Dataset Information

Analysis of Gastrointestinal Toxicity in Patients Receiving Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:We characterized both physician- and patient-reported rates of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) at our institution for prostate adenocarcinoma and identified factors associated with toxicity. Methods and materials:We treated 192 patients with PBT between July 2013 and July 2016. Included patients had ?1 year of follow-up. Potential preexisting clinical and treatment-related risk factors for GI toxicity were recorded. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 was used to score toxicity. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) bowel domain questionnaires assessed patient-reported quality of life. Associations between grade (GR) 2+ toxicity and clinical, treatment, and dosimetric factors were assessed using Cox models and corresponding hazard ratios. Results:The median follow-up was 1.7 years. Most of the observed GI toxicity (>90%) was in the form of rectal bleeding (RB). GR2+ GI toxicity and RB actuarial rates specifically at 2 years were 21.3% and 20.4%, respectively. GR3 toxicity was rare, with only 1 observed RB event. No GR4/5 toxicity was seen. The EPIC bowel domain median score was 96 (range, 61-100) pretreatment, 93 (range, 41-100) at 1 year, 89 (range, 57-100) at 1.5 years, and 89 (range, 50-100) at 2 years. Anticoagulation use was the only factor selected during multivariate analysis for predicting GR2+ RB, with a resulting concordance index of 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.68; P = .088). Type of proton technology (pencil beam scanning vs uniform scanning) and number of fields treated per day (1 vs 2) showed no significant difference in toxicity rate. Conclusions:PBT was associated with acceptable rates of GR2+ transient GI toxicity, mostly in the form of RB, which correlated with anticoagulation use. High EPIC bowel domain quality of life was maintained in the 2 years after treatment.

SUBMITTER: Lee HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6349581 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan-Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of Gastrointestinal Toxicity in Patients Receiving Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience.

Lee Howard J HJ Macomber Meghan W MW Spraker Matthew B MB Bowen Stephen R SR Hippe Daniel D Fung Angela A Russell Kenneth J KJ Laramore George E GE Rengan Ramesh R Liao Jay J Apisarnthanarax Smith S Zeng Jing J

Advances in radiation oncology 20180813 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>We characterized both physician- and patient-reported rates of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) at our institution for prostate adenocarcinoma and identified factors associated with toxicity.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>We treated 192 patients with PBT between July 2013 and July 2016. Included patients had ≥1 year of follow-up. Potential preexisting clinical and treatment-related risk factors for GI toxicity were recorded. Common ...[more]

PMID: 30706013

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo characterize our experience and the disease control and toxicity of proton therapy (PT) for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC).Patients and methodsClinical outcomes for patients with HNC treated with PT at our institution were prospectively collected in 2 institutional review board-approved prospective studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics and outcomes. Overall survival, local-regional control, and disease-free survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment-related toxicities were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03) scale.ResultsThe cohort consisted of 573 patients treated from February 2006 to June 2018. Median patient age was 61 years. Oropharynx (33.3%; n = 191), paranasal sinus (11%; n = 63), and periorbital tissues (11%; n = 62) were the most common primary sites. Patients with T3/T4 or recurrent disease comprised 46% (n = 262) of the cohort. The intent of PT was definitive in 53% (n = 303), postoperative in 37% (n = 211), and reirradiation in 10% (n = 59). Median dose was 66 Gy (radiobiological equivalent). Regarding systemic therapy, 43% had received concurrent (n = 244), 3% induction (n = 19), and 15% (n = 86) had both. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 88 patients (15%) had died and 127 (22%) developed disease recurrence. The overall survival, local-regional control, and disease-free survival at 2 and 5 years were, respectively, 87% and 75%, 87% and 78%, and 74% and 63%. Maximum toxicity (acute or late) was grade 3 in 293 patients (51%), grade 2 in 234 patients (41%), and grade 1 in 31 patients (5%). There were 381 acute grade 3 and 190 late grade 3 unique toxicities across 212 (37%) and 150 (26%) patients, respectively. There were 3 late-grade 4 events across 2 patients (0.3%), 2 (0.3%) acute-grade 5, and no (0%) late-grade 5 events.ConclusionsThe overall results from this prospective study of our initial decade of experience with PT for HNC show favorable disease control and toxicity outcomes in a multidisease-site cohort and provide a reference benchmark for future comparison and study.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite increasing utilization of proton-beam therapy (PBT) in the postprostatectomy setting, no data exist regarding toxicity outcomes relative to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The authors compared acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PC) who received treatment with postprostatectomy IMRT versus PBT. METHODS:With institutional review board approval, patients with PC who received adjuvant or salvage IMRT or PBT (70.2 gray with an endorectal balloon) after prostatectomy from 2009 through 2017 were reviewed. Factors including combined IMRT and PBT and/or concurrent malignancies prompted exclusion. A case-matched cohort analysis was performed using nearest-neighbor 3-to-1 matching by age and GU/GI disorder history. Logistic and Cox regressions were used to identify univariate and multivariate associations between toxicities and cohort/dosimetric characteristics. Toxicity-free survival (TFS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS:Three hundred seven men (mean ± SD age, 59.7 ± 6.3 years; IMRT, n = 237; PBT, n = 70) were identified, generating 70 matched pairs. The median follow-up was 48.6 and 46.1 months for the IMRT and PBT groups, respectively. Although PBT was superior at reducing low-range (volumes receiving 10% to 40% of the dose, respectively) bladder and rectal doses (all P ? .01), treatment modality was not associated with differences in clinician-reported acute or late GU/GI toxicities (all P ? .05). Five-year grade ?2 GU and grade ?1 GI TFS was 61.1% and 73.7% for IMRT, respectively, and 70.7% and 75.3% for PBT, respectively; and 5-year grade ?3 GU and GI TFS was >95% for both groups (all P ? .05). CONCLUSIONS:Postprostatectomy PBT minimized low-range bladder and rectal doses relative to IMRT; however, treatment modality was not associated with clinician-reported GU/GI toxicities. Future prospective investigation and ongoing follow-up will determine whether dosimetric differences between IMRT and PBT confer clinically meaningful differences in long-term outcomes.

Project description:PurposeData comparing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are lacking. We aim to compare late toxicity profiles of patients with early-stage prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT.Methods and materialsThis multi-institutional analysis included patients with low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma from 7 tertiary referral centers treated from 1998 to 2018. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation, defined as 250 to 300 cGy per daily fraction given for 4 to 6 weeks, and stratified by use of IMRT or PBT. Primary outcomes were late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adjusted toxicity rates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting, accounting for race, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, age, pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (GU only), and anticoagulant use (GI only).ResultsA total of 1850 patients were included: 1282 IMRT (median follow-up 80.0 months) and 568 PBT (median follow-up 43.9 months). Overall toxicity rates were low, with the majority of patients experiencing no late GU (56.6%, n = 1048) or late GI (74.4%, n = 1377) toxicity. No difference was seen in the rates of late toxicity between the groups, with late grade 3+ GU toxicity of 2.0% versus 3.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.28) and late grade 2+ GI toxicity of 14.6% versus 4.7% (OR 2.69; confidence interval 0.80-9.05) for the PBT and IMRT cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly predictive of GU toxicity, and only anticoagulant use was significantly predictive of GI toxicity (OR 1.90; P = .008).ConclusionsIn this large, multi-institutional analysis of 1850 patients with early-stage prostate cancer, treatment with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and PBT resulted in low rates of toxicity. No difference was seen in late GI and GU toxicity between the modalities during long-term follow-up. Both treatments are safe and well tolerated.

Dataset Information

Analysis of Gastrointestinal Toxicity in Patients Receiving Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience.

Publications

Analysis of Gastrointestinal Toxicity in Patients Receiving Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets