BACKGROUND:The objective of this article was to report the results from a randomized clinical trial comparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with 3-dimensonal conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for the treatment of prostate cancer on a hypofractionated schedule. METHODS: The authors randomly assigned 215 men who had localized prostate cancer to receive hypofractionated radiotherapy to a total dose of 70 grays (Gy) in 25 fractions (at 2.8 Gy per fraction) using either IMRT or 3DCRT. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity were prospectively evaluated according to modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria. Biochemical control was defined according to the Phoenix criteria (prostate-specific antigen nadir 1 2 ng/mL). RESULTS: In total, 215 patients were enrolled in the IMRT group (n 5 109) or the 3DCRT group (n 5 106). The 3DCRT arm had a 27% rate of grade 2 acute GU toxicity compared with a 9% rate in the IMRT arm (P 5.001) and a 24% rate of grade 2 acute GI toxicity compared with a 7% rate in the IMRT arm (P 5.001). The maximal rate of grade 2 late GU toxicity during the entire period of follow-up was 3.7% in the IMRT group versus 12.3% in the 3DCRT group (P 5.02). The maximal rate of grade 2 late GI toxicity during the entire follow-up was 6.4% in the IMRT group versus 21.7% in the 3DCRT group (P 5.001). The 5-year rate of freedom from biochemical failure was 95.4% in the IMRT arm and 94.3% in the 3DCRT arm (P 5.678). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT reduced the delivery of significant radiation doses to the bladder and rectum using a similar target volume. This dosimetric advantage resulted in a lower rate of acute/late grade 2 GI and GU toxicity for IMRT compared with 3DCRT.
Purpose:
Historically, the role of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) for patients with adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) has been controversial. The objective of this research is to review systematically the literature evaluating the role of adjuvant RT in patients with ACC undergone a surgical resection.
Materials and Methods:
The electronic databases were searched for articles published until July 2017 without language restriction: Lilacs, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane. Two reviewers independently appraised the eligibility criteria and extracted data. When possible, a fixed-effect meta-analysis was done. The systematic review (SR) followed all the criteria of the MOOSE guideline.
Results:
Overall, 382 citations were identified. After the screening of titles and abstracts, 12 articles (eight case series [48 patients] and 4 cohort studies [136 patients]) were included in the final analysis. For the local recurrence, the pooled relative risk (RR) was RR = 0.46 (95% confidence interval: 0.28–0.75), in favor of adjuvant RT when compared with surgery alone. Concerning overall mortality and disease recurrence, no significant difference between adjuvant RT and surgery was detected, RR = 0.77 (CI 95% 0.49–1.22, P = 0.27), and RR = 0.95 (IC 95% 0.74–1.24, P = 0.67). In all cohort studies, the acute toxicities were graduated as mild and self-limited with nausea and fatigue being the most common symptoms. Only one case (1/50) of impairment of kidney function was detected as late toxicity in these studies.
Conclusions:
This SR and meta-analysis indicate that adjuvant RT dramatically reduces the local recurrence of ACC after surgery. Moreover, the treatment has a low acute and late toxicity, resulting in a high therapeutic index. Further, prospective studies are needed to confirm or refute the role of RT on survival and disease recurrence.
WBRT plus SRS was an independent prognostic factor for survival. However, the combined treatment appears to be justified only in patients with RPA I and lesion volume ≤5 cm 3, independently of the number of lesions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.