TY - JOUR A1 - Tamihardja, Jörg A1 - Lawrenz, Ingulf A1 - Lutyj, Paul A1 - Weick, Stefan A1 - Guckenberger, Matthias A1 - Polat, Bülent A1 - Flentje, Michael T1 - 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 JF - Strahlentherapie und Onkologie N2 - 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. KW - long-term outcome KW - dose escalation KW - high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost KW - propensity score matching KW - toxicity Y1 - 2022 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-325055 VL - 198 IS - 8 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Tamihardja, Jörg A1 - Schortmann, Max A1 - Lawrenz, Ingulf A1 - Weick, Stefan A1 - Bratengeier, Klaus A1 - Flentje, Michael A1 - Guckenberger, Matthias A1 - Polat, Bülent T1 - Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: updated long-term outcome and toxicity analysis JF - Strahlentherapie und Onkologie N2 - Purpose Evaluation of long-term outcome and toxicity of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with simultaneous integrated boost treatment planning and cone beam CT-based image guidance for localized prostate cancer. Methods Between 2005 and 2015, 346 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer received primary radiotherapy using cone beam CT-based image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (IG-VMAT) with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). Total doses of 73.9 Gy (n = 44) and 76.2 Gy (n = 302) to the high-dose PTV were delivered in 32 and 33 fractions, respectively. The low-dose PTV received a dose (D95) of 60.06 Gy in single doses of 1.82 Gy. The pelvic lymph nodes were treated in 91 high-risk patients to 45.5 Gy (D95). Results Median follow-up was 61.8 months. The 5‑year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was 85.4% for all patients and 93.3, 87.4, and 79.4% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease, respectively. The 5‑year prostate cancer-specific survival (PSS) was 94.8% for all patients and 98.7, 98.9, 89.3% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease, respectively. The 5‑year and 10-year overall survival rates were 83.8 and 66.3% and the 5‑year and 10-year freedom from distant metastasis rates were 92.2 and 88.0%, respectively. Cumulative 5‑year late GU toxicity and late GI toxicity grade ≥2 was observed in 26.3 and 12.1% of the patients, respectively. Cumulative 5‑year late grade 3 GU/GI toxicity occurred in 4.0/1.2%. Conclusion Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy using SIB treatment planning and cone beam CT image guidance resulted in high biochemical control and survival with low rates of late toxicity. KW - simultaneous integrated boost KW - cone beam CT KW - hypofractionation KW - intensity-modulated radiation therapy KW - image-guided radiation therapy Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-232509 SN - 0179-7158 VL - 197 ER - TY - THES A1 - Lawrenz, Ingulf T1 - Die moderat hypofraktionierte Bestrahlung des lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms : Ergebnisse für das tumorspezifische und klinische Outcome nach moderater Hypofraktionerung in intensitätsmodulierter Technik T1 - The moderately hypofractionated Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer N2 - Die mäßig hypofraktionierte Strahlentherapie des lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms Wir haben retrospektiv die ersten 150 konsekutiven Patienten analysiert, die mit einer primären Strahlentherapie in IMRT bei lokalisiertem Prostatakrebs behandelt wurden. Alle Patienten hatten ein histologisch gesichertes Prostatakarzinom und wurden von Urologen zur kurativen Bestrahlung überwiesen. Nach der CT-basierter Planung wurden alle Patienten mit einer intensitätsmodulierten Strahlenthera (IMRT) unter Verwendung der SIB-Technik (Simultan Integrierter Boost) behandelt. Die applizierten Dosen betrugen 74 Gy (n = 41) und 76,2 Gy (n = 109) in 32 und 33 Fraktionen. Die Behandlung von Beckenlymphknoten (46 Gy) wurde bei 41 Hochrisikopatienten durchgeführt. Die Behandlung wurde unter Verwendung einer integrierten Cone-Beam-CT (IGRT) durchgeführt. Die Toxizität wurde mit CTCAE 3.0 bewertet. Das biochemische Rezidiv wurde gemäß der Phoenix-Definition von Nadir + 2 ng / ml definiert. Wir analysierten die gastrointestinale Toxizität (GI), die urogenitale Toxizität (GU) und das Freedom From Biochemichal Failure (FFBF). Ergebnisse: Das mediane Follow-Up der Patienten betrug 50 Monate. Mehr als 80% der Patienten waren während der Nachbeobachtung frei von gastrointestinaler Toxizität. Es gab keinen Trend zu erhöhten GI-Toxizitätsraten im zeitlichen Verlauf. Bei 85% unserer Patienten wurde innerhalb von 6 Wochen nach der Behandlung eine akute Urogenitaltoxizität vom Grad 1-2 beobachtet. Die meisten Patienten erholten sich von einer akuten GU-Toxizität. Es gab einen kontinuierlichen Anstieg des GU-Toxizitätsgrades ≥2 mit <10% nach 6 bis 12 Monaten auf 22,4% nach 60 Monaten. Die GU-Toxizität 3. Grades lag während der Nachuntersuchung unter 5%. FFBF betrug 82% für alle Patienten. Nach Risikogruppen betrug FFBF 88%, 80% und 78% für das niedrige, mittlere und hohe Risiko. Schlussfolgerung: Nach moderat hypofraktionierter Strahlentherapie des Prostatakarzinoms beobachteten wir niedrige GI-Toxizitätsraten sowie ein günstiges FFBF. Die GU-Toxizitätsraten lagen innerhalb der international berichteten Ergebnisse bei gleichwertiger Behandlung. Die konformale IMRT-Planung und die genaue IGRT haben möglicherweise zu diesen Ergebnissen beigetragen. N2 - The moderately hypofractionated Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer We retrospectively analyzed the first 150 consecutive patients who were treated with primary radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. All Patients had histologic confirmed prostate cancer und were referred by urologists for primary Treatment. After CT based planning all Patients were treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy planning (IMRT) using the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. Doses delivered were 74Gy (n=41) and 76.2Gy (n=109) in 32 and 33 fractions. Treatmemt of pelvic lymph nodes (46 Gy) was done in 41 high-risk patients. Treatment was delivered using cone-beam CT based image guidance (IGRT). We assessed toxicity using CTCAE 3.0; biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix definition of nadir +2ng/ml. We analyzed gastrointestinal toxicity (GI), genitourinary toxicity (GU) and freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) Results: Median follow-up of patients was 50 months. More than 80% of the patients were free from any gastrointestinal toxicity during follow-up. There was no trend to increased rates of GI toxicity. Acute genitourinary toxicity grade 1-2 was observed in 85% of our patients within 6 weeks after treatment. Most patients recovered from acute GU toxicity. There was a continuous increase of GU toxicity grade ≥2 with <10% at 6 to 12 month to 22.4% at 60 months. Grade 3 GU toxicity was below 5% during follow-up. FFBF was 82% for all patients. Stratified by risk group FFBF was 88%, 80% and 78% for low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease. Conclusions: We observed low rates of GI toxicity after moderately hypo-fractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer and favourable FFBF. Rates of GU toxicity was within the international reported outcomes for equivalent treatments. The conformal IMRT planning and accurate IGRT treatment may have contributed to these results. KW - Prostatakrebs KW - Prostatakrebs Strahlentherapie Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-199605 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Richter, Anne A1 - Polat, Bülent A1 - Lawrenz, Ingulf A1 - Weick, Stefan A1 - Sauer, Otto A1 - Flentje, Michael A1 - Mantel, Frederick T1 - Initial results for patient setup verification using transperineal ultrasound and cone beam CT in external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer JF - Radiation Oncology N2 - Evaluation of set up error detection by a transperineal ultrasound in comparison with a cone beam CT (CBCT) based system in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of prostate cancer. Methods: Setup verification was performed with transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) and CBCT for 10 patients treated with EBRT for prostate cancer. In total, 150 ultrasound and CBCT scans were acquired in rapid succession and analyzed for setup errors. The deviation between setup errors of the two modalities was evaluated separately for each dimension. Results: A moderate correlation in lateral, vertical and longitudinal direction was observed comparing the setup errors. Mean differences between TPUS and CBCT were (−2.7 ± 2.3) mm, (3.0 ± 2.4) mm and (3.2 ± 2.7) mm in lateral, vertical and longitudinal direction, respectively. The mean Euclidean difference between TPUS and CBCT was (6.0 ± 3.1) mm. Differences up to 19.2 mm were observed between the two imaging modalities. Discrepancies between TPUS and CBCT of at least 5 mm occurred in 58 % of monitored treatment sessions. Conclusion: Setup differences between TPUS and CBCT are 6 mm on average. Although the correlation of the setup errors determined by the two different image modalities is rather week, the combination of setup verification by CBCT and intrafraction motion monitoring by TPUS imaging can use the benefits of both imaging modalities. KW - prostate cancer KW - transperineal ultrasound KW - IGRT KW - setup verification KW - cone beam CT Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-147677 VL - 11 IS - 147 ER -