Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2026
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Acute toxicity of image-guided hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: nonrandomized comparison with
Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa1, Dario Zerini, Cristiana Fodor
1Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. barbara.jereczek@ieo.it
Objectives:
To compare acute toxicity of prostate cancer image-guided hypofractionated radiotherapy (hypo-IGRT) with conventional fractionation without image-guidance (non-IGRT). To test the hypothesis that the potentially injurious effect of hypofractionation can be counterbalanced by the reduced irradiated normal tissue volume using IGRT approach.
Materials And Methods:
One hundred seventy-nine cT1-T2N0M0 prostate cancer patients were treated within the prospective study with 70.2 Gy/26 fractions (equivalent to 84 Gy/42 fractions, α/β 1.5 Gy) using IGRT (transabdominal ultrasound, ExacTrac X-Ray system, or cone-beam computer tomography). Their prospectively collected data were compared with data of 174 patients treated to 80 Gy/40 fractions with non-IGRT. The difference between hypo-IGRT and non-IGRT cohorts included fractionation (hypofractionation vs. conventional fractionation), margins (hypo-IGRT margins: 7 mm and 3 mm, for all but posterior margins; respectively; non-IGRT margins: 10 and 5 mm, for all but posterior margins, respectively), and use of image-guidance or not. Multivariate analysis was performed to define the tumor-, patient-, and treatment-related predictors for acute toxicity.
Results:
All patients completed the prescribed radiotherapy course. Acute toxicity in the hypo-IGRT cohort included rectal (G1: 29.1%; G2: 11.2%; G3: 1.1%) and urinary events (G1: 33.5%; G2: 39.1%; G3: 5%). Acute toxicity in the non-IGRT patients included rectal (G1: 16.1%; G2: 6.3%) and urinary events (G1: 36.2%; G2: 20.7%; G3: 0.6%). In 1 hypo-IGRT and 2 non-IGRT patients, radiotherapy was temporarily interrupted due to acute toxicity. The incidence of mild (G1-2) rectal and bladder complications was significantly higher for hypo-IGRT (P = 0.0014 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that hypo-IGRT (P = 0.001) and higher PSA (P = 0.046) are correlated with higher acute urinary toxicity. No independent factor was identified for acute rectal toxicity. No significant impact of IGRT system on acute toxicity was observed.
Conclusions:
The acute toxicity rates were low and similar in both study groups with some increase in mild acute urinary injury in the hypo-IGRT patients (most probably due to the under-reporting in the retrospectively analyzed non-IGRT cohort). The higher incidence of acute bowel reactions observed in hypo-IGRT group was not significant in the multivariate analysis. Further investigation is warranted in order to exclude the bias due to the nonrandomized character of the study.
