Acute morbidity reduction using 3DCRT for prostate carcinoma: a randomized study.

PURPOSE: To study the effects on gastrointestinal and urological acute morbidity, a randomized toxicity study, comparing conventional and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for prostate carcinoma was performed. To reveal possible volume effects, related to the observed toxicity, dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were used.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: From June 1994 to March 1996, 266 patients with prostate carcinoma, stage T1-4N0M0 were enrolled in the study. All patients were treated to a dose of 66 Gy (ICRU), using the same planning procedure, treatment technique, linear accelerator, and portal imaging procedure. However, patients in the conventional treatment arm were treated with rectangular, open fields, whereas conformal radiotherapy was performed with conformally shaped fields using a multileaf collimator. All treatment plans were made with a 3D planning system. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined to be the gross target volume (GTV) + 15 mm. Acute toxicity was evaluated using the EORTC/RTOG morbidity scoring system.

RESULTS

Patient and tumor characteristics were equally distributed between both study groups. The maximum toxicity was 57% grade 1 and 26% grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity; 47% grade 1, 17% grade 2, and 2% grade > 2 urological toxicity. Comparing both study arms, a reduction in gastrointestinal toxicity was observed (32% and 19% grade 2 toxicity for conformal and conventional radiotherapy, respectively; p = 0.02). Further analysis revealed a marked reduction in medication for anal symptoms: this accounts for a large part of the statistical difference in gastrointestinal toxicity (18% vs. 14% [p = ns] grade 2 rectum/sigmoid toxicity and 16% vs. 8% [p < 0.0001] grade 2 anal toxicity for conventional and conformal radiotherapy, respectively). A strong correlation between exposure of the anus and anal toxicity was found, which explained the difference in anal toxicity between both study arms. No difference in urological toxicity between both treatment arms was found, despite a relatively large difference in bladder DVHs.

CONCLUSIONS

The reduction in gastrointestinal morbidity was mainly accounted for by reduced toxicity for anal symptoms using 3DCRT. The study did not show a statistically significant reduction in acute rectum/sigmoid and bladder toxicity.