Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The Effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy versus Three-Dimensional Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of the Literatures

  • Ting Yu ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Ting Yu, Qiongwen Zhang

    Affiliation State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC

    ⨯
  • Qiongwen Zhang ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Ting Yu, Qiongwen Zhang

    Affiliations State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Department of Head and Neck Oncology, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC

    ⨯
  • Tianying Zheng,

    Affiliation State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC

    ⨯
  • Huashan Shi ,

    hx_natlife@163.com

    Affiliations State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Department of Head and Neck Oncology, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC

    ⨯
  • Yang Liu,

    Affiliation State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC

    ⨯
  • Shijian Feng,

    Affiliation State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC

    ⨯
  • Meiqin Hao,

    Affiliation State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC

    ⨯
  • Lei Ye,

    Affiliation State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC

    ⨯
  • Xueqian Wu,

    Affiliation State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC

    ⨯
  • Cheng Yang

    Affiliation State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC

    ⨯

Abstract

Background and Purpose

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can deliver higher doses with less damage of healthy tissues compared with three-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT). However, for the scenarios with better clinical outcomes for IMRT than 3DCRT in prostate cancer, the results remain ambiguous. We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether IMRT can provide better clinical outcomes in comparison with 3DCRT in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of 23 studies (n = 9556) comparing the clinical outcomes, including gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, genitourinary (GU) toxicity, biochemical controland overall survival (OS).

Results

IMRT was significantly associated with decreased 2–4 grade acute GI toxicity [risk ratio (RR) = 0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.44, 0.78)], late GI toxicity [RR = 0.54, 95%CI (0.38, 0.78)], late rectal bleeding [RR = 0.48, 95%CI (0.27, 0.85)], and achieved better biochemical control[RR = 1.17, 95%CI (1.08, 1.27)] in comparison with 3DCRT. IMRT and 3DCRT remain the same in regard of grade 2–4 acute rectal toxicity [RR = 1.03, 95%CI (0.45, 2.36)], late GU toxicity [RR = 1.03, 95%CI (0.82, 1.30)] and overall survival [RR = 1.07, 95%CI (0.96, 1.19)], while IMRT slightly increased the morbidity of grade 2–4 acute GU toxicity [RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.00, 1.17)].

Conclusions

Although some bias cannot be ignored, IMRT appears to be a better choice for the treatment of prostate cancer when compared with 3DCRT.

Citation: Yu T, Zhang Q, Zheng T, Shi H, Liu Y, Feng S, et al. (2016) The Effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy versus Three-Dimensional Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of the Literatures. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0154499. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154499

Editor: Zoran Culig, Innsbruck Medical University, AUSTRIA

Received: January 19, 2016; Accepted: April 14, 2016; Published: May 12, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Yu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The data analysis was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, number: 81300320, http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Prostate cancer ranks the most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death in men [1]. Radiation therapy (RT) is widely used in the treatment of prostate cancer [2–6]. Dose escalation has been generally adopted in the RT of prostate cancer for its advantage of improved tumor control outcomes [7–14]. Since most of the patients who were diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer can survive longer than 10 years, the choice of RT techniques with minimized RT-related toxicity is important for improving quality of life[15–19]. However, higher doses are linked to increased normal tissue toxicity, such as late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and late genitourinary (GU) toxicity [7,20].

As technology advances, new RT techniques have emerged and have been used in clinical practice. Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) delivers a radiation dose conforming to the target volume of tumor [21]. Thus 3DCRT significantly increases the target dose whilereducing the exposure of healthy tissue [2,21,22]. RT techniques evolved to an advanced form of 3DCRT, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), which generates non-uniform fields to increase the radiation dose delivered to the intended target volume while potentially minimizing the irradiation to the organs at risk [23,24]. Nevertheless, the probability of a marginal miss is a potential weakness of IMRT. Besides, the dosehomogeneity, increase of irradiation doses to larger volumes of healthy tissuesand longer time required for planning need to be considered in the application of IMRT[25,26]. The increased total body exposure and monitor units raise the risk of second malignancies of IMRT in comparison with conventional RT [27–30].

However, the potential benefits of IMRT over 3DCRT for prostate cancer treatment have not yet been clarified. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether IMRT could improve clinical outcomes in comparison with 3DCRT in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, including acute GI toxicity, acute GU toxicity, acute rectal toxicity, late GI toxicity, late GU toxicity, late rectal bleeding, biochemical controland overall survival (OS).

Materials and Methods

Primary search strategy

The PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE were searched for relevant publications by combining search terms “prostate cancer [Title/ Abstract]”, “Intensity modulated radiation therapy [Title/ Abstract]”, “IMRT[Title/ Abstract]”, “Three dimensional conformal radiation therapy [Title/ Abstract]”, and “3DCRT [Title/ Abstract]”. There was no date of publication limits and the most recentliterature was published on July 25th, 2015. Only studies in English were included. Furthermore, reference lists from primarily identified studies were also manually searched.

Criteria for considering studies in this review

Eligible studies had to compare IMRT with 3DCRT in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. Those studies were then selected according to the following criteria: (1) Studies with GI, GU toxicity or other clinical outcomes, including RFS or OS, were included in this meta-analysis. (2) Late GI and late GU toxicity were scored according to the Fox Chase (FC) modification of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force (LENT) toxicity criteria (RTOG/FC-LENT late toxicity criteria)/Common Terminology Criteria (CTC) (version 2.0, 3.0 or 4.0) [31]. (3) Late rectal bleeding was scored based on RTOG criteria [32]. (4) Biochemical failure was defined as a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≥ 2 ng/ml above the nadir, with no backdating (ASTROPhoenix definition) [33]. Two reviewers conducted a primary assessment independently to confirm the eligibility of the abstracts searched from database. Discrepancies were solved by cooperative discussion. The names of all authors and medical centers involved in each study were carefully examined in order to avoid duplicated data. If duplicated studies were found, the studies with the largest number of patients were retained.

Data Extraction

Data were carefully extracted independently from all the included publications by two reviewers, using a standardized data collection form. Data extraction included the following items: author, year, study design, sample size, planning target volume (PTV), total dose of RT, fraction dose, margin, method for dose prescription, image guidance, tumor stage, median follow-up time, percentage of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), andscore criteria.

Statistical Analysis

Included publications were divided into eight groups for analysis: those with data regarding acute GI toxicity, acute GU toxicity, acute rectal toxicity, late GI toxicity, late GU toxicity, late rectal bleeding, biochemical control, and OS.

For the quantitative aggregation of outcomes, the impacts of treatment on acute toxicity, late toxicity, RFS and OS of each publication were reported for by estimating RRs with 95% confidence interval (CI) value. The RR and its 95% CI were extracted from the original article. If RR and its 95% CI were not available, the total number of events and number of patients at risk in each group were extracted to estimate RR and its 95% CI, according to the methods described by Parmer et al [34]. Eventually, Kaplan-Meier curves were read using Engauge Digitizer version 4.1 (free software downloaded from http://sourceforge.net) to extract data to reconstruct RR and its 95% CIwhen the exploitable data were only presented in the form of figure.

To assess the heterogeneity of the publications, a fixed effect model was used for meta-analysis. If the I2 was higher than 50%, a random effect model was used. Conventionally, the difference would be considered statistically significant if the 95% CI of RR did not overlap the value 1 with p < 0.05. Study estimates, together with pooled estimates, were presented in the form of forest plots. Publication bias was assessed graphically by funnel plots and Egger’s linear regression method was used to assess the funnel plot asymmetry. (p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant) [35]. The meta-analysis was done with Stata version 12.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Study selection and characteristics

The initial search algorithm retrieved 2656 references and 146 candidate studies were fully evaluated. Upon further review, 23 articles met the eligibility criteria, and the other 123 articles were out of scope. The flowchart of the literature search is shown in Fig 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flow chart of the literature search and selection of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154499.g001

The total number of the included patients was 9556, ranging from 27 to 1571 per study. The main characteristics of included studies are presented in Table 1. The study design was more often a retrospective (n = 16) than a prospective cohort study (n = 5). The prescribed doses to the primary tumor were 70–85.3 Gy in IMRT group and 55.8–84.8 Gy in 3DCRT group. Stage I/II comprised 77.3% of the patients, and the remaining 22.7% were in stage III/IV. The median follow-up time ranged from 5.3 months to 120 months.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Summary of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154499.t001

Of the included studies, 14 studies compared the effects of acute toxicity of an IMRT group to that of a 3DCRT group, including acute GI toxicity (n = 12), acute GU toxicity (n = 12) and acute rectal toxicity (n = 4). Additionally, 21 studies compared the late toxicity effects of IMRTgroup to that of 3DCRT group, including late GI toxicity (n = 13), late GU toxicity (n = 12) and late rectal bleeding (n = 5). Furthermore, 6 studies compared the biochemical controlbetween IMRT group and 3DCRT group, and 3 studies compared the OS between IMRT group and 3DCRT group (Table 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Summary of the outcomes presented in this meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154499.t002

Acute GI toxicity

Acute GI toxicity was investigated in 12 studies with 4142 patients [33,36–41,43,52,56–58]. Pooled RR indicated that IMRT significantly decreased grade 2–4 acute GI toxicity compared with 3DCRT [RR = 0.59, 95% CI (0.44, 0.78)] (Fig 2A). Due to obvious heterogeneity, random effect model was employed.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Forrest plots of RRs for IMRT versus 3DCRT about the grade 2–4 acute toxicity and late toxicity.

(A) acute GI toxicity, (B) acute GU toxicity and (C) acute rectal toxicity, (D) late GI toxicity, (E) late GU toxicity and (F) late rectal bleeding.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154499.g002

Acute GU toxicity

A total of 14 studies with 4603 patients assessed the acute GU toxicity [33,36–41,43,45,52,53,56–58]. Pooled RR indicated that the incidence of grade 2–4 acute GU toxicity was only 1.08 -fold higher in IMRT than that in 3DCRT, which showed modest effect [RR = 1.08, 95% CI (1.00, 1.17)] (Fig 2B). No obvious heterogeneity was found, thus fixed effect model was performed.

Acute rectal toxicity

Data regarding acute rectal toxicity were available in 4 studies with 2188 patients [45,47,53,54]. In those four studies, there was no significant difference between IMRT and 3DCRT in grade 2–4 acute rectal toxicity [RR = 1.03, 95% CI (0.45, 2.36)] (Fig 2C). With obvious heterogeneity observed, the random effect model was employed.

Late GI toxicity

Late GI toxicity was discussed in 13 studies with 6519 patients [33,37,38,40,41,43,44,46,48,50–52,54]. A significant overall benefit of grade 2–4 late GI toxicity in favor of IMRT was found for all studies with a RR of 0.54 [95% CI (0.38, 0.78)] (Fig 2D). The subgroup analysis demonstrated significant differences in grade 2–4 late GI toxicity between IMRT and 3DCRT at 1 year [RR = 0.38, 95% CI (0.15, 0.97)] and 5–10 years [RR = 0.55, 95%CI (0.31, 0.98)], with a non-significant difference at 3 years [RR = 0.70, 95%CI (0.44, 1.13)]. For the obvious heterogeneity, the random effect model was performed.

Late GU toxicity

A total of 12 studies with 5608 patients were included in meta-analysis to evaluate grade 2–4 late GU toxicity [33,37,40,41,43,44,46,48,50,52–54]. Pooled RR indicated that IMRT was with comparable grade 2–4 late GU toxicity with 3DCRT [RR = 1.03, 95% CI (0.82, 1.30)] (Fig 2E). The subgroup analysis also showed no significant difference between two treatments at 1 year [RR = 0.83, 95% CI (0.64, 1.06)], 3 years [RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.79, 1.28)] and 5–10 years [RR = 1.03, 95% CI (0.69, 1.51)]. Due to the significant heterogeneity, random effect model was used for this analysis.

Late rectal bleeding

Data regarding late rectal bleeding were available in 5 studies with 1972 patients [42,45,47,49,53]. The results clearly favor IMRT over 3DCRT in grade 2–4 late rectal bleeding [RR = 0.48, 95% CI (0.27, 0.85)] (Fig 2F). With obvious heterogeneity found, the random effect model was employed.

Biochemical control

Biochemical control was reported in 6 studies with 2416 patients [33,37,41,44,45,50,52]. There was a significant difference in biochemical control favoring IMRT [RR = 1.17, 95% CI (1.08, 1.27)] (Fig 3A). IMRT showed modest increase in biochemical control in comparison with 3DCRT. Random effect model was employed because of the significant heterogeneity.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Forrest plots of RRs for IMRT versus 3DCRT about the survival outcomes.

(A) Biochemical control, (B) OS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154499.g003

Overall survival

Data regarding overall survival were available in three studies with 924 patients [37,41,44]. A non-significant increase in overall survival favoring IMRT was found [RR = 1.07, 95%CI (0.96, 1.19)] (Fig 3B). Random effect model was performed for the obvious heterogeneity.

Publication bias

Both Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s test were employed to assess the publication bias in all studies evaluating acute GI toxicity, acute GU toxicity, acute rectal toxicity, late GI toxicity, late GU toxicity, late rectal bleeding, biochemical control, and OS, respectively (Fig 4). The Begg’s funnel plot did not indicate any evidence of statistically significant asymmetry in the meta-analysis of acute GI toxicity (p = 0.784), acute GU toxicity (p = 0.661), acute rectal toxicity (p = 0.497), late GI toxicity (p = 0.248), late GU toxicity (p = 0.787), late rectal bleeding (p = 0.142), biochemical control(p = 0.851) and OS (p = 0.602). There was also no evidence of publication bias in Egger’s test of acute GI toxicity (p = 0.271), acute GU toxicity (p = 0.345), acute rectal toxicity (p = 0.485), late GI toxicity (p = 0.335), late GU toxicity (p = 0.451), late rectal bleeding (p = 0.118), biochemical control(p = 0.682) and OS (p = 0.692).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Funnel graph for assessing the potential publication bias in the studies comparing IMRT and 3DCRT in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

(A) acute GI toxicity, (B) acute GU toxicity, (C) acute rectal toxicity, (D) late GI toxicity, (E) late GU toxicity, (F) late rectal bleeding, (G)Biochemical control, (H) OS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154499.g004

Discussion

In this meta-analysis, we enrolled 23 eligible studies comparing the clinical outcomes between IMRT and 3DCRT in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. The present study showed that IMRT was associated with decreased 2–4 grade acute GI toxicity, late GI toxicity, and late rectal bleeding compared with 3DCRT. However, IMRT significantly increased grade 2–4 acute GU toxicity with similar grade 2–4 late GU toxicity. Moreover, no significant differences were discovered in grade 2–4 acute rectal toxicity and overall survival. Nevertheless, IMRT showed improved biochemical control than 3DCRT,suggesting better PSA relapse-free survival in IMRT. These results imply that IMRT might be superior to 3DCRT with less toxicity and better PSA relapse-free survival in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. However, more high quality studies will be needed to further identify this result.

Compared with 3DCRT, IMRT can deliver radiation with the capability of intensely conforming to cancerous site, which means IMRT can deliver higher dose to the target volume with less damage of normal tissues and with the creation of steep dose gradients and concave dose distribution [59,60]. On the one hand, dose-escalated RT has been demonstrated to generate better biochemical control when compared with lower doses by some randomized trials [8,61]. On the other hand, higher doses were associated with increased RT related side effects. Therefore, IMRT is generally believed to minimize treatment related toxicity and relatively improve survival. Besides, IMRT can also be performed to increase the homogeneity of dose distribution [59].

IMRT also has some drawbacks. Compared with 3DCRT, IMRT leads to larger volumes of healthy tissues exposed to low doses of radiation, which may increase the risk of second malignancies. However, more solid data are needed to clarify the clinical relevance [27,62]. Furthermore, IMRT is a kind of complex RT technique, which needs longer delivery time and has higher requirements for the physicists [63]. IMRT is estimated to cost about £1100 more than 3DCRT, which mainly comes from additional radiographer, medical and physics staff time [64]. Nevertheless, there is still a need to understand the cost-effectiveness of IMRT, which may produce more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with lower total costs [64]. Hence, it is important to assess the benefits and risks of IMRT.

In the published trials of RT, GI and GU toxicities are the most frequently studied and may deeply influence quality of life in patients who are diagnosed with prostate cancer [65–69]. Rectal bleeding is a type of late GI toxicity, but it sometimes is reported as a sole end point due to its objectivity [70–73]. Therefore, in this meta-analysis, we assessed not only the PSA relapse free survival and overall survival, but also the GI and GU toxicity and late rectal bleeding between 3DCRT and IMRT. However, randomized controlled trials that compare the clinical efficacy of IMRT with 3DCRT are still lacking.

Although meta-analysis is considered the gold standard by some authors, some potential bias cannot be completely eliminated. Begg’s funnel and Egger’s test were employed in this meta-analysis, and no statistically significant publication bias was discovered. However, several aspects which may produce potential biases in this meta-analysis should be discussed. First, only the literatures published in English were included because of the inaccessibility of other languages for reviewers. So the literature published in other languages, such as German, French and Spanish, was excluded in this meta-analysis [74–76]. This selection may cause further approval of the positive results, because positive results usually are published in English, while negative results tend to be published in native languages. This is called “file-drawer problem”. Second, some studies were excluded due to the inaccessibility of extractingestimated RR value. One example of this is a study that compares the toxicity between 3DCRT and IMRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. In this study, they found a significant difference in late GU morbidity between 3DCRT and IMRT (p = 0.025).However, no data was available about late GU toxicity for meta-analysis from this study [58].

Third, the obvious heterogeneity between studies may be derived from different characteristics of study design, including different sample size, tumor stage, combined therapy, previous treatments, follow-up time, dose of the radiation therapy, etc. For example, two included studies reported that all of their patients had a prostatectomy, while only 15.9% to 54.9% of the patients in the remaining studies had a prostatectomy before radiotherapy [37]. Besides, the doses of the radiation varied among studies. Most of the studies used prescribed doses of 70 to 78 Gy, while one study performed a median dose up to 85.3 Gy, which may produce a different effect on the morbidity of GU or GI toxicity [58].

One limitation of this study is that we ignored the effect of combination treatments, and were not able to stratify patients according to whether they received surgery. In those studies which contain patients who underwent surgery, only one study analyzed the relationship between surgery and the incidence of late GU toxicity[40,41,45,46,51,56]. In this study, the actuarial 5-year risk of late GU toxicity was significantly higher in patients with a history of prostatectomy than in those without surgery [HR = 2.35 (95%CI 1.17–4.71)] [46].The other studies only compared the clinical outcomes of 3DCRT with IMRT without analyzing the influence of surgery on different RT technologies. Therefore, based on the insufficient data, we can’t analyze the effect of surgery, on survival or toxicity. As for hormone therapy, only 3 studies discussed the influence of hormone therapy on late toxicity [46,47,50]. One study analyzed the influence of hormone therapy on late rectal toxicity, and concluded that hormone therapy had no significant influence on the risk of late rectal toxicity [HR = 2.59, 95% CI (1.00, 6.70), p = 0.10] [47]. Data regarding late GU toxicity was available in the other two studies [46,50]. Subgroup analysis showed no significant influence of hormone therapy on incidence of late GI and late GU toxicity ([HR = 0.47, 95% CI (0.16, 1.39)], [HR = 0.65, 95% CI (0.42, 1.01)], respectively) (S1 Fig). Therefore, we concluded that hormone therapy might have no influence on the occurrence of late GI or GU toxicity in the treatment of 3DCRT and IMRT. Another limitation is that we did not stratify the patients according to recurrence risk. Only two studies separated their patients into low, intermediate and high risk groups, which was not enough for us to perform a subgroups analysis with such small numbers of studies[41,44]. More researches investigating the associations of risk group and radiotherapy are needed.

In conclusion, IMRT significantly decreases the occurrence of 2–4 grade acute GI toxicity, late GI toxicity, late rectal bleeding, and achieves better PSA relapse free survival in comparison with 3DCRT. IMRT and 3DCRT remain the same in regard of acute rectal toxicity, late GU toxicity and overall survival, while IMRT increases the morbidity of acute GU toxicity. In general, based on the above results, IMRT should be considered as a better choice for the treatment of prostate cancer. More randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the subset of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Supporting Information

S1 PRISMA Checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154499.s001

(DOC)

S1 Fig. Forrest plots of HR for IMRT versus 3DCRT about the hormone therapy.

(A) Late GI toxicity, (B) Late GU toxicity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154499.s002

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Kayleigh Sullivan (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) and James Shen (University of Massachusetts Medical School) for revising our manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: TY QWZ HSS. Performed the experiments: TY QWZ TYZ HSS LY. Analyzed the data: TY TYZ LY SJF MQH. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: TY YL MQH LY XQW CY. Wrote the paper: TY TYZ YL.

References

  1. 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2015) Cancer Statistics, 2015. Ca-a Cancer Journal for Clinicians 65: 5–29. pmid:25559415
  2. 2. Hanks GE (2000) Conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Annals of Medicine 32: 57–63. pmid:10711579
  3. 3. Jani AB, Hellman S (2003) Early prostate cancer: clinical decision-making. Lancet 361: 1045–1053. pmid:12660074
  4. 4. Crook J, Ots AF (2013) Prognostic Factors for Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer and Their Role in Treatment Selection. Seminars in Radiation Oncology 23: 165–172. pmid:23763882
  5. 5. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR (2010) Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28: 1117–1123. pmid:20124165
  6. 6. Kramer KM, Bennett CL, Pickard AS, Lyons EA, Wolf MS, et al. (2005) Patient preferences in prostate cancer: a clinician's guide to understanding health utilities. Clin Prostate Cancer 4: 15–23. pmid:15992457
  7. 7. Beckendorf V, Guerif S, Le Prise E, Cosset JM, Bougnoux A, et al. (2011) 70 Gy Versus 80 Gy in Localized Prostate Cancer: 5-Year Results of Getug 06 Randomized Trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics 80: 1056–1063.
  8. 8. Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, Aird EG, Bottomley D, et al. (2007) Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncology 8: 475–487. pmid:17482880
  9. 9. Ohri N, Dicker AP, Showalter TN (2012) Late toxicity rates following definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Canadian Journal of Urology 19: 6373–6380. pmid:22892261
  10. 10. Peeters STH, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PCM, van Putten WLJ, Slot A, et al. (2006) Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: Results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 24: 1990–1996. pmid:16648499
  11. 11. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Starkschall G, Antolak JA, Lee JJ, et al. (2002) Prostate cancer radiation dose response: Results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics 53: 1097–1105.
  12. 12. Cahlon O, Zelefsky MJ, Shippy A, Chan H, Fuks Z, et al. (2008) Ultra-high dose (86.4 Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71: 330–337. pmid:18164858
  13. 13. Viani GA, Stefano EJ, Afonso SL (2009) Higher-than-conventional radiation doses in localized prostate cancer treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74: 1405–1418. pmid:19616743
  14. 14. Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Langley RE, Graham JD, Huddart RA, et al. (2007) The early toxicity of escalated versus standard dose conformal radiotherapy with neo-adjuvant androgen suppression for patients with localised prostate cancer: results from the MRC RT01 trial (ISRCTN47772397). Radiother Oncol 83: 31–41. pmid:17391791
  15. 15. Ohri N, Dicker AP, Showalter TN (2012) Late toxicity rates following definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Can J Urol 19: 6373–6380. pmid:22892261
  16. 16. Haas GP, Delongchamps NB, Jones RF, Chandan V, Serio AM, et al. (2007) Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. J Natl Cancer Inst 99: 1484–1489. pmid:17895474
  17. 17. Merglen A, Schmidlin F, Fioretta G, Verkooijen HM, Rapiti E, et al. (2007) Short- and long-term mortality with localized prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med 167: 1944–1950. pmid:17923593
  18. 18. Penson DF, Litwin MS (2003) Quality of life after treatment for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 4: 185–195. pmid:12756081
  19. 19. Daskivich TJ, Chamie K, Kwan L, Labo J, Palvolgyi R, et al. (2011) Overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancer and significant comorbidity. Cancer 117: 2058–2066. pmid:21523717
  20. 20. Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, Rossi CJ, Miller DW, et al. (2008) Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: A randomized controlled trial (vol 294, pg 1233, 2005). Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 299: 899–900.
  21. 21. Zelefsky MJ, Leibel SA, Gaudin PB, Kutcher GJ, Fleshner NE, et al. (1998) Dose escalation with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy affects the outcome in prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41: 491–500. pmid:9635694
  22. 22. Fiveash JB, Hanks G, Roach M, Wang S, Vigneault E, et al. (2000) 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) for high grade prostate cancer: a multi-institutional review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47: 335–342. pmid:10802357
  23. 23. Marta GN, Silva V, Carvalho HD, de Arruda FF, Hanna SA, et al. (2014) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiotherapy and Oncology 110: 9–15. pmid:24332675
  24. 24. Zelefsky MJ, Yamada Y, Kollmeier MA, Shippy AM, Nedelka MA (2008) Long-Term Outcome Following Three-Dimensional Conformal/Intensity-Modulated External-Beam Radiotherapy for Clinical Stage T3 Prostate Cancer. European Urology 53: 1172–1179. pmid:18222596
  25. 25. Damast S, Wolden S, Lee N (2012) Marginal recurrences after selective targeting with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for oral tongue cancer. Head and Neck-Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck 34: 900–906.
  26. 26. Lee N, Puri DR, Blanco AI, Chao KSC (2007) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancers: An update. Head and Neck-Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck 29: 387–400.
  27. 27. Ruben JD, Davis S, Evans C, Jones P, Gagliardi F, et al. (2008) The effect of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on radiation-induced second malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70: 1530–1536. pmid:18207670
  28. 28. Schneider U, Lomax A, Pemler P, Besserer J, Ross D, et al. (2006) The impact of IMRT and proton radiotherapy on secondary cancer incidence. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 182: 647–652. pmid:17072522
  29. 29. Bednarz B, Athar B, Xu XG (2010) A comparative study on the risk of second primary cancers in out-of-field organs associated with radiotherapy of localized prostate carcinoma using Monte Carlo-based accelerator and patient models. Medical Physics 37: 1987–1994. pmid:20527532
  30. 30. Murray L, Henry A, Hoskin P, Siebert FA, Venselaar J (2014) Second primary cancers after radiation for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the clinical data and impact of treatment technique. Radiother Oncol 110: 213–228. pmid:24485765
  31. 31. Lawton CA, Won M, Pilepich MV, Asbell SO, Shipley WU, et al. (1991) Long-term treatment sequelae following external beam irradiation for adenocarcinoma of the prostate: analysis of RTOG studies 7506 and 7706. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21: 935–939. pmid:1917622
  32. 32. (1995) Late effects consensus conference: RTOG/EORTC. Radiother Oncol 35: 5–7. pmid:7569013
  33. 33. Wong WW, Vora SA, Schild SE, Ezzell GA, Andrews PE, et al. (2009) Radiation dose escalation for localized prostate cancer: intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus permanent transperineal brachytherapy. Cancer 115: 5596–5606. pmid:19670452
  34. 34. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L (1998) Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 17: 2815–2834. pmid:9921604
  35. 35. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315: 629–634. pmid:9310563
  36. 36. Alongi F, Fiorino C, Cozzarini C, Broggi S, Perna L, et al. (2009) IMRT significantly reduces acute toxicity of whole-pelvis irradiation in patients treated with post-operative adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Radiother Oncol 93: 207–212. pmid:19766338
  37. 37. Goenka A, Magsanoc JM, Pei X, Schechter M, Kollmeier M, et al. (2011) Improved toxicity profile following high-dose postprostatectomy salvage radiation therapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Eur Urol 60: 1142–1148. pmid:21855208
  38. 38. Ashman JB, Zelefsky MJ, Hunt MS, Leibel SA, Fuks Z (2005) Whole pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer using 3D conformal and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63: 765–771. pmid:15913914
  39. 39. Cho JH, Lee CG, Kang DR, Kim J, Lee S, et al. (2009) Positional reproducibility and effects of a rectal balloon in prostate cancer radiotherapy. J Korean Med Sci 24: 894–903. pmid:19794990
  40. 40. Dolezel M, Odrazka K, Vaculikova M, Vanasek J, Sefrova J, et al. (2010) Direct comparison of acute and late toxicity with 3D-CRT 74 Gy and IMRT 78 Gy. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 186: 197–202. pmid:20354663
  41. 41. Dolezel M, Odrazka K, Zouhar M, Vaculikova M, Sefrova J, et al. (2015) Comparing morbidity and cancer control after 3D-conformal (70/74 Gy) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (78/82 Gy) for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 191: 338–346. pmid:25589224
  42. 42. Forsythe K, Blacksburg S, Stone N, Stock RG (2012) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy causes fewer side effects than three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy when used in combination with brachytherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83: 630–635. pmid:22099032
  43. 43. Jani AB, Gratzle J, Correa D (2007) Influence of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 6: 11–15. pmid:17241095
  44. 44. Kim H, Kim JW, Hong SJ, Rha KH, Lee CG, et al. (2014) Treatment outcome of localized prostate cancer by 70 Gy hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy with a customized rectal balloon. Radiat Oncol J 32: 187–197. pmid:25324991
  45. 45. Kupelian PA, Reddy CA, Carlson TP, Altsman KA, Willoughby TR (2002) Preliminary observations on biochemical relapse-free survival rates after short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction) for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53: 904–912. pmid:12095556
  46. 46. Odrazka K, Dolezel M, Vanasek J, Vaculikova M, Zouhar M, et al. (2010) Late toxicity after conformal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: impact of previous surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int J Urol 17: 784–790. pmid:20604816
  47. 47. Ratnayake G, Martin J, Plank A, Wong W (2014) Incremental changes verses a technological quantum leap: the additional value of intensity-modulated radiotherapy beyond image-guided radiotherapy for prostate irradiation. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 58: 503–510. pmid:25243269
  48. 48. Sharma NK, Li T, Chen DY, Pollack A, Horwitz EM, et al. (2007) Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Reduces Gastrointestinal Toxicity in Patients Treated with Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69: S10. pmid:20664712
  49. 49. Someya M, Hori M, Tateoka K, Nakata K, Takagi M, et al. (2015) Results and DVH analysis of late rectal bleeding in patients treated with 3D-CRT or IMRT for localized prostate cancer. J Radiat Res 56: 122–127. pmid:25212601
  50. 50. Sveistrup J, af Rosenschold PM, Deasy JO, Oh JH, Pommer T, et al. (2014) Improvement in toxicity in high risk prostate cancer patients treated with image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared to 3D conformal radiotherapy without daily image guidance. Radiat Oncol 9: 44. pmid:24495815
  51. 51. Troeller A, Yan D, Marina O, Schulze D, Alber M, et al. (2015) Comparison and limitations of DVH-based NTCP models derived from 3D-CRT and IMRT data for prediction of gastrointestinal toxicities in prostate cancer patients by using propensity score matched pair analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91: 435–443. pmid:25636766
  52. 52. Vora SA, Wong WW, Schild SE, Ezzell GA, Halyard MY (2007) Analysis of biochemical control and prognostic factors in patients treated with either low-dose three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68: 1053–1058. pmid:17398023
  53. 53. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Happersett L, Lee HJ, Ling CC, et al. (2000) Clinical experience with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 55: 241–249. pmid:10869739
  54. 54. Zelefsky MJ, Levin EJ, Hunt M, Yamada Y, Shippy AM, et al. (2008) Incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicities after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70: 1124–1129. pmid:18313526
  55. 55. Shu HKG, Lee TT, Vigneault E, Xia P, Pickett B, et al. (2001) Toxicity following high-dose three-dimensional conformal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 57: 102–107.
  56. 56. Wortel RC, Incrocci L, Pos FJ, Lebesque JV, Witte MG, et al. (2015) Acute Toxicity After Image-Guided Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Compared to 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91: 737–744. pmid:25752386
  57. 57. Matzinger O, Duclos F, Van Den Bergh A, Carrie C, Kitsios P, et al. (2009) Acute toxicity of curative radiotherapy for intermediate risk localized prostate cancer in the EORTC trial 22991. European Journal of Cancer, Supplement 7: 151–152.
  58. 58. Shu HK, Lee TT, Vigneauly E, Xia P, Pickett B, et al. (2001) Toxicity following high-dose three-dimensional conformal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 57: 102–107.
  59. 59. Staffurth J, Radiotherapy Development B (2010) A review of the clinical evidence for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 22: 643–657.
  60. 60. Roach M 3rd (2004) Reducing the toxicity associated with the use of radiotherapy in men with localized prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 31: 353–366. pmid:15123413
  61. 61. Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L, Starkschall G, Huang EH, et al. (2008) Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70: 67–74. pmid:17765406
  62. 62. Hall EJ, Wuu CS (2003) Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56: 83–88. pmid:12694826
  63. 63. Van de Werf E, Lievens Y, Verstraete J, Pauwels K, Van den Bogaert W (2009) Time and motion study of radiotherapy delivery: Economic burden of increased quality assurance and IMRT. Radiother Oncol 93: 137–140. pmid:19732984
  64. 64. Hummel S, Simpson EL, Hemingway P, Stevenson MD, Rees A (2010) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 14: 1–, iii-iv.
  65. 65. Bauman G, Rumble RB, Chen J, Loblaw A, Warde P (2012) Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Clinical Oncology 24: 461–473. pmid:22673744
  66. 66. Dearnaley DP, Khoo VS, Norman AR, Meyer L, Nahum A, et al. (1999) Comparison of radiation side-effects of conformal and conventional radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 353: 267–272. pmid:9929018
  67. 67. Michalski JM, Winter K, Purdy JA, Parliament M, Wong H, et al. (2005) Toxicity after three-dimensional radiotherapy for prostate cancer on RTOG 9406 dose Level V. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62: 706–713. pmid:15936549
  68. 68. Michalski JM, Winter K, Purdy JA, Wilder RB, Perez CA, et al. (2003) Preliminary evaluation of low-grade toxicity with conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer on RTOG 9406 dose levels I and II. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56: 192–198. pmid:12694838
  69. 69. Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, van Putten WL, Slot A, Tabak H, et al. (2005) Acute and late complications after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results of a multicenter randomized trial comparing 68 Gy to 78 Gy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61: 1019–1034. pmid:15752881
  70. 70. Budaus L, Bolla M, Bossi A, Cozzarini C, Crook J, et al. (2012) Functional outcomes and complications following radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 61: 112–127. pmid:22001105
  71. 71. Michalski JM, Gay H, Jackson A, Tucker SL, Deasy JO (2010) Radiation dose-volume effects in radiation-induced rectal injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76: S123–129. pmid:20171506
  72. 72. Phan J, Swanson DA, Levy LB, Kudchadker RJ, Bruno TL, et al. (2009) Late rectal complications after prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: incidence and management. Cancer 115: 1827–1839. pmid:19248043
  73. 73. Jackson A, Skwarchuk MW, Zelefsky MJ, Cowen DM, Venkatraman ES, et al. (2001) Late rectal bleeding after conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer. II. Volume effects and dose-volume histograms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49: 685–698. pmid:11172950
  74. 74. Ailleres N, Azria D, Thezenas S, Barbier N, Fenoglietto P, et al. (2004) [Pilot study of conformal intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer]. Cancer Radiother 8: 59–69. pmid:15063872
  75. 75. Livi L, Detti B, Meattini M, Sanchez LJ, Biti GP (2007) [Organ-confined prostate cancer: treatment with high doses of radioterapy (intensity modulated radiotherapy)]. Actas Urol Esp 31: 611–616. pmid:17896557
  76. 76. Treutwein M, Hipp M, Bogner L (2008) Direct step & shoot: New module for prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Nowotwory 58: 154–156.