Changes in Patterns of Practice for Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy in Italy 1995–2003. A Survey of the Prostate Cancer Study Group of the Italian Radiation Oncology Society
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2014
Changes in Patterns of Practice for Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy in Italy 1995–2003. A Survey of the Prostate Cancer Study Group of the Italian Radiation Oncology Society
In 2002, a survey including 1759 patients treated from 1980 to 1998 established a “benchmark” Italian data source for prostate cancer radiotherapy. This report updates the previous one.
Methods
Data on clinical management and outcomes of 3001 patients treated in 15 centers from 1999 through 2003 were analyzed and compared with those of the previous survey.
Results
Significant differences in clinical management (-10% had abdominal magnetic resonance imaging; +26% received ≥70 Gy, +48% conformal radiotherapy, −20% pelvic radiotherapy) and in G3–4 toxicity rates (-3.8%) were recorded. Actuarial 5-year overall, disease-specific, clinical relapse-free, and biochemical relapse-free survival rates were 88%, 96%, 96% and 88%, respectively. At multivariate analysis, D'Amico risk categories significantly impacted on all the outcomes; higher radiotherapy doses were significantly related with better overall survival rates, and a similar trend was evident for disease-specific and biochemical relapse-free survival; cumulative probability of 5-year late G1–4 toxicity was 24.8% and was significantly related to higher radiotherapy doses (P <0.001).
Conclusions
The changing patterns of practice described seem related to an improvement in efficacy and safety of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. However, the impact of the new radiotherapy techniques should be prospectively evaluated.
HeidenreichA., BellmuntJ., BollaM., JoniauS., MasonM., MatveevV., MottetN., SchmidH.P., van der KwastT., WiegelT., ZattoniF.: European Association of Urology EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol, 59: 61–71, 2011.
3.
MottetN., BellmuntJ., BollaM., JoniauS., MasonM., MatveevV., SchmidH.P., Van der KwastT., WiegelT., ZattoniF., HeidenreichA.: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol, 59: 572–583, 2011.
StaffurthJ., Radiotherapy Development Board: A review of the clinical evidence for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol), 22: 643–657, 2010.
6.
FogartyG.B., NgD., LiuG., HayduL.E., BhandariN.: Volumetric modulated arc therapy is superior to conventional intensity modulated radiotherapy - a comparison among prostate cancer patients treated in an Australian centre. Radiat Oncol, 6: 108, 2011.
7.
RongY., TangG., WelshJ.S., MohiuddinM.M., PaliwalB., YuC.X.: Helical tomotherapy versus single-arc intensity-modulated arc therapy: a collaborative dosimetric comparison between two institutions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 81: 284–296, 2011.
8.
DavidsonM.T., BlakeS.J., BatchelarD.L., CheungP., MahK.: Assessing the role of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) relative to IMRT and helical tomotherapy in the management of localized, locally advanced, and post-operative prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 80: 1550–1558, 2011.
9.
DavidsonM.T., BlakeS.J., BatchelarD.L., CheungP., MahK.: Comparison of three radiotherapy modalities on biochemical control and overall survival for the treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol, 93: 168–173, 2009.
BekelmanJ.E., ShahA., HanhS.: Implications of comparative effectiveness research for radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol, 1: 72–80, 2011.
12.
MagriniS.M., BertoniF., VavassoriV., VillaS., CagnaE., MaranzanoE., PerticiM., PradellaR., SpediacciM.A., ChiavacciA., AmbrosiE., LiviL., MagliA., BellavitaR., BossiA., BitiG.: Practice patterns for prostate cancer in nine central and northern Italy radiation oncology centers: a survey including 1759 patients treated during two decades (1980–1998). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 52: 1310–1319, 2002.
13.
American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel: Consensus statement: Guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 17: 1155, 1994.
PicklesT., Kim-SingC., MorrisW.J., TyldesleyS., PaltielC.: Evaluation of the Houston biochemical relapse definition in men treated with prolonged neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen ablation and assessment of follow-up lead-time bias. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 57: 11–18, 2003.
ChapetO., QueroL., AzriaD., BossiA., HennequinC., PaparelP.: Is pelvic irradiation still justified in the treatment of prostate cancer by exclusive radiotherapy?Cancer Radiother, 13: 416–422, 2009.
18.
KubanD.A., TuckerS.L., DongL., StarkschallG., HuangE.H., CheungM.R., LeeA.K., PollackA.: Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 70: 67–74, 2008.
19.
Al-MamganiA., van PuttenW.L., HeemsbergenW.D., van LeendersG.J., SlotA., DielwartM.F., IncrocciL., LebesqueJ.V.: Update of Dutch multicenter dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 72: 980–988, 2008.
20.
BeckendorfV., GuerifS., Le PriséE., CossetJ.M., BougnouxA., ChauvetB., SalemN., ChapetO., BourdainS., BachaudJ.M., MaingonP., Hannoun-LeviJ.M., MalissardL., SimonJ.M., PommierP., HayM., DubrayB., LagrangeJ.L., LuporsiE., BeyP.: 70 Gy versus 80 Gy in localized prostate cancer: 5-year results of GETUG 06 randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 80: 1056–1063, 2011.
21.
De BariB., FiorentinoA., GretoD., CiammellaP., ArcangeliS., AvuzziB., D'AngelilloR.M., DesideriI., KirienkoM., MarchioriD., MassariF., FundoniC., FrancoP.R., FilippiA.R., AlongiF.: Prostate cancer as a paradigm of multidisciplinary approach? Highlights from the young radiation oncologist meeting. Tumori, 99: 637–649, 2013.
