Wang Shilin, Tang Wen, Luo Huanli, Jin Fu, Wang Ying
Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital & Chongqing Cancer Institute & Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China.
Department of Rehabilitation, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Front Oncol. 2022 Jan 27;11:796907. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.796907. eCollection 2021.
There is little level 1 evidence regarding the relative efficacy and toxicity of whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) compared with prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) for localized prostate cancer.
We used Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Medline databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov to systematically search for all relevant clinical studies. The data on efficacy and toxicity were extracted for quality assessment and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of WPRT on biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and genitourinary (GU) toxicity compared with PORT. The review is registered on PROSPERO, number: CRD42021254752.
The results revealed that compared with PORT, WPRT significantly improved 5-year BFFS and PFS, and it was irrelevant to whether the patients had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP). In addition, for the patients who did not receive RP, the 5-year DMFS of WPRT was better than that of PORT. However, WPRT significantly increased not only the grade 2 or worse (G2+) acute GI toxicity of non-RP studies and RP studies, but also the G2+ late GI toxicity of non-RP studies. Subgroup analysis of non-RP studies found that, when the pelvic radiation dose was >49 Gy (equivalent-doses-in-2-Gy-fractions, EQD-2), WPRT was more beneficial to PFS than PORT, but significantly increased the risk of G2+ acute and late GU toxicity.
Meta-analysis demonstrates that WPRT can significantly improve BFFS and PFS for localized prostate cancer than PORT, but the increased risk of G2+ acute and late GI toxicity must be considered.
PROSPERO CRD42021254752.
关于全盆腔放疗(WPRT)与仅前列腺放疗(PORT)治疗局限性前列腺癌的相对疗效和毒性,几乎没有一级证据。
我们使用Cochrane、PubMed、Embase、Medline数据库以及ClinicalTrials.gov系统检索所有相关临床研究。提取疗效和毒性数据进行质量评估和荟萃分析,以量化WPRT与PORT相比对无生化失败生存(BFFS)、无进展生存(PFS)、无远处转移生存(DMFS)、总生存(OS)、胃肠道(GI)毒性和泌尿生殖系统(GU)毒性的影响。该综述已在PROSPERO注册,注册号:CRD42021254752。
结果显示,与PORT相比,WPRT显著改善了5年BFFS和PFS,且这与患者是否接受根治性前列腺切除术(RP)无关。此外,对于未接受RP的患者,WPRT的5年DMFS优于PORT。然而,WPRT不仅显著增加了非RP研究和RP研究中2级或更严重(G2+)的急性GI毒性,还增加了非RP研究中G2+的晚期GI毒性。非RP研究的亚组分析发现,当盆腔放射剂量>49 Gy(2 Gy分次等效剂量,EQD-2)时,WPRT比PORT对PFS更有益,但显著增加了G2+急性和晚期GU毒性的风险。
荟萃分析表明,与PORT相比,WPRT可显著改善局限性前列腺癌的BFFS和PFS,但必须考虑G2+急性和晚期GI毒性风险增加的问题。
PROSPERO CRD42021254752