A retrospective review of the long-term outcomes of online adaptive radiation therapy and conventional radiation therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer.
Adaptive radiation therapy
Bladder cancer
Clinical outcomes
Online image guidance
Radiation oncology
Journal
Clinical and translational radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6308
Titre abrégé: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101713416
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
17
04
2021
revised:
29
07
2021
accepted:
01
08
2021
entrez:
17
8
2021
pubmed:
18
8
2021
medline:
18
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To report long-term outcomes of online image-guided (IG) adaptive radiation therapy (aRT) versus conventional IG radiation therapy (cRT) for bladder preservation in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). A retrospective review of patients with histologically proven MIBC who were prescribed radical intent radiation therapy (RT) following trans-urethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) was conducted. There were three groups based on their RT treatment modality: conventional RT (cRT), margin 5 mm adaptive RT (aRT5mm) and margin 7 mm adaptive RT (aRT7mm). 171 patients were included in this study, with median age of 79.4 years (41-90). Approximately half of all patients received concurrent chemotherapy. N = 57 underwent cRT, n = 39 underwent aRT5mm, and n = 75 underwent aRT7mm. Response evaluable patients in all three groups (n = 133) had high rates of complete response (CR, 83%) on first post-RT cystoscopy with no significant differences between the groups. At a median follow-up of 54 months, the 5-year freedom from muscle-invasive failure survival (FFMIFS) in the cRT, aRT5mm, and aRT7mm groups were 75%, 59%, and 98%, respectively. The estimated cancer specific survival (CSS) at 5 years were 60%, 30%, and 59%, respectively. The estimated overall survival (OS) at 5 years were 43%, 26%, and 38%, respectively. The incidence of late grade 3 or 4 toxicity was n = 5 in aRT5mm, n = 2 in cRT group, and n = 1 in aRT7mm. IG aRT with 7 mm expansion for MIBC provides higher rates of FFMIFS, similar 5-year CSS and OS, as well as toxicity outcomes when compared to cRT. aRT with 5 mm expansion with this RT protocol is not recommended for treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To report long-term outcomes of online image-guided (IG) adaptive radiation therapy (aRT) versus conventional IG radiation therapy (cRT) for bladder preservation in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective review of patients with histologically proven MIBC who were prescribed radical intent radiation therapy (RT) following trans-urethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) was conducted. There were three groups based on their RT treatment modality: conventional RT (cRT), margin 5 mm adaptive RT (aRT5mm) and margin 7 mm adaptive RT (aRT7mm).
RESULTS
RESULTS
171 patients were included in this study, with median age of 79.4 years (41-90). Approximately half of all patients received concurrent chemotherapy. N = 57 underwent cRT, n = 39 underwent aRT5mm, and n = 75 underwent aRT7mm. Response evaluable patients in all three groups (n = 133) had high rates of complete response (CR, 83%) on first post-RT cystoscopy with no significant differences between the groups. At a median follow-up of 54 months, the 5-year freedom from muscle-invasive failure survival (FFMIFS) in the cRT, aRT5mm, and aRT7mm groups were 75%, 59%, and 98%, respectively. The estimated cancer specific survival (CSS) at 5 years were 60%, 30%, and 59%, respectively. The estimated overall survival (OS) at 5 years were 43%, 26%, and 38%, respectively. The incidence of late grade 3 or 4 toxicity was n = 5 in aRT5mm, n = 2 in cRT group, and n = 1 in aRT7mm.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
IG aRT with 7 mm expansion for MIBC provides higher rates of FFMIFS, similar 5-year CSS and OS, as well as toxicity outcomes when compared to cRT. aRT with 5 mm expansion with this RT protocol is not recommended for treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34401535
doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.08.001
pii: S2405-6308(21)00069-0
pmc: PMC8358463
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
65-70Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Br J Radiol. 2007 Apr;80(952):279-83
pubmed: 17121759
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Oct;109(1):165-9
pubmed: 23182055
Radiother Oncol. 2006 Oct;81(1):9-17
pubmed: 17011058
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Mar 1;79(3):705-12
pubmed: 20472358
Acta Oncol. 2010 Oct;49(7):1045-51
pubmed: 20831494
Radiother Oncol. 2011 May;99(2):131-6
pubmed: 21620497
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Sep 1;27(25):4055-61
pubmed: 19636019
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 15;76(4):1045-53
pubmed: 19540057
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2017 Jun;48(2):199-206
pubmed: 31047369
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Oct 1;87(2):261-9
pubmed: 23958147
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Dec;117(3):448-52
pubmed: 26577147
Radiat Oncol. 2015 Sep 25;10:205
pubmed: 26407726
Radiother Oncol. 2021 Aug;161:95-114
pubmed: 34118357
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012 Dec;24(10):673-81
pubmed: 22858439
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 May 1;77(1):309-14
pubmed: 20137863
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 1;81(3):765-71
pubmed: 20932678
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2020 Sep 11;25:46-51
pubmed: 33015380
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Nov;93(2):364-7
pubmed: 19800703
Acta Oncol. 2010 Oct;49(7):1069-76
pubmed: 20831498
Eur Urol. 2017 Jan;71(1):96-108
pubmed: 27370177
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Apr 1;55(5):1277-87
pubmed: 12654438
Radiother Oncol. 2012 Jun;103(3):293-8
pubmed: 22483676
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2019 Sep;31(9):646-652
pubmed: 31301959
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Apr 1;97(5):1002-1020
pubmed: 28332983
Acta Oncol. 2015;54(9):1461-6
pubmed: 26313410
J Med Phys. 2013 Apr;38(2):59-66
pubmed: 23776308
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Dec 1;32(34):3801-9
pubmed: 25366678
Radiother Oncol. 2014 May;111(2):316-20
pubmed: 24746580
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2012 Feb;56(1):18-30
pubmed: 22339742
Eur Urol. 2017 Jun;71(6):952-960
pubmed: 28081860
Front Oncol. 2021 Feb 25;11:637591
pubmed: 33718230
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Mar 1;82(3):e457-62
pubmed: 21945107
N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 19;366(16):1477-88
pubmed: 22512481
J Med Radiat Sci. 2015 Dec;62(4):277-85
pubmed: 27512574