@article{TamihardjaLawrenzLutyjetal.2022,
  author    = {Tamihardja, J{\"o}rg and Lawrenz, Ingulf and Lutyj, Paul and Weick, Stefan and Guckenberger, Matthias and Polat, B{\"u}lent and Flentje, Michael},
  title     = {Propensity score-matched analysis comparing dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer},
  series = {Strahlentherapie und Onkologie},
  volume    = {198},
  journal   = {Strahlentherapie und Onkologie},
  number    = {8},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00066-022-01953-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-325055},
  pages     = {735-743},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Purpose Dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT + high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost are guideline-recommended treatment options for localized prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare long-term outcome and toxicity of dose-escalated EBRT versus EBRT + HDR-BT boost. Methods From 2002 to 2019, 744 consecutive patients received either EBRT or EBRT + HDR-BT boost, of whom 516 patients were propensity score matched. Median follow-up was 95.3 months. Cone beam CT image-guided EBRT consisted of 33 fractions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost up to 76.23 Gy (D\(_{Mean}\)). Combined treatment was delivered as 46 Gy (D\(_{Mean}\)) EBRT, followed by two fractions HDR-BT boost with 9 Gy (D\(_{90\\%}\)). Propensity score matching was applied before analysis of the primary endpoint, estimated 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), and the secondary endpoints metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic parameters were analyzed by Cox proportional hazard modelling. Genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluation used the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (v5.0). Results The estimated 10-year bRFS was 82.0\% vs. 76.4\% (p = 0.075) for EBRT alone versus combined treatment, respectively. The estimated 10-year MFS was 82.9\% vs. 87.0\% (p = 0.195) and the 10-year OS was 65.7\% vs. 68.9\% (p = 0.303), respectively. Cumulative 5‑year late GU ≥ grade 2 toxicities were seen in 23.6\% vs. 19.2\% (p = 0.086) and 5‑year late GI ≥ grade 2 toxicities in 11.1\% vs. 5.0\% of the patients (p = 0.002); cumulative 5‑year late grade 3 GU toxicity occurred in 4.2\% vs. 3.6\% (p = 0.401) and GI toxicity in 1.0\% vs. 0.3\% (p = 0.249), respectively. Conclusion Both treatment groups showed excellent long-term outcomes with low rates of severe toxicity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZimmermannRichterWeicketal.2022,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Marcus and Richter, Anne and Weick, Stefan and Exner, Florian and Mantel, Frederick and Diefenhardt, Markus and Fokas, Emmanouil and Kosmala, Rebekka and Flentje, Michael and Polat, B{\"u}lent},
  title     = {Acute toxicities of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with intensified chemoradiotherapy within the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial: comparing conventional versus VMAT planning at a single center},
  series = {Scientific Reports},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Scientific Reports},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41598-022-25647-8},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-301255},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {In locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is regarded as standard treatment. We assessed acute toxicities in patients receiving conventional 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-RT) and correlated them with dosimetric parameters after re-planning with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Patients were randomized within the multicenter CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial and received 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions and simultaneous chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin. Organs at risk (OAR) were contoured in a standardized approach. Acute toxicities and dose volume histogram parameters of 3D-RT plans were compared to retrospectively calculated VMAT plans. From 08/2015 to 01/2018, 35 patients with LARC were treated at one study center. Thirty-four patients were analyzed of whom 1 (3\%) was UICC stage II and 33 (97\%) patients were UICC stage III. Grade 3 acute toxicities occurred in 5 patients (15\%). Patients with acute grade 1 cystitis (n = 9) had significantly higher D\(_{mean}\) values for bladder (29.4 Gy vs. 25.2 Gy, p < 0.01) compared to patients without bladder toxicities. Acute diarrhea was associated with small bowel volume (grade 2: 870.1 ccm vs. grade 0-1: 647.3 ccm; p < 0.01) and with the irradiated volumes V5 to V50. Using VMAT planning, we could reduce mean doses and irradiated volumes for all OAR: D\(_{mean}\) bladder (21.9 Gy vs. 26.3 Gy, p < 0.01), small bowel volumes V5-V45 (p < 0.01), D\(_{mean}\) anal sphincter (34.6 Gy vs. 35.6 Gy, p < 0.01) and D\(_{mean}\) femoral heads (right 11.4 Gy vs. 25.9 Gy, left 12.5 Gy vs. 26.6 Gy, p < 0.01). Acute small bowel and bladder toxicities were dose and volume dependent. Dose and volume sparing for all OAR could be achieved through VMAT planning and might result in less acute toxicities.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KraftWeickBreueretal.2022,
  author    = {Kraft, Johannes and Weick, Stefan and Breuer, Kathrin and Lutyj, Paul and Bratengeier, Klaus and Exner, Florian and Richter, Anne and Tamihardja, J{\"o}rg and Lisowski, Dominik and Polat, B{\"u}lent and Flentje, Michael},
  title     = {Treatment plan comparison for irradiation of multiple brain metastases with hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiotherapy and simultaneous integrated boost using the Varian Halcyon and the Elekta Synergy platforms},
  series = {Radiation Oncology},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Radiation Oncology},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13014-022-02156-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-301221},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {No abstract available.},
  language  = {en}
}