Logo image
Back
Propensity score matched comparison of SBRT versus IMRT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Propensity score matched comparison of SBRT versus IMRT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer

Caspian Oliai, Matthew Bernetich, Luther Brady, Jun Yang, Alexandra Hanlon, John Lamond, Steven Arrigo, Michael Good, Michael Mooreville, Bruce Garber, …
Journal of radiation oncology, v 5(2)
2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-015-0237-0
PMID: 27335630
Featured in Collection :   UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
url
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-015-0237-0View
Published, Version of Record (VoR)CC BY V4.0,  Open

Abstract

Cancer Research Imaging Medicine Medicine & Public Health Oncology Original Research Radiology Radiotherapy Surgery Surgical Oncology
Objective Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an attractive option for prostate cancer due to its short treatment duration and cost. In this report, we compare the efficacy and toxicity outcomes of prostate cancer patients treated with SBRT to those who received intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods Two hundred sixty-three patients with localized prostate adenocarcinoma were included, ranging from clinically very low- to high-risk groups. We retrospectively compare consecutive patients treated with SBRT with consecutive patients treated with conventionally fractionated IMRT. For most patients, SBRT was delivered to a total dose of 36.25 Gy in five fractions and IMRT to 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions. To minimize selection bias, we perform propensity score analyses. Results The treatment groups became similar after propensity matching with absolute standard bias reduced to ≤0.19. For the first analysis, 5-year actuarial survival was 90.8 and 88.1 % in SBRT and IMRT groups, respectively ( p  = 0.7260), while FFBF was 88.7 and 95.5 %, respectively ( p  = 0.1720). For the second analysis (accounting for risk group), actuarial 5-year survival was 96.7 and 87.1 % in the SBRT and IMRT groups, respectively ( p  = 0.3025), while FFBF was 89.7 and 90.3 %, respectively ( p  = 0.6446). Toxicity did not exceed grade 3 in any of the studied patients. The highest recorded genitourinary toxicity at the time of latest follow-up was grade 2. Conclusion Our data support the hypothesis that SBRT has non-inferior efficacy and toxicity rates as IMRT. Given the lower cost and convenience for patients, SBRT may be considered as an alternative treatment for localized prostate cancer.

Metrics

5 Record Views
13 citations in Web of Science

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Oncology
Logo image