International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 158–164 | Cite as

Decreased acute toxicities of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer with prostate-based versus bone-based image guidance

  • Kiyonao Nakamura
  • Takashi Mizowaki
  • Haruo Inokuchi
  • Itaru Ikeda
  • Takahiro Inoue
  • Tomomi Kamba
  • Osamu Ogawa
  • Masahiro Hiraoka
Original Article



Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a major therapeutic option for localized prostate cancer. Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) allows tumor visualization and corrects the errors caused by daily internal movement of the prostate. The current study retrospectively compared the acute toxicities and biochemical tumor control outcomes of prostate IMRT achieved using two IGRT techniques: bony structure-based IGRT (B-IGRT) and prostate-based IGRT (P-IGRT).


Between February 2011 and July 2014, 96 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated using P-IGRT based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT; 76 Gy) without fiducial markers. This group of patients was compared with a similar cohort of 96 patients who were treated with B-IGRT (74 Gy) between July 2007 and September 2011. The planning target volume (PTV) margins were 1–3 mm smaller in the P-IGRT group than in the B-IGRT group.


The median follow-up periods for all patients, the P-IGRT group, and the B-IGRT group were 42, 32, and 64 months, respectively. A significantly lower incidence of acute grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicities was observed in the P-IGRT group compared with the B-IGRT group (3 vs. 11%; p = 0.049). The prostate-specific antigen failure-free survival rates at 3 years were 95.5 and 92.7% for the P-IGRT and B-IGRT groups, respectively (p = 0.534).


IMRT with P-IGRT allows PTV margin reduction without sacrificing tumor control, which successfully reduces acute rectal toxicity compared with IMRT with B-IGRT.


Prostate cancer Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) Rectal toxicity 



This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan (24591838 and 16K10390). The sponsor played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit this article for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Mizowaki receives a donation for research as the department representative from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The other authors report no conflict of interest with regard to this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Center for Cancer Control and Information Services (2016) National Cancer Center. Projected cancer statistics. Accessed Mar 2017
  2. 2.
    Zelefsky MJ, Chan H, Hunt M et al (2006) Long-term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 176:1415–1419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD et al (2005) Comparison of conventional-dose vs. high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 294:1233–1239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kupelian PA, Potters L, Khuntia D et al (2004) Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy <72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1–T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58:25–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dearnaley DP, Jovic G, Syndikus I et al (2014) Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:464–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zietman AL, Bae K, Slater JD et al (2010) Randomized trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Long-term results from Proton Radiation Oncology Group/American College of Radiology 95-09. J Clin Oncol 28:1106–1111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nederveen AJ, van der Heide UA, Dehnad H et al (2002) Measurements and clinical consequences of prostate motion during a radiotherapy fraction. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:206–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schallenkamp JM, Herman MG, Kruse JJ et al (2005) Prostate position relative to pelvic bony anatomy based on intraprostatic gold markers and electronic portal imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:800–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Langen KM, Willoughby TR, Meeks SL et al (2008) Observations on real-time prostate gland motion using electromagnetic tracking. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:1084–1090CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ng JA, Booth JT, Poulsen PR et al (2012) Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring for prostate intensity modulated arc therapy: first clinical results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:e655–e661CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engels B, Soete G, Verellen D et al (2009) Conformal arc radiotherapy for prostate cancer: increased biochemical failure in patients with distended rectum on the planning computed tomogram despite image guidance by implanted markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74:388–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engels B, Soete G, Gevaert T et al (2014) Impact of planning target volume margins and rectal distention on biochemical failure in image-guided radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 111:106–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norihisa Y, Mizowaki T, Takayama K et al (2012) Detailed dosimetric evaluation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans created for stage C prostate cancer based on a planning protocol. Int J Clin Oncol 17:505–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roach M, Hanks G, Thames H et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:965–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zaorsky NG, Palmer JD, Hurwitz MD et al (2015) What is the ideal radiotherapy dose to treat prostate cancer? A meta-analysis of biologically equivalent dose escalation. Radiother Oncol 115:295–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Michalski JM, Gay H, Jackson A et al (2010) Radiation dose-volume effects in radiation-induced rectal injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76:S123–S129CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Viswanathan AN, Yorke ED, Marks LB et al (2010) Radiation dose-volume effects of the urinary bladder. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76:S116–S122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zelefsky MJ, Levin EJ, Hunt M 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 70:1124–1129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zelefsky MJ, Kollmeier M, Cox B et al (2012) Improved clinical outcomes with high-dose image guided radiotherapy compared with non-IGRT for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:125–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhong Q, Gao H, Li G et al (2014) Significance of image guidance to clinical outcomes for localized prostate cancer. Biomed Res Int 2014:1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied TherapyGraduate School of Medicine, Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of UrologyGraduate School of Medicine, Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations