Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
In Vivo
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
In Vivo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit iiar on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies
Open Access

Moderately Hypofractionated Helical Tomotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Ten-year Experience of a Mono-institutional Series of 415 Patients

SALVATORE COZZI, MARIA PAOLA RUGGIERI, EMANUELE ALÌ, SEBASTIANO FINOCCHI GHERSI, FEDERICA VIGO, MATTEO AUGUGLIARO, LUCIA GIACCHERINI, FEDERICO IORI, MASOUMEH NAJAFI, LILIA BARDOSCIA, ANDREA BOTTI, VALERIA TROJANI, PATRIZIA CIAMMELLA and CINZIA IOTTI
In Vivo March 2023, 37 (2) 777-785; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13141
SALVATORE COZZI
1Radiation Therapy Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy;
2Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Lèon Bèrard, Lyon, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: salvatore.cozzi@hotmail.it
MARIA PAOLA RUGGIERI
1Radiation Therapy Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
EMANUELE ALÌ
1Radiation Therapy Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SEBASTIANO FINOCCHI GHERSI
1Radiation Therapy Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FEDERICA VIGO
1Radiation Therapy Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MATTEO AUGUGLIARO
1Radiation Therapy Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LUCIA GIACCHERINI
1Radiation Therapy Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FEDERICO IORI
1Radiation Therapy Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MASOUMEH NAJAFI
3Skull Base Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LILIA BARDOSCIA
4Radiation Oncology Unit, San Luca Hospital, USL Toscana Nord Ovest, Lucca, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANDREA BOTTI
5Medical Physics Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VALERIA TROJANI
5Medical Physics Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PATRIZIA CIAMMELLA
1Radiation Therapy Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CINZIA IOTTI
1Radiation Therapy Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Radiotherapy represents an important therapeutic option in the management of prostate cancer (PCa). As helical tomotherapy may improve toxicity outcomes, we aimed to evaluate and report the toxicity and clinical outcomes of localized PCa patients treated with moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 415 patients affected by localized PCa and treated with moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy in our department from January 2008 to December 2020. All patients were stratified according to the D’Amico risk classification: low-risk 21%, favorable intermediate-risk 16%, unfavorable intermediate-risk 30.4%, and high-risk 32.6%. The dose prescription for high-risk patients was 72.8 Gy to the prostate (planning tumor volume-PTV1), 61.6 Gy to the seminal vesicles (PTV2), and 50.4 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes (PTV3) in 28 fractions; for low- and intermediate-risk patients 70 Gy for PTV1, 56 Gy for PTV2, and 50.4 Gy for PTV3 in 28 fractions. Image-guided radiation therapy was performed daily in all patients by mega-voltage computed tomography. Forty-one percent of patients received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Acute and late toxicity was assessed according to the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5.0 (CTCAE). Results: Median follow-up was 82.7 months (range=12-157 months) and the median age of patients at diagnosis was 72.5 years (range=49-84 years). The 3, 5, and 7 yr overall survival (OS) rates were 95%, 90%, and 84%, respectively, while 3, 5, and 7 yr disease-free survival (DFS) were 96%, 90%, and 87%, respectively. Acute toxicity was as follows: genitourinary (GU) G1 and G2 in 35.9% and 24%; gastrointestinal (GI) in 13.7% and 8%, with G3 or more acute toxicities less than 1%. The late GI toxicity G2 and G3 were 5.3% and 1%, respectively, and the late GU toxicity G2 and G3 were 4.8% and 2.1%, respectively, and only three patients had a G4 toxicity. Conclusion: Hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for PCa treatment appeared to be safe and reliable, with favorable acute and late toxicity rates and encouraging results in terms of disease control.

Key Words:
  • Prostate cancer
  • hypofractionation
  • tomotherapy
  • image-guided radiation therapy
  • IMRT
  • helical-tomotherapy

External beam radiotherapy is a milestone in the treatment of men with prostate cancer (PCa) with curative intent and is associated with long-term disease control in most patients (1). Historically, the standard radiotherapy treatment involves conventional fractionation, with doses of 1.8-2 Gy/day, treatment approximately over 7 weeks, with onerous costs and a negative impact on the patient’s quality of life (2, 3). Over the last decade, the constant improvement in radiotherapy techniques, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), has led to more personalized treatment, with the possibility of using dose-escalated schedules with significant advantages in terms of biochemical control rates and cost-effectiveness (5, 6). Helical tomotherapy, with a combination of linear accelerator and computed tomography characteristics, should provide better dose distribution and conformation than conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy, with the opportunity to reduce acute and late toxicity without compromising the oncological outcome (7). In the literature, several retrospective and randomized phase III trials have demonstrated the non-inferiority of hypofractionated schedules compared with conventional fractionation, and moderate hypofractionation has recently been shown to be safe and effective and is considered a reliable treatment option in patients with localized PCa (8-12). These results have a radiobiological rationale. In particular, one of the most important features of PCa that differentiates it from other solid tumors is the low alpha/beta ratio. It represents the dose where the linear as well as the quadratic component cause the same amount of cell killing (13). As a result, tissues with a high alpha/beta ratio (≥10 Gy) are considered early responding or rapidly proliferating, whereas tissues with a low alpha/beta are considered late responding or slowly proliferating, with a typically more pronounced resistance to low single doses. Therefore, as reported in the literature (14-19), PCa behaves like the latter, having an alpha/beta ratio of 1.2-1.5.

In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes and toxicity of 415 patients affected by localized PCa treated with moderately hypofractionated IMRT-helical tomotherapy.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively evaluated outcomes and toxicities of patients who underwent radical hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for PCa. Our study received final approval by the Institutional Ethics Committee (protocol code: 1006/2019/OS/IRCCSRE approved on 19/11/2019) and was performed in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) in compliance with the ICH GCP guidelines and the ethical principles contained in the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent updates. A written consent form was obtained from each patient.

Inclusion criteria: Age more than 18 years; proven histological diagnosis of PCa; patients who underwent radical moderately hypofractionated IMRT performed with helical tomotherapy; locally advanced PCa; concurrent/adjuvant ADT was allowed; performance status ECOG 0-2; signed informed consent.

Exclusion criteria: Performance status ECOG 3 or worse; any psychological condition that affects the possibility of signing the informed consent; patients treated with systemic therapy (chemotherapy or abiraterone or enzalutamide); presence of extra-regional metastasis at recurrence time; stage IV patients.

Aims: To evaluate acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity in patients with PCa treated with curative intent using hypofractionated tomotherapy, identifying any related risk factors. To evaluate local control of the disease, disease-free survival, overall survival, and the cancer-related mortality rate, identifying any risk factors related to them.

Radiotherapy treatment. For all patients, computed tomography (CT) simulation with 3 mm slice thickness was performed in supine position using a knee-fix immobilization system. In the case of patients with high disease risk, where pelvic lymph node irradiation was planned, simulation CT was performed using iodinated contrast medium. Contrast-enhanced axial plane images were obtained from the lower level of L2 to proximal femurs. The target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured by specialized radiation oncologists. Before planning, a second radiation oncologist evaluated and approved the contours or requested a revision in the event of disagreement. The clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as the entire prostate in the case of low-risk disease, and proximal seminal vesicles were included in the intermediate-risk CTV2, while all the vesicles were included in the case of high-risk or in the case of seminal vesicle invasion. An additional CTV3 was designed to identify pelvic lymph nodes. The planning target volume (PTV) included CTV1, 2, and 3 with a 5-6 mm margin that were used to create PTV1, 2, and 3. Normal structures including the rectum, bladder, femoral head, penile bulb, and bowel were considered to be OARs. Normal structures were constrained on an individual basis using maximum and dose-volume histogram dose constraints without compromising PTV1 coverage. The prescribed doses were as follows: for high-risk patients 72.8 Gy for PTV1, 61.6 Gy for PTV2 and 50.4 Gy for PTV3 in 28 fractions; for low- and intermediate-risk patients 70 Gy for PTV1, 56 Gy for PTV2 and 50.4 Gy for PTV3 in 28 fractions. A total of 332 patients (80%) were low-risk and did not receive pelvic irradiation. IGRT was performed daily in all patients. Acquired CT images using mega-voltage CT (MVCT) were superimposed onto the treatment plans. The median treatment time (beam on) was 340 s (range=190-913 s). The patient’s position was adjusted according to prostate matching before each treatment. The dose constraints used are as follows: rectum: V50<45%, V60<30%, V65<20%; bladder: V60<35 Gy and femurs: Dmax<40 Gy (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Case example of a prostate helical tomotherapy treatment in the three spatial planes, showing the dose distribution.

Hormonal therapy (ADT). The androgen blockade consisted of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH), and anti-androgen therapy was performed as neoadjuvant, concurrent and adjuvant for all intermediate and high-risk patients. Androgen deprivation therapy duration was modulated in relation to risk classification: 6 months for intermediate and 2-3 years for high risk. A preliminary cardiological evaluation was performed on patients with cardiac co-pathologies to evaluate contraindications to the use of ADT.

Follow-up. The follow-up schedule consisted of clinical examination and prostate specific antigen (PSA) detection every 3 months for the first year after the irradiation, then every 6 months. Restaging with CT scan plus bone scan or functional imaging (11C-choline-PET/CT or 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT) was performed in patients with increasing PSA (with a focus on the PSA doubling time) and/or new onset symptoms (urinary retention, hematuria, or bone pain refractory to pain relief). Biochemical recurrence of disease was defined in accordance with the Phoenix criteria (PSA ≥ PSA nadir +2 ng/ml) (20, 21).

Acute and late toxicity was evaluated and graded according to the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5.0 (CTCAE).

Statistical analysis. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity outcomes were investigated. DFS was defined as the time between the first day hypofractionated helical tomotherapy (HT) to the detection of clinical disease outside the PTV after further biochemical progression. OS was defined as the time between the end of primary treatment and patient’s death from any cause. Univariate analysis was performed to assess factors influencing outcome in both categories. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan–Meier method; univariate and multivariate analyses were undertaken using log rank test and Cox’s regression model, respectively. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

From January 2008 to December 2020, 415 patients affected by localized and locally advanced PCa were treated with moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy in our department. The median age at diagnosis was 72.5 years (range=49-84 years) and the median prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) value was 8.6 ng/ml (range=4.1-149 ng/ml). Table I reports the patients’ baseline and tumor characteristics. The patients’ risk stratification according to the D’Amico classification was: low-risk 87 (21%), favorable intermediate-risk 67 (16%), unfavorable intermediate-risk 126 (30.4%) and high-risk 135 (32.6%). In 91.3% of cases, the tumor was limited within the prostate (T1: 44.3%, T2: 47%), whereas in the remaining patients the tumor had already infiltrated and passed the capsule (T3: 7%, T4: 1.7%). Lymph node metastases were detected in 28 patients (6.7%). One, 2,3,4 and 5 International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (ISUP GG) were 142 (34.3%), 76 (18.3%), 119 (28.6%), 52 (12.5%), and 26 (6.3), respectively. Neoadjuvant/concurrent and adjuvant ADT was administered in 170 patients (41%), and 332 patients (80%) did not receive pelvic irradiation.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Patient baseline and tumor characteristics.

Outcomes. The median follow-up was 82.7 months (range=12-157 months); 3, 5, and 7y OS were 95%, 90% and 84%, respectively, while 3, 5, and 7y DFS were 96%, 90%, and 87%, respectively. At the time of writing, 316 patients were alive with no evidence of disease, 39 were alive with disease, 52, 4, and 21 patients had biochemical, intraprostatic, and lymph node recurrence, respectively, while 31 developed metastatic spread. Sixty patients died, 8 of which due to cancer-related death.

The univariate analysis relating to OS and DFS is summarized in Table II. ADT duration and pelvic irradiation did not affect survival, while age, T stage, N1 stage, high-risk profile, and high ISUS GG statistically correlated with OS, and with the exception of age also with DFS. It should be noted that the increase in the duration of radiotherapy treatment showed a correlation trend with both OS and DFS though not significant (p=0.094 and p=0.093, respectively). These data were also confirmed in a multivariate analysis. A comparison between high-grade PCa and any-grade PCa treatment with reference to OS and DFS according to d’Amico class risk are shown in Figure 2. The 3-5-7y OS in the high-risk group were 92%-84%-77% compared to 3-5-7y OS of intermediate- and low-risk of 97%-89%-89% and 98%-97%-90%, respectively, whereas the 3-5-7y DFS in the high-risk group was 92%-88%-84% compared to 3-5-7y DFS of intermediate- and low-risk of 99%-85%-84% and 99%-96%-93%, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Results of univariate analysis concerning overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Overall survival (A) and disease-free survival (B) probability stratified according to D’Amico risk class.

Toxicity. The radiation treatment was well tolerated by all patients, and none discontinued treatment. Acute and late GI and GU toxicities were recorded and are summarized in Table III. Most patients did not experience acute or late GI and GU toxicity ≥ G2. Moderate G1-2 toxicity was reported, the main symptoms being pollakiuria, stranguria, and nocturia. Severe acute toxicity was found in 2 patients, one patient had acute rectal bleeding and one patient (0.3%) had urethral obstruction (0.3%). Regarding late toxicity, three patients developed G4 urethral stricture requiring unblocking surgery and temporary bladder catheter placement, while nine patients developed GU G3 toxicity characterized by hemorrhagic cystitis, bleeding, and incontinence. Regarding GI toxicity, four patients developed actinic proctitis with hemorrhage, which required endoscopic cauterization of the rectal mucosa vessels.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Summary of acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity recorded.

The results of the univariate and multivariate analyses are summarized in Table IV. No dose parameters showed statistically significant correlation with regard to rectal and bladder toxicity for the duration of the treatment. Conversely, the overcoming of all bowel dose constraints found a correlation with the toxicity, also confirmed by the subsequent multivariate analysis.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Results of statistical analysis regarding toxicity.

Discussion

Radiotherapy plays a crucial role in the management of PCa, both with curative intent and in the salvage setting. Emerging data have placed RT as a useful therapeutic option also for oligometastatic and oligorecurrent/oligoprogressive disease (22), rare histologies (23-25), or in combination with new drugs available for hormone-sensitive and castrate-resistant PCa.

Due to the low PCa alpha/beta ratio (i.e., ∼1.5 Gy), hypofractionation may increase the tumor cell control. Several experiences using moderate hypofractionation (i.e., 2.5 Gy to 3 Gy per fractions) for PCa proving the non inferiority in terms of outcomes and stackable site effects compared to conventional fractionation (26-29).

We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of patients affected by localized or locally advanced PCa undergoing moderately hypofractionated using helical tomotherapy. Our department was one of the first in Italy to use moderate hypofractionation IMRT with tomotherapy for PCa, so we had the opportunity to analyze a long follow-up that allowed us to have reliable results. We obtained a 5y OS and a 5-year PFS rate of 90% with grade 3 (G3) or more acute toxicities less than 1%. The late G2 and G3 gastrointestinal toxicities were 5.3% and 1%, respectively, and the G2 and G3 late urinary toxicities were 4.8% and 2.1%, respectively, with only three patients reporting a G4 toxicity. The hypofractionation efficacy is related to radiobiological aspects as a consequence of the low PCa alpha/beta ratio, as reported above. This method has several significant advantages including a shorter treatment duration with associated better patient compliance and quality of life (30). In the literature, numerous trials have shown the efficacy of hypofractionation regimens in PCa treatment with different toxicity results, probably as a consequence of different treatment techniques, IGRT and different CTV to PTV margins (8-11). One of the most important trials is the CHHiP study, which showed the non-inferiority of hypofractionation compared to conventional fractionation, with slightly higher acute gastrointestinal and similar genitourinary toxicity (10). Another important non-inferiority trial supporting hypofractionation efficacy in terms of biochemical control is the PROFIT study, which reported a better toxicity profile compared to the CHHiP trial, where IGRT was used only in 30% of patients, with a major exposure of OAR to radiation (11).

In our experience, we obtained toxicity rates slightly lower than the aforementioned trials, and this is probably related to some characteristics of helical tomotherapy, where the couch and gantry are continuously moving, describing a helical trajectory, and this delivery modality makes it possible to better conform dose distribution with optimal OAR sparing (31). Furthermore, we had the opportunity to check patient positioning daily by means of the MVCT system integrated in the tomotherapy, allowing us to correct the patient position according to the specific daily individual condition. This led us to use tight margins for CTV to PTV expansion (0.5-0.6 cm), and this could be another reason behind our low toxicity rates, confirming literature data where MVCT use has been associated with no evidence of GI/GU G3 acute toxicities in high-risk PCa patients who underwent hypofractionated HT-IMRT (32).

Our results are in line with previous experiences. Tenti et al. recently retrospectively analyzed 76 patients treated with a total dose of 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 67.5 Gy in 25 fractions for localized PCa. After a median follow-up of 42.46 months, they obtained a 4y OS and MFS of 91% and 89%, respectively, with acute and late G ≥2 GI toxicity reported in 6.5% and 2.6% of patients, respectively, and acute and late G ≥2 GU toxicity in 31.5% and 3.9% (33). The authors also reported an interesting association between acute GI toxicity and statin medication and ADT, the latter not found in our analysis, and a relation of acute GU toxicity and use of anticoagulants and antiaggregants. In 2020, Cuccia et al. published data on 170 patients affected by localized PCa who were treated with hypofractionated helical tomotherapy with a total dose of 70 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate, 61.6 Gy to the seminal vesicles for intermediate-risk, and 50.4 Gy to pelvic lymph nodes for high-risk patients. There was no evidence of G3 acute events and only late G3 GI and GU toxicity <5% was reported (34). Moderate hypofractionation with helical tomotherapy was also tested in older patients in a phase I-II trial. The authors recently reported the long-term outcomes of their analysis where, after a median follow-up of 8.9 years, the 7y PFS was 71.6% and the 7y-biochemical-free survival, prostate cancer specific survival, and OS for all the patients were 77.6%, 91.9%, and 77.0%, respectively. Moreover, they reported a 7y G ≥2 late GU toxicities 6.2% and 6.3% in Group-1 (normal fraction action) and −2 (hypofractionation group), respectively (35).

According to the results of the statistical analysis conducted on our series, compliance with the dose limits on the bowel was fundamental in order to minimize gastrointestinal toxicity, perhaps even at the expense of target coverage. In our series, 20% of patients underwent pelvic irradiation, but at univariate analysis it was not shown to be related to OS and only a correlation trend with DFS was detected. Actually, pelvic irradiation in PCa patients is highly debated in the literature. One of the first randomized controlled trials that addressed this topic, assessing toxicity prospectively in patients receiving prostate-only and prostate plus high-dose pelvic irradiations, was the PIVOTAL trial where, however, pelvic doses were slightly higher compared to our schedule and other published experiences. The authors reported no significance differences in acute and late toxicity between the 2 randomized groups and there was no suggestion of an increasing toxicity profile over time in either group (36). Although this trial showed encouraging safety data, the impact of pelvic irradiation in addition to prostate RT should be better defined, and the RTOG 09-24 (NCT01368588), an ongoing phase 3 trial, should provide us with more information (37).

It should be emphasized that one of the main limitations of treatment with tomotherapy is the duration of the treatment, certainly longer than in modern linear accelerators (LINACs). This is a limit not only for patient compliance, but also for the potential risk of intrafraction prostate motion. In our case, the duration of the treatment was associated with a negative impact on the outcomes with a clearly visible trend, albeit without a statistically significant value. Therefore, optimal bladder and rectal preparation and the use of IGRT are mandatory to reduce the risk of partial target missing, while modern tracking techniques have been developed precisely to minimize this risk. Furthermore, the new generation helical tomotherapy machines have been designed and built to complete the treatment more quickly.

Recently, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) (38) has been evaluated for effectiveness and side effect risks. Ultra-hypofractionation (less than 5 fractions) is currently the standard of care in low and intermediate risk PCa. The effectiveness of SBRT, in terms of outcomes, secondary side effects, costs and quality of life has been confirmed by several trials (38-43).

Moreover, improvements in imaging, the introduction of automated target segmentation algorithms and treatment delivery techniques, along with the potential for further reduction in the number of treatment, add to the attractiveness of extreme hypofractionated radiotherapy and will greatly enhance its currently unmatched cost-effectiveness profile (44). Despite the promising results, to date, moderate fractionation represents the first option recommended by the guidelines and mandatory in patients with high risk of disease.

Our study has some important strengths, such as the long follow-up and sample size; to our knowledge it is one of the few studies in the literature to analyze more than 400 patients. However, there are also some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, which limits the statistical power of our analysis, and the lack of self-reported toxicity by patients, which would have improved the toxicity profile.

Conclusion

This study reports long-term data on patients with locally advanced PCa treated with helicoidal tomotherapy technique. Although retrospective, it is one of the studies with the largest number of patients and the longest follow-up in the literature, and it is the result of our long experience in this setting, being among the first in Italy to use IMRT. In conclusion, we showed the safety and tolerability of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for PCa treatment, reporting favorable acute and late toxicity rates and encouraging results in terms of disease control.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Conceptualization: S.C. and R.M.P. Methodology: A.B. and V.T.; Validation: C.I.; Investigation: S.B.G., F.V., M.A., and F.I.; Resources: S.C.; S.F.G., and R.M.P.; Data curation: M.P.R, F.I., S.F.G.; L.G., and S.C; Writing—original draft preparation: S.C. and E.A..; Review and editing: P.C. and C.I.; Project administration: S.C. All Authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this study.

  • Funding

    This study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health-Ricerca Corrente. Annual program 2022/2023.

  • Received January 20, 2023.
  • Revision received February 8, 2023.
  • Accepted February 10, 2023.
  • Copyright © 2023, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wolff RF,
    2. Ryder S,
    3. Bossi A,
    4. Briganti A,
    5. Crook J,
    6. Henry A,
    7. Karnes J,
    8. Potters L,
    9. de Reijke T,
    10. Stone N,
    11. Burckhardt M,
    12. Duffy S,
    13. Worthy G and
    14. Kleijnen J
    : A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 51(16): 2345-2367, 2015. PMID: 26254809. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Nguyen PL,
    2. Gu X,
    3. Lipsitz SR,
    4. Choueiri TK,
    5. Choi WW,
    6. Lei Y,
    7. Hoffman KE and
    8. Hu JC
    : Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(12): 1517-1524, 2011. PMID: 21402604. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.1217
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Mariotto AB,
    2. Yabroff KR,
    3. Shao Y,
    4. Feuer EJ and
    5. Brown ML
    : Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(2): 117-128, 2011. PMID: 21228314. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq495
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hodges JC,
    2. Lotan Y,
    3. Boike TP,
    4. Benton R,
    5. Barrier A and
    6. Timmerman RD
    : Cost-effectiveness analysis of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy: an emerging initial radiation treatment option for organ-confined prostate cancer. J Oncol Pract 8(3 Suppl): e31s-e37s, 2012. PMID: 22942832. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2012.000548
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Kuban DA,
    2. Tucker SL,
    3. Dong L,
    4. Starkschall G,
    5. Huang EH,
    6. Cheung MR,
    7. Lee AK and
    8. Pollack A
    : Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70(1): 67-74, 2008. PMID: 17765406. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.054
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Michalski J,
    2. Yan Y,
    3. Watkins-Bruner D,
    4. Walter B,
    5. Winter K,
    6. Galvin JM,
    7. Bahary J,
    8. Morton GC,
    9. Parliament MB and
    10. Sandler H
    : Preliminary analysis of 3D-CRT vs. IMRT on the high dose arm of the RTOG 0126 prostate cancer trial: toxicity report. Int J Oncol Biol Phys 81(2): S1-S2, 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Cozzarini C,
    2. Fiorino C,
    3. Di Muzio N,
    4. Alongi F,
    5. Broggi S,
    6. Cattaneo M,
    7. Montorsi F,
    8. Rigatti P,
    9. Calandrino R and
    10. Fazio F
    : Significant reduction of acute toxicity following pelvic irradiation with helical tomotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 84(2): 164-170, 2007. PMID: 17706308. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2007.07.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Pollack A,
    2. Walker G,
    3. Horwitz EM,
    4. Price R,
    5. Feigenberg S,
    6. Konski AA,
    7. Stoyanova R,
    8. Movsas B,
    9. Greenberg RE,
    10. Uzzo RG,
    11. Ma C and
    12. Buyyounouski MK
    : Randomized trial of hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 31(31): 3860-3868, 2013. PMID: 24101042. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.51.1972
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Arcangeli G,
    2. Saracino B,
    3. Arcangeli S,
    4. Gomellini S,
    5. Petrongari MG,
    6. Sanguineti G and
    7. Strigari L
    : Moderate hypofractionation in high-risk, organ-confined prostate cancer: final results of a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 35(17): 1891-1897, 2017. PMID: 28355113. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.4189
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Dearnaley D,
    2. Syndikus I,
    3. Mossop H,
    4. Khoo V,
    5. Birtle A,
    6. Bloomfield D,
    7. Graham J,
    8. Kirkbride P,
    9. Logue J,
    10. Malik Z,
    11. Money-Kyrle J,
    12. O’Sullivan JM,
    13. Panades M,
    14. Parker C,
    15. Patterson H,
    16. Scrase C,
    17. Staffurth J,
    18. Stockdale A,
    19. Tremlett J,
    20. Bidmead M,
    21. Mayles H,
    22. Naismith O,
    23. South C,
    24. Gao A,
    25. Cruickshank C,
    26. Hassan S,
    27. Pugh J,
    28. Griffin C,
    29. Hall E and CHHiP Investigators
    : Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 17(8): 1047-1060, 2016. PMID: 27339115. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Catton CN,
    2. Lukka H,
    3. Gu CS,
    4. Martin JM,
    5. Supiot S,
    6. Chung PWM,
    7. Bauman GS,
    8. Bahary JP,
    9. Ahmed S,
    10. Cheung P,
    11. Tai KH,
    12. Wu JS,
    13. Parliament MB,
    14. Tsakiridis T,
    15. Corbett TB,
    16. Tang C,
    17. Dayes IS,
    18. Warde P,
    19. Craig TK,
    20. Julian JA and
    21. Levine MN
    : Randomized trial of a hypofractionated radiation regimen for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 35(17): 1884-1890, 2017. PMID: 28296582. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.7397
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Mottet N,
    2. van den Bergh RCN,
    3. Briers E,
    4. Van den Broeck T,
    5. Cumberbatch MG,
    6. De Santis M,
    7. Fanti S,
    8. Fossati N,
    9. Gandaglia G,
    10. Gillessen S,
    11. Grivas N,
    12. Grummet J,
    13. Henry AM,
    14. van der Kwast TH,
    15. Lam TB,
    16. Lardas M,
    17. Liew M,
    18. Mason MD,
    19. Moris L,
    20. Oprea-Lager DE,
    21. van der Poel HG,
    22. Rouvière O,
    23. Schoots IG,
    24. Tilki D,
    25. Wiegel T,
    26. Willemse PM and
    27. Cornford P
    : EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79(2): 243-262, 2021. PMID: 33172724. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Hegemann NS,
    2. Guckenberger M,
    3. Belka C,
    4. Ganswindt U,
    5. Manapov F and
    6. Li M
    : Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol 9: 275, 2014. PMID: 25480014. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-014-0275-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Fowler J,
    2. Chappell R and
    3. Ritter M
    : Is alpha/beta for prostate tumors really low? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50(4): 1021-1031, 2001. PMID: 11429230. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01607-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Brenner DJ,
    2. Martinez AA,
    3. Edmundson GK,
    4. Mitchell C,
    5. Thames HD and
    6. Armour EP
    : Direct evidence that prostate tumors show high sensitivity to fractionation (low alpha/beta ratio), similar to late-responding normal tissue. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52(1): 6-13, 2002. PMID: 11777617. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)02664-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Miralbell R,
    2. Roberts SA,
    3. Zubizarreta E and
    4. Hendry JH
    : Dose-fractionation sensitivity of prostate cancer deduced from radiotherapy outcomes of 5,969 patients in seven international institutional datasets: α/β=1.4 (0.9-2.2) Gy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82(1): e17-e24, 2012. PMID: 21324610. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.075
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Daşu A
    : Is the alpha/beta value for prostate tumours low enough to be safely used in clinical trials? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19(5): 289-301, 2007. PMID: 17517328. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2007.02.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Fowler J,
    2. Chappell R and
    3. Ritter M
    : Is alpha/beta for prostate tumors really low? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50(4): 1021-1031, 2001. PMID: 11429230. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01607-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Friedland JL,
    2. Freeman DE,
    3. Masterson-McGary ME and
    4. Spellberg DM
    : Stereotactic body radiotherapy: an emerging treatment approach for localized prostate cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 8(5): 387-392, 2009. PMID: 19754215. DOI: 10.1177/153303460900800509
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Amling CL,
    2. Bergstralh EJ,
    3. Blute ML,
    4. Slezak JM and
    5. Zincke H
    : Defining prostate specific antigen progression after radical prostatectomy: what is the most appropriate cut point? J Urol 165(4): 1146-1151, 2001. PMID: 11257657.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Buyyounouski MK,
    2. Hanlon AL,
    3. Eisenberg DF,
    4. Horwitz EM,
    5. Feigenberg SJ,
    6. Uzzo RG and
    7. Pollack A
    : Defining biochemical failure after radiotherapy with and without androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63(5): 1455-1462, 2005. PMID: 16169682. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.05.053
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Cozzi S,
    2. Botti A,
    3. Timon G,
    4. Blandino G,
    5. Najafi M,
    6. Manicone M,
    7. Bardoscia L,
    8. Ruggieri MP,
    9. Ciammella P and
    10. Iotti C
    : Prognostic factors, efficacy, and toxicity of involved-node stereotactic body radiation therapy for lymph node oligorecurrent prostate cancer: An investigation of 117 pelvic lymph nodes. Strahlenther Onkol 198(8): 700-709, 2022. PMID: 34757443. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01871-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Cozzi S,
    2. Bardoscia L,
    3. Najafi M,
    4. Botti A,
    5. Blandino G,
    6. Augugliaro M,
    7. Manicone M,
    8. Iori F,
    9. Giaccherini L,
    10. Sardaro A,
    11. Iotti C and
    12. Ciammella P
    : Adenoid cystic carcinoma/basal cell carcinoma of the prostate: overview and update on rare prostate cancer subtypes. Curr Oncol 29(3): 1866-1876, 2022. PMID: 35323352. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29030152
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bardoscia L,
    2. Triggiani L,
    3. Sandri M,
    4. Francavilla S,
    5. Borghetti P,
    6. Dalla Volta A,
    7. Veccia A,
    8. Tomasini D,
    9. Buglione M,
    10. Valcamonico F,
    11. Simeone C,
    12. Berruti A,
    13. Magrini SM and
    14. Antonelli A
    : Non-metastatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: pattern of care from an uro-oncology multidisciplinary group. World J Urol 39(4): 1161-1170, 2021. PMID: 32591899. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03315-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Cozzi S,
    2. Bardoscia L,
    3. Najafi M,
    4. Igdem S,
    5. Triggiani L,
    6. Magrini SM,
    7. Botti A,
    8. Guedea F,
    9. Melocchi L,
    10. Ciammella P,
    11. Iotti C and
    12. Gutierrez C
    : Ductal prostate cancer: Clinical features and outcomes from a multicenter retrospective analysis and overview of the current literature. Curr Urol 16(4): 218-226, 2022. PMID: 36714233. DOI: 10.1097/CU9.0000000000000118
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Aluwini S,
    2. Pos F,
    3. Schimmel E,
    4. van Lin E,
    5. Krol S,
    6. van der Toorn PP,
    7. de Jager H,
    8. Dirkx M,
    9. Alemayehu WG,
    10. Heijmen B and
    11. Incrocci L
    : Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): acute toxicity results from a randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 16(3): 274-283, 2015. PMID: 25656287. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70482-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Arcangeli G,
    2. Saracino B,
    3. Arcangeli S,
    4. Gomellini S,
    5. Petrongari MG,
    6. Sanguineti G and
    7. Strigari L
    : Moderate hypofractionation in high-risk, organ-confined prostate cancer: Final results of a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 35(17): 1891-1897, 2017. PMID: 28355113. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.4189
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Dearnaley D,
    2. Syndikus I,
    3. Mossop H,
    4. Khoo V,
    5. Birtle A,
    6. Bloomfield D,
    7. Graham J,
    8. Kirkbride P,
    9. Logue J,
    10. Malik Z,
    11. Money-Kyrle J,
    12. O’Sullivan JM,
    13. Panades M,
    14. Parker C,
    15. Patterson H,
    16. Scrase C,
    17. Staffurth J,
    18. Stockdale A,
    19. Tremlett J,
    20. Bidmead M,
    21. Mayles H,
    22. Naismith O,
    23. South C,
    24. Gao A,
    25. Cruickshank C,
    26. Hassan S,
    27. Pugh J,
    28. Griffin C,
    29. Hall E and CHHiP Investigators
    : Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 17(8): 1047-1060, 2016. PMID: 27339115. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Lee WR,
    2. Dignam JJ,
    3. Amin MB,
    4. Bruner DW,
    5. Low D,
    6. Swanson GP,
    7. Shah AB,
    8. D’Souza DP,
    9. Michalski JM,
    10. Dayes IS,
    11. Seaward SA,
    12. Hall WA,
    13. Nguyen PL,
    14. Pisansky TM,
    15. Faria SL,
    16. Chen Y,
    17. Koontz BF,
    18. Paulus R and
    19. Sandler HM
    : Randomized phase III noninferiority study comparing two radiotherapy fractionation schedules in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 34(20): 2325-2332, 2016. PMID: 27044935. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.0448
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Serra M,
    2. Ametrano G,
    3. Borzillo V,
    4. Quarto M,
    5. Muto M,
    6. Di Franco R,
    7. Federica S,
    8. Loffredo F and
    9. Paolo M
    : Dosimetric comparison among cyberknife, helical tomotherapy and VMAT for hypofractionated treatment in localized prostate cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 99(50): e23574, 2020. PMID: 33327317. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023574
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Kunheri B,
    2. Lakshmi JS,
    3. Ravindran GC,
    4. Haridas and
    5. Marwaha V
    : Helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer radiation therapy: An audit of early toxicity and quality of life. J Cancer Res Ther 17(2): 366-371, 2021. PMID: 34121678. DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_1309_20
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Drodge CS,
    2. Boychak O,
    3. Patel S,
    4. Usmani N,
    5. Amanie J,
    6. Parliament MB,
    7. Murtha A,
    8. Field C,
    9. Ghosh S and
    10. Pervez N
    : Acute toxicity of hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Curr Oncol 22(2): e76-e84, 2015. PMID: 25908924. DOI: 10.3747/co.22.2247
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Tenti MV,
    2. Ingrosso G,
    3. Bini V,
    4. Mariucci C,
    5. Saldi S,
    6. Alì E,
    7. Zucchetti C,
    8. Bellavita R and
    9. Aristei C
    : Tomotherapy-based moderate hypofractionation for localized prostate cancer: a mono-institutional analysis. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 27(1): 142-151, 2022. PMID: 35402018. DOI: 10.5603/RPOR.a2022.0012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Cuccia F,
    2. Mortellaro G,
    3. Trapani G,
    4. Valenti V,
    5. Ognibene L,
    6. De Gregorio G,
    7. Quartuccio E,
    8. Luca N,
    9. Tripoli A,
    10. Serretta V,
    11. Lo Casto A and
    12. Ferrera G
    : Acute and late toxicity and preliminary outcomes report of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a mono-institutional analysis. Radiol Med 125(2): 220-227, 2020. PMID: 31641931. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-019-01095-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Cui D,
    2. Du L,
    3. Yu W,
    4. Cai B,
    5. Meng L,
    6. Yang J,
    7. Luo Y,
    8. Chen J and
    9. Ma L
    : Moderate hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for older patients with localized prostate cancer: long-term outcomes of a phase I-II trial. Radiol Oncol 56(2): 216-227, 2022. PMID: 35344645. DOI: 10.2478/raon-2022-0011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Dearnaley D,
    2. Syndikus I,
    3. Mossop H,
    4. Khoo V,
    5. Birtle A,
    6. Bloomfield D,
    7. Graham J,
    8. Kirkbride P,
    9. Logue J,
    10. Malik Z,
    11. Money-Kyrle J,
    12. O’Sullivan JM,
    13. Panades M,
    14. Parker C,
    15. Patterson H,
    16. Scrase C,
    17. Staffurth J,
    18. Stockdale A,
    19. Tremlett J,
    20. Bidmead M,
    21. Mayles H,
    22. Naismith O,
    23. South C,
    24. Gao A,
    25. Cruickshank C,
    26. Hassan S,
    27. Pugh J,
    28. Griffin C,
    29. Hall E and CHHiP Investigators
    : Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 17(8): 1047-1060, 2016. PMID: 27339115. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Androgen-deprivation therapy and radiation therapy in treating patients with prostate cancer. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01368588 [Last accessed on February 8, 2023]
  29. ↵
    1. Paoletti L,
    2. Ceccarelli C,
    3. Menichelli C,
    4. Aristei C,
    5. Borghesi S,
    6. Tucci E,
    7. Bastiani P and
    8. Cozzi S
    : Special stereotactic radiotherapy techniques: procedures and equipment for treatment simulation and dose delivery. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 27(1): 1-9, 2022. PMID: 35402024. DOI: 10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0129
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. King CR,
    2. Freeman D,
    3. Kaplan I,
    4. Fuller D,
    5. Bolzicco G,
    6. Collins S,
    7. Meier R,
    8. Wang J,
    9. Kupelian P,
    10. Steinberg M and
    11. Katz A
    : Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: pooled analysis from a multi-institutional consortium of prospective phase II trials. Radiother Oncol 109(2): 217-221, 2013. PMID: 24060175. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.030
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Widmark A,
    2. Gunnlaugsson A,
    3. Beckman L,
    4. Thellenberg-Karlsson C,
    5. Hoyer M,
    6. Lagerlund M,
    7. Kindblom J,
    8. Ginman C,
    9. Johansson B,
    10. Björnlinger K,
    11. Seke M,
    12. Agrup M,
    13. Fransson P,
    14. Tavelin B,
    15. Norman D,
    16. Zackrisson B,
    17. Anderson H,
    18. Kjellén E,
    19. Franzén L and
    20. Nilsson P
    : Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet 394(10196): 385-395, 2019. PMID: 31227373. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31131-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lukka HR,
    2. Pugh SL,
    3. Bruner DW,
    4. Bahary JP,
    5. Lawton CAF,
    6. Efstathiou JA,
    7. Kudchadker RJ,
    8. Ponsky LE,
    9. Seaward SA,
    10. Dayes IS,
    11. Gopaul DD,
    12. Michalski JM,
    13. Delouya G,
    14. Kaplan ID,
    15. Horwitz EM,
    16. Roach M , 3rd,
    17. Pinover WH,
    18. Beyer DC,
    19. Amanie JO,
    20. Sandler HM and
    21. Kachnic LA
    : Patient reported outcomes in NRG Oncology RTOG 0938, evaluating two ultrahypofractionated regimens for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 102(2): 287-295, 2018. PMID: 29913254. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.06.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Katz AJ and
    2. Kang J
    : Quality of life and toxicity after SBRT for organ-confined prostate cancer, a 7-year study. Front Oncol 4: 301, 2014. PMID: 25389521. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2014.00301
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Fuller DB,
    2. Falchook AD,
    3. Crabtree T,
    4. Kane BL,
    5. Medbery CA,
    6. Underhill K,
    7. Gray JR,
    8. Peddada A and
    9. Chen RC
    : Phase 2 multicenter trial of heterogeneous-dosing stereotactic body radiotherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes. Eur Urol Oncol 1(6): 540-547, 2018. PMID: 31158102. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.06.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Greco C,
    2. Vazirani AA,
    3. Pares O,
    4. Pimentel N,
    5. Louro V,
    6. Morales J,
    7. Nunes B,
    8. Vasconcelos AL,
    9. Antunes I,
    10. Kociolek J and
    11. Fuks Z
    : The evolving role of external beam radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 46(3): 246-253, 2019. PMID: 31492437. DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2019.08.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

In Vivo: 37 (2)
In Vivo
Vol. 37, Issue 2
March-April 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on In Vivo.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Moderately Hypofractionated Helical Tomotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Ten-year Experience of a Mono-institutional Series of 415 Patients
(Your Name) has sent you a message from In Vivo
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the In Vivo web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 8 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Moderately Hypofractionated Helical Tomotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Ten-year Experience of a Mono-institutional Series of 415 Patients
SALVATORE COZZI, MARIA PAOLA RUGGIERI, EMANUELE ALÌ, SEBASTIANO FINOCCHI GHERSI, FEDERICA VIGO, MATTEO AUGUGLIARO, LUCIA GIACCHERINI, FEDERICO IORI, MASOUMEH NAJAFI, LILIA BARDOSCIA, ANDREA BOTTI, VALERIA TROJANI, PATRIZIA CIAMMELLA, CINZIA IOTTI
In Vivo Mar 2023, 37 (2) 777-785; DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13141

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Moderately Hypofractionated Helical Tomotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Ten-year Experience of a Mono-institutional Series of 415 Patients
SALVATORE COZZI, MARIA PAOLA RUGGIERI, EMANUELE ALÌ, SEBASTIANO FINOCCHI GHERSI, FEDERICA VIGO, MATTEO AUGUGLIARO, LUCIA GIACCHERINI, FEDERICO IORI, MASOUMEH NAJAFI, LILIA BARDOSCIA, ANDREA BOTTI, VALERIA TROJANI, PATRIZIA CIAMMELLA, CINZIA IOTTI
In Vivo Mar 2023, 37 (2) 777-785; DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13141
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Preferences Regarding Breast Surgery Omission Among Patients With Breast Cancer Who Receive Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
  • Forensic Medical Examination After Sexual Violence: Implications Based on Victims’ Perceptions
  • Albumin–derived Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Score as a Marker of Nivolumab Treatment Sensitivity in Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Study
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Prostate cancer
  • hypofractionation
  • tomotherapy
  • image-guided radiation therapy
  • IMRT
  • helical-tomotherapy
In Vivo

© 2023 In Vivo

Powered by HighWire