Dataset Information

Mixed-Beam Approach for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Carbon-Ion Boost Followed by Photon Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy: Preliminary Results of Phase II Trial AIRC-IG-14300.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study represents a descriptive analysis of preliminary results of a Phase II trial on a novel mixed beam radiotherapy (RT) approach, consisting of carbon ions RT (CIRT) followed by intensity-modulated photon RT, in combination with hormonal therapy, for high-risk prostate cancer (HR PCa) with a special focus on acute toxicity.

Methods

Primary endpoint was the evaluation of safety in terms of acute toxicity. Secondary endpoints were early and long-term tolerability of treatment, quality of life (QoL), and efficacy. Data on acute and late toxicities were collected according to RTOG/EORTC. QoL of enrolled patients was assessed by IPSS, EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-PR25, and sexual activity by IIEF-5.

Results

Twenty-six patients were enrolled in the study, but only 15 completed so far the RT course and were included. Immediately after CIRT, no patients experienced GI/GU toxicity. At 1 and 3 months from the whole course RT completion, no GI/GU toxicities greater than grade 2 were observed. QoL scores were overall satisfactory.

Conclusions

The feasibility of the proposed mixed treatment schedule was assessed, and an excellent acute toxicity profile was recorded. Such findings instil confidence in the continuation of this mixed approach, with evaluation of long-term tolerability and efficacy.

SUBMITTER: Marvaso G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8635961 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Owing to its physical properties, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) used for patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma has the ability to reduce the dose to organs at risk compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) while maintaining adequate tumor coverage. Our aim was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two treatment modalities.We performed a 1:2 matching of IMPT to IMRT patients. Our study cohort consisted of IMPT patients from a prospective quality of life study and consecutive IMRT patients treated at a single institution during the period 2010-2014. Patients were matched on unilateral/bilateral treatment, disease site, human papillomavirus status, T and N status, smoking status, and receipt of concomitant chemotherapy. Survival analyzes were performed using a Cox model and binary toxicity endpoints using a logistic regression analysis.Fifty IMPT and 100 IMRT patients were included. The median follow-up time was 32months. There were no imbalances in patient/tumor characteristics except for age (mean age 56.8years for IMRT patients and 61.1years for IMPT patients, p-value=0.010). Statistically significant differences were not observed in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR)=0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12-2.50, p-value=0.44) or in progression-free survival (HR=1.02; 95% CI: 0.41-2.54; p-value=0.96). The age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for the presence of a gastrostomy (G)-tube during treatment for IMPT vs IMRT were OR=0.53; 95% CI: 0.24-1.15; p-value=0.11 and OR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.16-1.17; p-value=0.10 at 3months after treatment. When considering the pre-planned composite endpoint of grade 3 weight loss or G-tube presence, the ORs were OR=0.44; 95% CI: 0.19-1.0; p-value=0.05 at 3months after treatment and OR=0.23; 95% CI: 0.07-0.73; p-value=0.01 at 1year after treatment.Our results suggest that IMPT is associated with reduced rates of feeding tube dependency and severe weight loss without jeopardizing outcome. Prospective multicenter randomized trials are needed to validate such findings.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) versus standard-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SD-IMRT) in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.MethodsFrom July 2003 to March 2014, 1748 patients in a single center who received definitive chemoradiotherapy were included in the analysis. A total of 109 patients who underwent SIB-IMRT and fulfilled all inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified as the study group. A total of 266 patients who underwent SD-IMRT (60 Gy/30 fractions, 2 Gy/fraction, 1 time/day, 5 times/week) during the same period were selected as the control group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics. Survival status, treatment failure mode, and the occurrence of adverse events were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere were more women and more cervical and upper thoracic cancers (P = 0.038, < 0.001, respectively) in the SIB-IMRT group before case matching. The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the SD-IMRT and SIB-IMRT groups was 22 and 19 months, respectively, and the median overall survival duration was 24 and 22 months, respectively, with χ2 = 0.244 and P = 0.621. After PSM of 1:1, 138 patients entered the final analysis (69 cases from each group). The median PFS of the SD-IMRT group and the SIB-IMRT group was 13 and 18 months, respectively, with χ2 = 8.776 and P = 0.003. The 1‑, 3‑, and 5‑year overall survival rates were 66.7, 21.7, and 8.7% and 65.2, 36.2, and 27.3%, respectively, and the median overall survival duration was 16 and 22 months, respectively, with χ2 = 5.362 and P = 0.021. Treatment failure mode: 5‑year local regional recurrence rates of SD-IMRT and SIB-IMRT were 50.7 and 36.2%, respectively, with χ2 = 2.949 and P = 0.086. The 5‑year distant metastasis rates of the two groups were 36.2 and 24.6%, respectively, with χ2 = 2.190 and P = 0.139.Adverse events3 patients experienced grade 4-5 toxicity (2.2%), including one case of grade 4 radiation esophagitis and two cases of grade 5 radiation pneumonitis, all in the SD-IMRT group; 14 patients experienced grade 3 adverse events (10.1%), primarily including radiation esophagitis, radiation pneumonitis, and hematological toxicity.ConclusionThe technique of SIB-IMRT was safe and reliable compared with SD-IMRT. In addition, SIB-IMRT had locoregional control advantages and potential survival benefits.

Project description:Purpose:A concomitant boost (CB) in patients treated with postoperative radiotherapy after conservative surgery of invasive breast cancer (BC) has been suggested for treatment time reduction and therapy intensification. The aim of this analysis was to assess long-term tolerability of a CB in patients treated with postoperative intensity Modulated Accelerated RAdiotherapy (MARA). Patients and Methods:In this phase I-II trial, 321 patients with intermediate-high risk BC (pT1-4 with at least one of the following characteristics: pre or perimenopausal status, pN2-3, positive or close margins) were enrolled. Patients were treated with forward-planned intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and CB. A total dose of 50 Gy (2 Gy/fraction) and 60 Gy (2.4 Gy/fraction) was prescribed to the whole breast and the tumor bed, respectively. The potential impact of hypertension, diabetes, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, chemotherapy, and hormone therapy on both skin and subcutaneous late toxicity-free survival (LTFS) was evaluated. Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results:Median follow-up was 52 months (range: 3-115). Regional node irradiation, adjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapy were prescribed to 29.3%, 65.4% and 81.0% of patients, respectively. Five-year G2 and G3 skin LTFS were 95.6% and 100.0%, respectively. Five-year G2 and G3 subcutaneous LTFS were 80.0% and 98.6%, respectively. Only diabetes showed a significant correlation with worse G3 subcutaneous LTFS (p: 0.024). Five-year loco-regional control, metastasis-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival were 98.0%, 91.8%, 89.7% and 96.3%, respectively. Conclusion:IMRT combined with CB was associated with a low risk of > G2 late toxicities (0.0% and 1.4% for skin and subcutaneous tissue, respectively). The cumulative actuarial incidence of local recurrences was 2.0% despite the exclusion of low-risk patients. Our results suggest that CB is safe and effective in patients with intermediate-high risk BC. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03471741.

Project description:Purpose:Intensity modulated proton beam radiation therapy (IMPT) has a clinically significant dosimetric advantage over intensity modulated photon radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer, particularly for sparing the heart and lungs. We compared acute radiation therapy-related toxicities and short-term clinical outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer who received treatment with IMPT or IMRT. Methods and Materials:We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive adult patients with esophageal cancer who underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT in the definitive or neoadjuvant setting from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2018, with additional follow-up data collected through January 31, 2019. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4. Survival outcomes were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results:A total of 64 patients (32 per group) were included (median follow-up time: 10 months for IMPT patients vs 14 months for IMRT patients). The most common radiation therapy regimen was 45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 80% of patients received a simultaneous integrated boost to a median cumulative dose of 50 Gy. Similar numbers of IMPT patients (n = 15; 47%) and IMRT patients (n = 18; 56%) underwent surgery (P = .07), with no difference in pathologic complete response rates (IMPT: n = 5; 33% vs IMRT: n = 7; 39%; P = .14). At 1 year, the clinical outcomes also were similar for IMPT and IMRT patients, respectively. Local control was 92% versus 84% (P = .87), locoregional control 92% versus 80% (P = .76), distant metastasis-free survival 87% versus 65% (P = .08), progression-free survival 71% versus 45% (P = .15), and overall survival 74% versus 71% (P = .62). The rate of acute treatment-related grade 3 toxicity was similar between the groups (P = .71). Conclusions:In our early experience, IMPT is a safe and effective treatment when administered as part of definitive or trimodality therapy. Longer follow-up is required to evaluate the effectiveness of IMPT.