National Population-Based Study Comparing Treatment-Related Toxicity in Men Who Received Intensity Modulated Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radical Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To compare, in a national population-based study, severe genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radical intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT).

Methods and materials: Patients treated with IMRT (n=6933) or 3D-CRT (n=16,289) between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013 in the English National Health Service were identified using cancer registry data, the National Radiotherapy Dataset, and Hospital Episodes Statistics, the administrative database of care episodes in National Health Service hospitals. We developed a coding system that identifies severe toxicity (at least grade 3 according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scoring system) according to the presence of a procedure and a corresponding diagnostic code in patients' Hospital Episodes Statistics records after radiation therapy. A competing risks regression analysis was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), comparing the incidence of severe GI and GU complications after IMRT and 3D-CRT, adjusting for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics.

Results: The use of IMRT, as opposed to 3D-CRT, increased from 3.1% in 2010 to 64.7% in 2013. Patients who received IMRT were less likely than those receiving 3D-CRT to experience severe GI toxicity (4.9 vs 6.5 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.72) but had similar levels of GU toxicity (2.3 vs 2.4 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR 0.94; 95% confidence interval 0.84-1.06).

Conclusions: Prostate cancer patients who received radical radiation therapy using IMRT were less likely to experience severe GI toxicity, and they had similar GU toxicity compared with those who received 3D-CRT. These findings in an unselected "real-world" population support the use of IMRT, but further cost-effectiveness studies are urgently required.