Predicting Radiotherapy Impact on Late Bladder Toxicity in Prostate Cancer Patients: An Observational Study.
decision supporting systems
predictive models
prostate cancer
toxicity prediction
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jan 2021
06 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
12
12
2020
revised:
02
01
2021
accepted:
04
01
2021
entrez:
9
1
2021
pubmed:
10
1
2021
medline:
10
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of our study was to elaborate a suitable model on bladder late toxicity in prostate cancer (PC) patients treated by radiotherapy with volumetric technique. PC patients treated between September 2010 and April 2017 were included in the analysis. An observational study was performed collecting late toxicity data of any grade, according to RTOG and CTCAE 4.03 scales, cumulative dose volumes histograms were exported for each patient. Vdose, the value of dose to a specific volume of organ at risk (OAR), impact was analyzed through the Mann-Whitney rank-sum test. Logistic regression was used as the final model. The model performance was estimated by taking 1000 samples with replacement from the original dataset and calculating the AUC average. In addition, the calibration plot (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test) was used to evaluate the performance of internal validation. RStudio Software version 3.3.1 and an in house developed software package "Moddicom" were used. Data from 175 patients were collected. The median follow-up was 39 months (min-max 3.00-113.00). We performed Mann-Whitney rank-sum test with continuity correction in the subset of patients with late bladder toxicity grade ≥ 2: a statistically significant Our preliminary results could help to optimize treatment planning procedures and customize treatments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of our study was to elaborate a suitable model on bladder late toxicity in prostate cancer (PC) patients treated by radiotherapy with volumetric technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
PC patients treated between September 2010 and April 2017 were included in the analysis. An observational study was performed collecting late toxicity data of any grade, according to RTOG and CTCAE 4.03 scales, cumulative dose volumes histograms were exported for each patient. Vdose, the value of dose to a specific volume of organ at risk (OAR), impact was analyzed through the Mann-Whitney rank-sum test. Logistic regression was used as the final model. The model performance was estimated by taking 1000 samples with replacement from the original dataset and calculating the AUC average. In addition, the calibration plot (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test) was used to evaluate the performance of internal validation. RStudio Software version 3.3.1 and an in house developed software package "Moddicom" were used.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Data from 175 patients were collected. The median follow-up was 39 months (min-max 3.00-113.00). We performed Mann-Whitney rank-sum test with continuity correction in the subset of patients with late bladder toxicity grade ≥ 2: a statistically significant
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our preliminary results could help to optimize treatment planning procedures and customize treatments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33419144
pii: cancers13020175
doi: 10.3390/cancers13020175
pmc: PMC7825573
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Cancer. 2016 Jul 1;122(13):2004-11
pubmed: 27028170
Med Phys. 1997 Jan;24(1):103-10
pubmed: 9029544
Semin Intervent Radiol. 2017 Jun;34(2):187-200
pubmed: 28579687
CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jan;70(1):7-30
pubmed: 31912902
Adv Urol. 2012;2012:589160
pubmed: 22666240
Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2017 Jan 15;109:131-153
pubmed: 26774327
Phys Med. 2007 Dec;23(3-4):115-25
pubmed: 17825595
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Mar 15;67(4):1059-65
pubmed: 17241755
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Nov 1;84(3):719-24
pubmed: 22436789
JAMA. 2005 Sep 14;294(10):1233-9
pubmed: 16160131
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Mar 15;70(4):1124-9
pubmed: 18313526
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S123-9
pubmed: 20171506
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Jan;25(1):135-45
pubmed: 8416870
Cancer. 2009 Jul 1;115(13 Suppl):3141-9
pubmed: 19544543
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Mar 30;31(5):1341-6
pubmed: 7713792
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Aug 1;53(5):1097-105
pubmed: 12128107
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jan 1;52(1):224-35
pubmed: 11777642
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Nov;103:356-387
pubmed: 30100160
Scand J Urol. 2015 Feb;49(1):58-69
pubmed: 24793783
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Dec 1;81(5):e721-6
pubmed: 21277100
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Jul;112(1):95-9
pubmed: 24951017
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015 Aug;2015:771-4
pubmed: 26736376
J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 1;24(13):1990-6
pubmed: 16648499
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Nov;93(2):153-67
pubmed: 19765845
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Jun;51(9):1164-87
pubmed: 24120180
In Vivo. 2017 Sep-Oct;31(5):961-966
pubmed: 28882966
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 20;29(12):1517-24
pubmed: 21402604
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;136:851-6
pubmed: 18487838
Eur Urol. 2014 Jan;65(1):162-8
pubmed: 22790288
Radiother Oncol. 1993 Nov;29(2):140-7
pubmed: 8310139
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):55-63
pubmed: 25560714
Future Oncol. 2017 Apr;13(8):727-741
pubmed: 27882770
Future Oncol. 2016 Jan;12(1):119-36
pubmed: 26674745
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jan 1;70(1):67-74
pubmed: 17765406
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;6:31-36
pubmed: 29594221
Future Oncol. 2017 Oct;13(24):2171-2181
pubmed: 28758431