Treatment Interruptions During Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

SBRT (stereotactic body radiation therapy) Treatment delay prostate cancer treatment interruption treatment noncompletion

Journal

Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 16 10 2021
accepted: 14 12 2021
entrez: 7 2 2022
pubmed: 8 2 2022
medline: 8 2 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

During the course of radiation treatment for prostate cancer, patients may have unintentional interruptions in their treatment course due to a wide variety of factors. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) decreases the number of treatments compared to conventionally fractionated radiation; hence, it has the potential to decrease treatment delays and non-completion. This study sought to determine the incidence of treatment delay and characterize the etiology and length in a large cohort of men treated with SBRT for their prostate cancer. One thousand three hundred and thirty-six patients treated with SBRT from 2008 to 2021 at the Georgetown University Hospital for prostate cancer were included in this retrospective study. A treatment delay was defined as a patient requiring longer than 14 days to complete 5 fractions of SBRT. Non-completion was defined as patients treated with less than 5 fractions. In the patients who experienced delays, chart review was performed to characterize the length and etiology of each delay. Multivariate analysis was performed All individuals in the cohort eventually completed the planned 5-fraction regimen. Thirty-three patients experienced a treatment delay. Median length of time to complete treatment was 11 days (range 5-155 days). In patients who experienced a delay, nearly half (45.5%) experienced only a one-day delay. The most common reason for a delay was a technical issue (48.5%), including the machine maintenance, fiducial misalignment, or inadequate pretreatment bowel preparation. Other reasons included unplanned breaks due to acute side effects (21.2%), logistical issues (18.2%), non-treatment related health issues (9.1%), and inclement weather (3.0%). There were no significant sociodemographic, oncologic, or treatment variables that predicted treatment interruption on multivariate analysis. The incidence of treatment interruptions in patients undergoing SBRT for their prostate cancer was low. Most treatment delays were short.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
During the course of radiation treatment for prostate cancer, patients may have unintentional interruptions in their treatment course due to a wide variety of factors. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) decreases the number of treatments compared to conventionally fractionated radiation; hence, it has the potential to decrease treatment delays and non-completion. This study sought to determine the incidence of treatment delay and characterize the etiology and length in a large cohort of men treated with SBRT for their prostate cancer.
METHODS METHODS
One thousand three hundred and thirty-six patients treated with SBRT from 2008 to 2021 at the Georgetown University Hospital for prostate cancer were included in this retrospective study. A treatment delay was defined as a patient requiring longer than 14 days to complete 5 fractions of SBRT. Non-completion was defined as patients treated with less than 5 fractions. In the patients who experienced delays, chart review was performed to characterize the length and etiology of each delay. Multivariate analysis was performed
RESULTS RESULTS
All individuals in the cohort eventually completed the planned 5-fraction regimen. Thirty-three patients experienced a treatment delay. Median length of time to complete treatment was 11 days (range 5-155 days). In patients who experienced a delay, nearly half (45.5%) experienced only a one-day delay. The most common reason for a delay was a technical issue (48.5%), including the machine maintenance, fiducial misalignment, or inadequate pretreatment bowel preparation. Other reasons included unplanned breaks due to acute side effects (21.2%), logistical issues (18.2%), non-treatment related health issues (9.1%), and inclement weather (3.0%). There were no significant sociodemographic, oncologic, or treatment variables that predicted treatment interruption on multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of treatment interruptions in patients undergoing SBRT for their prostate cancer was low. Most treatment delays were short.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35127506
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.796496
pmc: PMC8807506
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

796496

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Pepin, Zwart, Danner, Ayoob, Yung, Collins, Kumar, Suy, Aghdam and Collins.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The Department of Radiation Medicine at Georgetown University Hospital receives a grant from Accuray to support a research coordinator. BC and SC serve as clinical consultants to Accuray. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2020 Apr;32(4):e111-e118
pubmed: 31757747
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Dec 1;72(5):1402-7
pubmed: 18472368
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 1;81(3):751-7
pubmed: 20932666
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2020 Oct 22;25:94-101
pubmed: 33204857
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018 Feb;62(1):116-121
pubmed: 29030906
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Nov;20(11):1531-1543
pubmed: 31540791
Br J Radiol. 2019 Jun;92(1098):20180823
pubmed: 31017457
Radiother Oncol. 2018 May;127(2):206-212
pubmed: 29551231
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Mar 1;4(3):e211793
pubmed: 33755165
Lancet. 2019 Aug 3;394(10196):385-395
pubmed: 31227373
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990 Dec;19(6):1377-82
pubmed: 2262361
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Mar 13;8:58
pubmed: 23497695
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Jul 1;110(3):731-737
pubmed: 33493615
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2019 Sep;8(Suppl 2):S172-S183
pubmed: 31673522
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Apr 1;109(5):1279-1285
pubmed: 33276019
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012 Nov 08;13(6):3968
pubmed: 23149788
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017 Oct;15(5):563-569.e3
pubmed: 28462857
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jul 1;68(3):654-61
pubmed: 17467926

Auteurs

Abigail N Pepin (AN)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.

Alan Zwart (A)

Department of Radiation Medicine, School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States.

Malika Danner (M)

Department of Radiation Medicine, School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States.

Marylin Ayoob (M)

Department of Radiation Medicine, School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States.

Thomas Yung (T)

Department of Radiation Medicine, School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States.

Brian T Collins (BT)

Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States.

Deepak Kumar (D)

The Julius L. Chambers Biomedical Biotechnology Research Institute, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, United States.

Simeng Suy (S)

Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States.

Nima Aghdam (N)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

Sean P Collins (SP)

Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States.

Classifications MeSH