Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2026
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
A randomized trial comparing hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated three-dimensional external-beam
Darius Norkus1, Albert Miller, Juozas Kurtinaitis
1Department of Radiotherapy, Institute of Oncology, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. dnorkus@takas.lt
Purpose:
To compare acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity between patient groups with localized prostate adenocarcinoma, treated with conventionally fractionated (CFRT) and hypofractionated (HFRT) three-dimensional conformal external-beam radiotherapy (3D-CRT).
Patients And Methods:
91 patients were enrolled into a randomized study with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. 44 men in the CFRT arm were irradiated with 74 Gy in 37 fractions at 2 Gy per fraction for 7.5 weeks. 47 men in the HFRT arm were treated with 57 Gy in 17 fractions for 3.5 weeks, given as 13 fractions of 3 Gy plus four fractions of 4.5 Gy. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the prostate and the base of seminal vesicles. The CTV-to-PTV (planning target volume) margin was 8-10 mm. Study patients had portal imaging and/or simulation performed on the first fractions and repeated at least weekly.
Results:
No acute grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed. The grade 2 GU acute toxicity proportion was significantly lower in the HFRT arm: 19.1% versus 47.7% (chi(2)-test, p = 0.003). The grade 2 GU acute toxicity-free survival was significantly better in the HFRT arm (log-rank test, p = 0.008). The median duration of overall GI acute toxicity was shorter with HFRT: 3 compared to 6 weeks with CFRT (median test, p = 0.017).
Conclusion:
In this first evaluation, the HFRT schedule is feasible and induces acceptable or even lower acute toxicity compared with the toxicities in the CFRT schedule. Extended follow-up is needed to justify this fractionation schedule's safety in the long term.
