How Has Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy Changed in Italy between 2004 and 2011? An Analysis of the National Patterns-Of-Practice (POP) Database by the Uro-Oncology Study Group of the Italian Society of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO).
Pattern Of Practice
prostate cancer
radiotherapy
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 May 2021
30 May 2021
Historique:
received:
05
04
2021
revised:
20
05
2021
accepted:
24
05
2021
entrez:
2
6
2021
pubmed:
3
6
2021
medline:
3
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Two previous "Patterns Of Practice" surveys (POP I and POP II), including more than 4000 patients affected by prostate cancer treated with radical external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 1980 and 2003, established a "benchmark" Italian data source for prostate cancer radiotherapy. This report (POP III) updates the previous studies. Data on clinical management and outcome of 2525 prostate cancer patients treated by EBRT from 2004 to 2011 were collected and compared with POP II and, when feasible, also with POP I. This report provides data on clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, radiation therapy management, and toxicity as collected within the framework of POP III. More than 50% of POP III patients were classified as low or intermediate risk using D'Amico risk categories as in POP II; 46% were classified as ISUP grade group 1. CT scan, bone scan, and endorectal ultrasound were less frequently prescribed. Dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), image guided radiotherapy (IGRT), and hypofractionated RT were more frequently offered during the study period. Treatment was commonly well tolerated. Acute toxicity improved compared to the previous series; late toxicity was influenced by prescribed dose and treatment technique. Five-year overall survival, biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and disease specific survival were similar to those of the previous series (POP II). BRFS was better in intermediate- and high-risk patients treated with ≥ 76 Gy. This report highlights the improvements in radiotherapy planning and dose delivery among Italian Centers in the 2004-2011 period. Dose-escalated treatments resulted in better biochemical control with a reduction in acute toxicity and higher but acceptable late toxicity, as not yet comprehensively associated with IMRT/IGRT. CTV-PTV margins >8 mm were associated with increased toxicity, again suggesting that IGRT-allowing for tighter margins-would reduce toxicity for dose escalated RT. These conclusions confirm the data obtained from randomized controlled studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Two previous "Patterns Of Practice" surveys (POP I and POP II), including more than 4000 patients affected by prostate cancer treated with radical external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 1980 and 2003, established a "benchmark" Italian data source for prostate cancer radiotherapy. This report (POP III) updates the previous studies.
METHODS
METHODS
Data on clinical management and outcome of 2525 prostate cancer patients treated by EBRT from 2004 to 2011 were collected and compared with POP II and, when feasible, also with POP I. This report provides data on clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, radiation therapy management, and toxicity as collected within the framework of POP III.
RESULTS
RESULTS
More than 50% of POP III patients were classified as low or intermediate risk using D'Amico risk categories as in POP II; 46% were classified as ISUP grade group 1. CT scan, bone scan, and endorectal ultrasound were less frequently prescribed. Dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), image guided radiotherapy (IGRT), and hypofractionated RT were more frequently offered during the study period. Treatment was commonly well tolerated. Acute toxicity improved compared to the previous series; late toxicity was influenced by prescribed dose and treatment technique. Five-year overall survival, biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and disease specific survival were similar to those of the previous series (POP II). BRFS was better in intermediate- and high-risk patients treated with ≥ 76 Gy.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This report highlights the improvements in radiotherapy planning and dose delivery among Italian Centers in the 2004-2011 period. Dose-escalated treatments resulted in better biochemical control with a reduction in acute toxicity and higher but acceptable late toxicity, as not yet comprehensively associated with IMRT/IGRT. CTV-PTV margins >8 mm were associated with increased toxicity, again suggesting that IGRT-allowing for tighter margins-would reduce toxicity for dose escalated RT. These conclusions confirm the data obtained from randomized controlled studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34070797
pii: cancers13112702
doi: 10.3390/cancers13112702
pmc: PMC8199007
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Tumori. 2014 Jan-Feb;100(1):31-7
pubmed: 24675488
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2007;10(1):82-6
pubmed: 16983394
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Apr;15(4):464-73
pubmed: 24581940
J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 1;24(13):1990-6
pubmed: 16648499
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 1;31(31):3860-8
pubmed: 24101042
Am J Clin Oncol. 2011 Feb;34(1):11-5
pubmed: 20101167
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Jul 15;56(4):1093-104
pubmed: 12829147
Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Sep;29(9):1228-42
pubmed: 16096414
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):1047-1060
pubmed: 27339115
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Apr 10;39(11):1234-1242
pubmed: 33497252
Can J Urol. 2012 Aug;19(4):6373-80
pubmed: 22892261
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 Apr 1;52(5):1310-9
pubmed: 11955744
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Dec 1;102(5):1420-1429
pubmed: 30071296
APMIS. 2016 Jun;124(6):433-5
pubmed: 27150257
Eur Urol. 2014 Jan;65(1):162-8
pubmed: 22790288
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2008 Oct;18(4):249-56
pubmed: 18725112
Eur Urol. 2012 Jun;61(6):1079-92
pubmed: 22424666
Radiol Med. 2019 May;124(5):422-431
pubmed: 30607866
JAMA. 2005 Sep 14;294(10):1233-9
pubmed: 16160131
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Mar 15;37(5):1035-41
pubmed: 9169810
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Mar 15;70(4):1124-9
pubmed: 18313526
Strahlenther Onkol. 2020 Mar;196(3):229-242
pubmed: 31873779
Lancet Oncol. 2007 Jun;8(6):475-87
pubmed: 17482880
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Jan;142:62-71
pubmed: 31767473
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jan 1;70(1):67-74
pubmed: 17765406
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):1061-1069
pubmed: 27339116
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 1;14(11):e0224151
pubmed: 31675380
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 10;35(17):1891-1897
pubmed: 28355113
Strahlenther Onkol. 2009 Feb;185(2):94-100
pubmed: 19240995