Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
Long-Term Patient-Reported Bowel and Urinary Quality of Life in Patients Treated with Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gergelis Kimberly R, Bai Miao, Ma Jiasen, Routman David M, Stish Bradley J, Davis Brian J, Pisansky Thomas M, Whitaker Thomas J, Choo Richard
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare long-term patient-reported outcomes in bowel and urinary domains between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for localized prostate cancer.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with clinical T1-T2 prostate cancer receiving IMRT or IMPT at a tertiary cancer center from 2015-2018 were analyzed to determine the changes in the prospectively collected bowel function (BF), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and urinary incontinence (UI) domains of EPIC-26. The mean changes in EPIC-26 scores were evaluated from pretreatment to 24 months post-radiotherapy for each modality. A score change >50% of the baseline standard deviation was considered a clinically meaningful change.
RESULTS: A total of 82 patients treated with IMRT (52.2%) and 56 patients treated with IMPT (53.3%) completed the questionnaire at baseline and 24 months post-RT. There were no baseline differences in domain scores between treatment modalities. At 24 months post-radiotherapy, there was a significant and clinically meaningful decline in the BF mean score in the IMRT cohort (-4.52 (range -50, 29.17), p = 0.003), whereas the decline in BF score did not reach clinical relevance or significance (-1.88 (range -37.5, 50), p = 0.046) when accounting for the Bonferroni adjustment in the IMPT cohort. A higher proportion of patients treated with IMRT had a clinically relevant reduction in BF when compared with IMPT (47.37% vs. 25.93%, p = 0.017). The mean changes in the UI and UO scores of the IMRT and IMPT cohorts were neither statically significant nor clinically relevant.
CONCLUSIONS: IMPT leads to a smaller decrease in BF than IMRT at 24 months post-RT, while there was no differential effect on UO and UI.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with clinical T1-T2 prostate cancer receiving IMRT or IMPT at a tertiary cancer center from 2015-2018 were analyzed to determine the changes in the prospectively collected bowel function (BF), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and urinary incontinence (UI) domains of EPIC-26. The mean changes in EPIC-26 scores were evaluated from pretreatment to 24 months post-radiotherapy for each modality. A score change >50% of the baseline standard deviation was considered a clinically meaningful change.
RESULTS: A total of 82 patients treated with IMRT (52.2%) and 56 patients treated with IMPT (53.3%) completed the questionnaire at baseline and 24 months post-RT. There were no baseline differences in domain scores between treatment modalities. At 24 months post-radiotherapy, there was a significant and clinically meaningful decline in the BF mean score in the IMRT cohort (-4.52 (range -50, 29.17), p = 0.003), whereas the decline in BF score did not reach clinical relevance or significance (-1.88 (range -37.5, 50), p = 0.046) when accounting for the Bonferroni adjustment in the IMPT cohort. A higher proportion of patients treated with IMRT had a clinically relevant reduction in BF when compared with IMPT (47.37% vs. 25.93%, p = 0.017). The mean changes in the UI and UO scores of the IMRT and IMPT cohorts were neither statically significant nor clinically relevant.
CONCLUSIONS: IMPT leads to a smaller decrease in BF than IMRT at 24 months post-RT, while there was no differential effect on UO and UI.