Radiation Therapy Techniques and Treatment-Related Toxicity in the PORTEC-3 Trial: Comparison of 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy

Affiliation auteurs!!!! Error affiliation !!!!
TitreRadiation Therapy Techniques and Treatment-Related Toxicity in the PORTEC-3 Trial: Comparison of 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy
Type de publicationJournal Article
Year of Publication2022
AuteursWortman BG, Post CCB, Powell ME, Khaw P, Fyles A, D'Amico R, Haie-Meder C, Jurgenliemk-Schulz IM, McCormack M, Do V, Katsaros D, Bessette P, Baron MHelene, Nout RA, Whitmarsh K, Mileshkin L, Lutgens LCHW, Kitchener HC, Brooks S, Nijman HW, Astreinidou E, Putter H, Creutzberg CL, de Boer SM
JournalINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS
Volume112
Pagination390-399
Date PublishedFEB 1
Type of ArticleArticle
ISSN0360-3016
Résumé

{Purpose: Radiation therapy techniques have developed from 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), with better sparing of the surrounding normal tissues. The current analysis aimed to investigate whether IMRT, compared to 3DCRT, resulted in fewer adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported symptoms in the randomized PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer. Methods and materials: Data on AEs and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) of the PORTEC-3 trial were available for analysis. Physician-reported AEs were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. QoL was assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30, CX24, and OV28 questionnaires. Data were compared between 3DCRT and IMRT. A P value of = .01 was considered statistically significant due to the risk of multiple testing. For QoL, combined scores 1 to 2 (''not at all'' and ``a little'') versus 3 to 4 (''quite a bit'' and ``very much'') were compared between the techniques. Results: Of 658 evaluable patients, 559 received 3DCRT and 99 IMRT. Median follow-up was 74.6 months. During treatment no significant differences were observed, with a trend for more grade =3 AEs, mostly hematologic and gastrointestinal, after 3DCRT (37.7% vs 26.3%

DOI10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.09.042