Acute Side-effects of Different Radiotherapy Treatment Schedules in Early Prostate Cancer

5Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Optimal radiation therapy (RT) fractionation in early prostate cancer in elderly patients is controversial. We compared acute toxicities of fractionation schedules: 78/2 Gy, 60/3 Gy and 36.25/7.25 Gy, in this singlecentre study. We also evaluated the effect of the rectal immobilization system Rectafix on quality of life (QoL). Patients and Methods: Seventy-three patients with one or two intermediate prostate cancer risk factors according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria were recruited. Twentyone patients were treated with 78/2 Gy and 60/3 Gy, and 31 patients with 36.25/7.25 Gy. Their QoL data were assessed with regard to genitourinary, gastrointestinal and sexual wellbeing at the beginning and end of RT and at 3 months after treatment. Rectafix was used in the 78/2 Gy and 60/3 Gy groups. Results: There were no statistically significant QoL differences in between the treatment groups 3 months after RT. The 78/2 Gy group had significantly increased bowel movements between baseline and 3 months after RT (p=0.036). At 3 months after RT, this group also had significantly more erectile dysfunction than the 60/3 Gy group (p=0.025). At the end of RT, the 78/2 Gy group had more symptoms than the 36.25/7.25 Gy group. Rectafix did not reduce acute toxicities in the 78/2 Gy or 60/3 Gy groups. Conclusion: Treatment with the 78/2 Gy schedule is no longer to be recommended due to its increased acute toxicity compared to treatments of 60/3 Gy and 36.25/7.25 Gy. The shortest schedule of 36.25 Gy in five fractions seems to be a convenient treatment option with tolerable acute toxicity.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Reinikainen, P., Kapanen, M., Luukkaala, T., & Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P. L. (2022). Acute Side-effects of Different Radiotherapy Treatment Schedules in Early Prostate Cancer. Anticancer Research, 42(5), 2553–2565. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15733

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free