ISSN: 1837-9664Journal of Cancer
Global reach, higher impact
J Cancer 2023; 14(15):2878-2888. doi:10.7150/jca.87626 This issue Cite
Research Paper
Gastrointestinal/genitourinary adverse event after intensity modulated versus three-dimensional primary radiation therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis
1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hebei Province Cangzhou Hospital of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, Cangzhou, Hebei, 061000, China.
2. Key Laboratory of Endocrinology of National Health Commission, Department of Endocrinology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China.
†These authors have contributed equally to this work.
Abstract
Objective: Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers in the world. The potential benefits of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) over three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for PCa primary radiation therapy treatment have not yet been clarified. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether IMRT could improve clinical outcomes in comparison with 3D-CRT in patients diagnosed with PCa.
Materials and methods: Relevant studies were identified through searching related databases till December, 2022. Hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as pooled statistics for all analyses.
Results: The incidence of grade 2 or worse acute adverse gastrointestinal (GI) event was analyzed and the pooled data revealed a clear decreasing trend in the IMRT compared with 3D-CRT (RR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.84, p=0.002). IMRT slightly increased the grade ≥ 2 acute genitourinary (GU) adverse event in comparison with the 3D-CRT (RR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.02-1.19, p=0.015). The IMRT and the 3D-CRT of patients showed no substantial differences in grade ≥ 2 late GI adverse event (RR =0.62, 95% CI: 0.36-1.09, p=0.1). In those included studies, there was no significant difference between IMRT and 3D-CRT in grade 2-4 late GU adverse event (RR =1.08, 95% CI: 0.77-1.51, p=0.65). There was a significant difference in biochemical control favoring IMRT (RR =1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.22, p=0.002). IMRT showed modest increase in biochemical control in comparison with 3D-CRT.
Conclusion: In general, based on the above results, IMRT should be considered as a better choice for the treatment of PCa. More randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the subset of patients diagnosed with PCa.
Keywords: IMRT, 3D-CRT, Prostate cancer, Efficacy, Adverse event
Citation styles
