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Currently, standard treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer (MPCa) is androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Recent studies suggested that local treatment of MPCa is related to increase of survival of those patients, as observed in other tumors. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of local treatment on overall survival and cancer specific survival in 3 and 5 years in patients with MPCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of population studies published at PubMed, Scielo, Lilacs, Cochrane and EMBASE databases until June 2016. Several large cohorts and Post-Roc studies were included, that evaluated patients with MPCa submitted to local treatment (LT) using radiotherapy (RDT), surgery (RP) or brachytherapy (BCT) or not submitted to local treatment (NLT). RESULTS: 34.338 patients were analyzed in six included papers, 31.653 submitted to NLT and 2.685 to LT. Overall survival in three years was significantly higher in patients submitted to LT versus NLT (64.2% vs. 44.5%; RD 0.19, 95% CI, 0.17-0.21; p<0.00001; I²=0%), as well as in five years (51.9% vs. 23.6%; RD 0.30, 95% CI, 0.11-0.49; p<0.00001; I²=97%). Sensitive analysis according to type of local treatment showed that surgery (78.2% and 45.0%; RD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.26-0.35; p<0.00001; I²=50%) and radiotherapy (60.4% and 44.5%; RD 0.17, 95% CI, 0.12-0.22; p<0.00001; I²=67%) presented better outcomes. CONCLUSION: LT using RDT, RP or BCT seems to significantly improve overall survival and cancer-specific survival of patients with metastatic prostatic cancer. Prospective and randomized studies must be performed in order to confirm our results.
