Dataset Information

Hypofractionated external-beam radiation therapy (HEBRT) versus conventional external-beam radiation (CEBRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and side effect profile of hypofractionated versus conventional external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer.Several databases were searched, including Medline, EmBase, LiLACS, and Central. The endpoints were freedom from biochemical failure and side effects. We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. The results are expressed as the hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).The final analysis included nine trials comprising 2702 patients. Freedom from biochemical failure was reported in only three studies and was similar in patients who received hypofractionated or conventional radiotherapy (fixed effect, HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88-1.20; P = 0.75), with heterogeneity [?(2) = 15.32, df = 2 (P = 0.0005); I2 = 87%]. The incidence of acute adverse gastrointestinal events was higher in the hypofractionated group (fixed effect, RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.45-2.81; P < 0.0001). We also found moderate heterogeneity on this analysis [?(2) = 7.47, df = 5 (P = 0.19); I2 = 33%]. Acute genitourinary toxicity was similar among the groups (fixed effect, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.49; P = 0.13), with moderate heterogeneity [?(2) = 5.83, df = 4 (P = 0.21); I2 = 31%]. The incidence of all late adverse events was the same in both groups (fixed effect, gastrointestinal toxicity, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79-1.72, P = 0.44; and acute genitourinary toxicity, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80-1.68, P = 0.44).Hypofractionated radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer was not superior to conventional radiotherapy and showed higher acute gastrointestinal toxicity in this meta-analysis. Because the number of published studies is still small, future assessments should be conducted to clarify better the true role of hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

SUBMITTER: Botrel TE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3596128 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hypofractionated external-beam radiation therapy (HEBRT) versus conventional external-beam radiation (CEBRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Botrel Tobias Engel Ayer TE Clark Otávio O Pompeo Antônio Carlos Lima AC Bretas Francisco Flávio Horta FF Sadi Marcus Vinicius MV Ferreira Ubirajara U Dos Reis Rodolfo Borges RB

Core evidence 20130307

<h4>Background</h4>The purpose of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and side effect profile of hypofractionated versus conventional external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>Several databases were searched, including Medline, EmBase, LiLACS, and Central. The endpoints were freedom from biochemical failure and side effects. We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. The resul ...[more]

PMID: 23526383

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe previously published single institution randomized prospective trial failed to show superiority in the 5-year biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) rate with moderate hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (H-IMRT) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT). We now present 10-year disease outcomes using updated risk groups and definitions of biochemical failure.MethodsMen with protocol-defined intermediate- and high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive C-IMRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) or H-IMRT (70.2 Gy in 26 fractions). Men with high-risk disease were all prescribed 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and had lymph node irradiation. Men with intermediate risk were prescribed 4 months of ADT at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of BCDF. We compared disease outcomes and overall mortality by treatment arm, with sensitivity analyses for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group adjustment.ResultsOverall, 303 assessable men were randomly assigned to C-IMRT or H-IMRT. The median follow-up was 122.9 months. Per updated NCCN risk classification, there were 28 patients (9.2%) with low-risk, 189 (62.4%) with intermediate-risk, and 86 (28.4%) with high-risk prostate cancer. The arms were equally balanced for clinicopathologic factors, except that there were more black patients in the C-IMRT arm (17.8% v 7.3%; P = .02). There was no difference in ADT use (P = .56). The 10-year cumulative incidence of BCDF was 25.9% in the C-IMRT arm and was 30.6% in the H-IMRT arm (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.82 to 2.11). The two arms also had similar cumulative 10-year rates of biochemical failure, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality; however, the 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases was higher in the H-IMRT arm (rate difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 15.1%).ConclusionH-IMRT failed to demonstrate superiority compared with C-IMRT in long-term disease outcomes.

Project description:PurposeTo assess the long-term quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a phase 3 trial comparing 2 modes of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): conventional IMRT (CIMRT) versus hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer.Methods and materialsBetween 2002 and 2006, 303 men with low-risk to high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to 76 Gy in 38 fractions (CIMRT) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (HIMRT). QoL was compared by use of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and EuroQoL (EQ5D) questionnaires. The primary outcome of the QoL analysis was a minimum clinically important difference defined as a 0.5 standard deviation change from baseline for each respective QoL parameter. Treatment effects were evaluated with the use of logistic mixed effects regression models.ResultsA total of 286, 299, and 218 patients had baseline EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D data available and were included in the analysis. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment arms in terms of EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D scores over time, although there was a trend toward lower EPIC urinary incontinence scores in the HIMRT arm. More patients in the HIMRT arm had a lower EPIC urinary incontinence score relative to baseline versus patients in the CIMRT arm with long-term follow-up. On multivariable analysis, there was no association between radiation fractionation scheme and any QoL parameter. When other clinical factors were examined, lymph node radiation was associated with worse EPIC hormonal scores versus patients receiving no lymph node radiation. In general, QoL outcomes were generally stable over time, with the exception of EPIC hormonal and EQ5D scores.ConclusionsIn this randomized prospective study, there were stable QoL changes in patients receiving HIMRT or CIMRT. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that HIMRT may be an acceptable treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer.

Project description:BackgroundExternal beam radiotherapy is the recommended but expensive treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men worldwide. A cost-effectiveness study is needed given the excessive cost of radiotherapy treatment and the high prevalence of prostate cancer. The aim of this systematic review was to assess and identify studies that examined model based economic evaluation of external beam radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.MethodsA systematic review of the published literature was conducted through MEDLINE, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), and Cochrane databases with a specific search strategy. The literatures were searched according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. At first 1046 citations were identified. The extracted files were imported into the Rayyan systematic review site for inclusion or exclusion based on the defined criteria. Studies included in this review were articles published between 2003 and 2017, and that conducted full-economic evaluations of the modality of external beam radiotherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.ResultsThere were 12 studies that satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seven studies compared intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), two compared IMRT with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) another two-paper assessed IMRT with proton beam therapy (PBT). One paper compared the three external-beam radio therapy options of IMRT, SBRT and PBT. Most of the studies were originated from the US and analyzed the cost data from the payer's perspective. Most studies were supported that IMRT was cost effective when it compared with 3D-CRT. Compared with IMRT, SBRT was found to be cost-effective.ConclusionsThere are limited number of studies exist on the cost effectiveness of radiation therapy options for the treatment of localize prostate cancer across Europe. Most studies are originated from the US Medicare payer Perspective. Further research is need that investigate the cost effectiveness of these radiation therapy options from the societal perspective in Europe.

Project description:To compare the outcomes of localized prostate cancer treatment with high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), we examined 924 patients treated with HDR-BT + external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and 500 patients treated with LDR-BT ± EBRT using multi-institutional retrospective data. The HDR-BT treated advanced disease with more hormonal therapy than LDR-BT. To reduce background selection bias, we performed inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis using propensity scores and excluded patients with T3b-4 disease/ initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels > 50 ng/ml. The actuarial 5-year biochemical control rates (5y-bNED) were 96.3% and 95.7% in the HDR-BT and LDR-BT groups, respectively. The corresponding values were 100% and 96.5% in the low-risk group; 97.4% and 97.1% in the intermediate-risk group (97.2% and 97% in the higher titer group and 97.5% and 94.6% in the lower titer group, respectively); and 95.7% and 94.9% in the selected high-risk group, respectively. IPTW correction indicated no significant difference among the groups. The 5y-bNED in the HDR-BT + EBRT, LDR-BT + EBRT, and LDR-BT alone groups were 96.3%, 95.5%, and 97%, respectively (P = 0.3011). The corresponding values were 97.4%, 94.7%, and 96.6% (P = 0.1004) in the intermediate-risk group (97.5%, 100%, and 94.5% in the lower titer group [P = 0.122] and 97.2%, 96.2%, and 100% [P = 0.664] in the higher titer group, respectively) and 95.7%, 95.5%, and 100% (P = 0.859) in the high-risk group, respectively. The HDR-BT group showed a lower incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities; the incidence of other early and late grade ≥ 2 toxicities were similar between the HDR-BT and LDR-BT groups. Acute genitourinary toxicity predicted the occurrence of late genitourinary toxicity. EBRT increased the risk of grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicity. HDR-BT + EBRT is a good alternative to LDR-BT ± EBRT for low-, intermediate-, and selected high-risk patients.

Project description:PurposeTo compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer.Methods and materialsThe prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes.ResultsFive-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P < .001) and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .001). Baseline urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function was similar between treatment groups (P > .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P < .001), 12 months (AMD -12.9, P < .001), and 36 months (AMD -4.7, P = .034) than men receiving EBRT. At 12 months, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse bowel function (AMD -5.8, P = .002), but these differences were not seen at 36 months. There were no significant differences in sexual or hormone function between treatment groups.ConclusionsMen treated with EB-LDR report worse bowel function at 1 year and worse urinary irritative function through 3 years compared with men treated with EBRT alone. These side effect profiles should be discussed with patients when considering EB-LDR versus EBRT treatment.

Dataset Information

Hypofractionated external-beam radiation therapy (HEBRT) versus conventional external-beam radiation (CEBRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Hypofractionated external-beam radiation therapy (HEBRT) versus conventional external-beam radiation (CEBRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets