Influence of the technique and comorbidities in hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

  • R. CorreaEmail author
  • I. Navarro
  • M. Lobato
  • A. Otero
  • I. Jerez
  • J. M. Rico
  • I. Zapata
  • Y. Lupiañez
  • J. A. Medina
  • D. Olmos
  • J. Gómez-Millán
Research Article



To analyze the differences in toxicity and biochemical relapse-free survival with hypofractionated radiotherapy with three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer taking into account comorbidity measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).


From January 2011 to June 2016, 451 patients with prostate cancer were treated with 60 Gy (20 daily fractions). VMAT or 3D-CRT was used. Distribution by stage: 17% low-risk, 27.2% intermediate-risk; 39.2% high-risk, 16.6% very high-risk. Mean CCI was 3.4.


With a median follow up of 51 months, most patients did not experience any degree of acute GI toxicity (80.9%) compared to 19.1%, who experienced some degree, mainly G-I /II. In the multivariate analysis, only technique was associated with acute GI toxicity ≥ G2. Patients treated with VMAT had greater acute GI toxicity compared with those who received 3D-CRT (23.9% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.005). With respect to acute GU toxicity, 72.7% of patients experienced some degree, fundamentally G-I/II. Neither age, CCI, nor androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were associated with greater toxicity. Overall survival at 2, 5 and 7 years was 97%, 88% and 83% respectively. The only factor with statistical significance was CCI, with a greater number of events in individuals with a CCI ≥ 4 (p < 0.03).


Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer is an effective, well-tolerated treatment even for elderly patients with no associated comorbidity. Longer follow up is needed in order to report data on late toxicity.


Prostate cancer Hipofractionation Image guided radiotherapy VMAT Charlson index 



None declared.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional and National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent for the treatment proposed was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    REDECAN. Red Española de Registros de Cáncer. último acceso el 13 Jan 18.
  2. 2.
    Dearnaley DP, Jovic G, Syndikus I, Khoo V, Cowan RA, Gram JD, et al. Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(4):464–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hou Z, Li G, Bai S. High dose versus conventional dose in external beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of long-term follow-up. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015;141:1063–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spratt DE, Pei X, Yamada J, Kollmeier MA, Cox B, Zelefsky MJ. Long-term survival and toxicity in patients treated with high-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:686–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bentzen SM, Ritter MA. The alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer: what is it, really? Radiother Oncol. 2005;76:1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fowler J, Chappell R, Ritter M. Is alpha/beta for prostate tumors really low? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:1021–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brenner DJ, Martinez AA, Edmundson GK, Mitchell C, Thames HD, Armour EP. Direct evidence that prostate tumors show high sensitivity to fractionation (low alpha/beta ratio), similar to late-responding normal tissue. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52:6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lukka H, Hayter C, Julian JA, Warde P, Morris WJ, Gospodarowicz M, et al. Randomized trial comparing two fractionation schedules for patients with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6132–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yeoh EE, Botten RJ, Butters J, Di Matteo AC, Holloway RH, Fowler J. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma: final results of phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:1271–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arcangeli S, Strigari L, Gomellini S, Saracino B, Petrongari MG, Pinnarò P, et al. Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84:1172–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arcangeli G, Saracino B, Arcangeli S, Gomellini S, Petrongari MG, Sanguineti G, et al. Moderate Hypofractionation in high-risk, organ-confined prostate cancer: final results of a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1891–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuban DA, Nogueras-Gonzalez GM, Hamblin L, Lee AK, Choi S, Frank SJ, et al. Preliminary report of a randomized dose escalation trial for prostate cancer using hypofractionation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78(Suppl 3):S58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoffman KE, Ranh Voong K, Pugh TJ, Skinner H, Levy LB, Takiar V, et al. Risk of late toxicity in men receiving dose-escalated hypofractionated intensity modulated prostate radiation therapy: results from a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:1074–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, Khoo V, Birtle A, Bloomfield D, et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomized, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1047–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aluwini S, Pos F, Schimmel E, Krol S, van der Toorn PP, de Jager H, et al. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): late toxicity results from a randomized, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:464–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Incrocci L, Wortel RC, Alemayehu WG, Aluwini S, Schimmel E, Krol S, et al. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localised prostate cancer (HYPRO): final efficacy results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1061–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pollack A, Walker G, Horwitz EM, Price R, Feigenberg S, Konski AA, et al. Randomized trial of hypofractionated external- beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3860–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee WR, Dignam JJ, Amin MB, Bruner DW, Low D, Swanson GP, et al. Randomized phase III noninferiority study comparing two radiotherapy fractionation schedules in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2325–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Catton CN, Lukka H, Gu C-S, Martin JM, Supiot S, Chung PWM, et al. Randomized trial of a hypofractionated radiation regimen for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1884–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arcangeli G, Arcangeli S, Pinzi V, Benassi M, Benassi M, Strigari L. Optimal scheduling of hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and metanalysis of randomized clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rev. 2018;70:22–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koontz BF, Bossi A, Cozzarini C, Wiegel T, D’Amico A. A systematic review of hypofractionation for primary management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:683–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zaorsky NG, Ohri N, Showalter TN, Dicker AP, Den RB. Systematic review of hypofractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39:728–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matthes KL, Limam M, Pestoni G, Held L, Korol D, Rohrmann S. Impact of comorbidities at diagnosis on prostate cancer treatment and survival. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144:707–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Charlson ME, Charlson RE, Peterson JC, Marinopoulos SS, Briggs WM, Hollenberg JP. The Charlson comorbidity index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:1234–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Timmerman RD. An overview of hypofractionation and introduction to this issue of seminars in radiation oncology. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2008;18:215–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roach M III, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, Schellhammer P, Shipley WU, Sokol GH, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer, recommendation of RTOG ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:965–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate cancer (versión 4.2018). 2018.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilson JM, Dearnaley DP, Syndikus I, Khoo V, Birtle A, Bloomfield D, et al. The efficacy and safety of conventional and hypofractionated high-dose radiation therapy for prostate cancer in an elderly population: a subgroup analysis of the CHHiP trial. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;100:1179–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Malaga UniversityMalagaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyJuan Ramón Jimenez HospitalHuelvaSpain
  3. 3.Prostate Cancer Clinical Research UnitSpanish National Cancer Research CenterMadridSpain
  4. 4.CNIO-IBIMA Genitourinary Cancer Research UnitInstitute of Biomedical Research in MalagaMalagaSpain

Personalised recommendations