Background and purpose: Two previous “Patterns Of Practice” surveys (POP I and POP II), including more than 4000 patients affected by prostate cancer treated with radical external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 1980 and 2003, established a “benchmark” Italian data source for prostate cancer radiotherapy. This report (POP III) updates the previous studies. Methods: Data on clinical management and outcome of 2525 prostate cancer patients treated by EBRT from 2004 to 2011 were collected and compared with POP II and, when feasible, also with POP I. This report provides data on clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, radiation therapy management, and toxicity as collected within the framework of POP III. Results: More than 50% of POP III patients were classified as low or intermediate risk using D’Amico risk categories as in POP II; 46% were classified as ISUP grade group 1. CT scan, bone scan, and endorectal ultrasound were less frequently prescribed. Dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), image guided radiotherapy (IGRT), and hypofractionated RT were more frequently offered during the study period. Treatment was commonly well tolerated. Acute toxicity improved compared to the previous series; late toxicity was influenced by prescribed dose and treatment technique. Five-year overall survival, biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and disease specific survival were similar to those of the previous series (POP II). BRFS was better in intermediate-and high-risk patients treated with ≥ 76 Gy. Conclusions: This report highlights the improvements in radiotherapy planning and dose delivery among Italian Centers in the 2004–2011 period. Dose-escalated treatments resulted in better biochemical control with a reduction in acute toxicity and higher but acceptable late toxicity, as not yet comprehensively associated with IMRT/IGRT. CTV-PTV margins >8 mm were associated with increased toxicity, again suggesting that IGRT—allowing for tighter margins—would reduce toxicity for dose escalated RT. These conclusions confirm the data obtained from randomized controlled studies.

Mazzeo, E., Triggiani, L., Frassinelli, L., Guarneri, A., Bartoncini, S., Antognoni, P., et al. (2021). How has prostate cancer radiotherapy changed in Italy between 2004 and 2011? An analysis of the national patterns-of-practice (pop) database by the uro-oncology study group of the italian society of radiotherapy and clinical oncology (airo). CANCERS, 13(11) [10.3390/cancers13112702].

How has prostate cancer radiotherapy changed in Italy between 2004 and 2011? An analysis of the national patterns-of-practice (pop) database by the uro-oncology study group of the italian society of radiotherapy and clinical oncology (airo)

Arcangeli S.;
2021

Abstract

Background and purpose: Two previous “Patterns Of Practice” surveys (POP I and POP II), including more than 4000 patients affected by prostate cancer treated with radical external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 1980 and 2003, established a “benchmark” Italian data source for prostate cancer radiotherapy. This report (POP III) updates the previous studies. Methods: Data on clinical management and outcome of 2525 prostate cancer patients treated by EBRT from 2004 to 2011 were collected and compared with POP II and, when feasible, also with POP I. This report provides data on clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, radiation therapy management, and toxicity as collected within the framework of POP III. Results: More than 50% of POP III patients were classified as low or intermediate risk using D’Amico risk categories as in POP II; 46% were classified as ISUP grade group 1. CT scan, bone scan, and endorectal ultrasound were less frequently prescribed. Dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), image guided radiotherapy (IGRT), and hypofractionated RT were more frequently offered during the study period. Treatment was commonly well tolerated. Acute toxicity improved compared to the previous series; late toxicity was influenced by prescribed dose and treatment technique. Five-year overall survival, biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and disease specific survival were similar to those of the previous series (POP II). BRFS was better in intermediate-and high-risk patients treated with ≥ 76 Gy. Conclusions: This report highlights the improvements in radiotherapy planning and dose delivery among Italian Centers in the 2004–2011 period. Dose-escalated treatments resulted in better biochemical control with a reduction in acute toxicity and higher but acceptable late toxicity, as not yet comprehensively associated with IMRT/IGRT. CTV-PTV margins >8 mm were associated with increased toxicity, again suggesting that IGRT—allowing for tighter margins—would reduce toxicity for dose escalated RT. These conclusions confirm the data obtained from randomized controlled studies.
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
Pattern Of Practice; Prostate cancer; Radiotherapy;
English
Mazzeo, E., Triggiani, L., Frassinelli, L., Guarneri, A., Bartoncini, S., Antognoni, P., et al. (2021). How has prostate cancer radiotherapy changed in Italy between 2004 and 2011? An analysis of the national patterns-of-practice (pop) database by the uro-oncology study group of the italian society of radiotherapy and clinical oncology (airo). CANCERS, 13(11) [10.3390/cancers13112702].
Mazzeo, E; Triggiani, L; Frassinelli, L; Guarneri, A; Bartoncini, S; Antognoni, P; Gottardo, S; Greco, D; Borghesi, S; Nanni, S; Bruni, A; Ingrosso, G; D'Angelillo, R; Detti, B; Francolini, G; Magli, A; Guerini, A; Arcangeli, S; Spiazzi, L; Ricardi, U; Lohr, F; Magrini, S
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Mazzeo_cancers-13-02702-v2.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia di allegato: Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Dimensione 1.41 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.41 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/353575
Citazioni
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
Social impact