Hypo-fractionation in Prostate Cancer: Biological Aspects
Recent radiobiological modeling of experimental and clinical data suggests a low α/ß ratio for prostate cancer. If this assumption holds true, it represents a unique opportunity for exploiting a therapeutic window with hypo-fractionated radiotherapy schedules, especially in case α/ß for prostate cancer is lower than that for rectal complications. This chapter will—after general considerations on fractionation and the α/ß ratio—summarize the current scientific status on the assumed α/ß for prostate cancer and relevant normal tissue complications and discuss the potential and the caveats of hypo-fractionation for prostate cancer.
KeywordsProstate Cancer Dose Distribution Local Tumor Control Fractionation Schedule Rectal Toxicity
- Arcangeli S, Strigari L, Gomellini S, et al (2012) Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:1172–1178Google Scholar
- Miralbell R, Roberts SA, Zubizarreta E, et al (2012) Dose-Fractionation sensitivity of prostate cancer deduced from radiotherapy outcomes of 5,969 patients in seven international institutional datasets: alpha/beta = 1.4 (0.9–2.2) Gy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82(1):e17–e24Google Scholar
- Proust-Lima C, Taylor JM, Secher S et al (2011) Confirmation of a low alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer treated by external beam radiation therapy alone using a post-treatment repeated-measures model for PSA dynamics. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79:195–201PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Thames HD, Kuban D, Levy LB, et al (2010) The role of overall treatment time in the outcome of radiotherapy of prostate cancer: an analysis of biochemical failure in 4,839 men treated between 1987 and 1995. Radiother Oncol 96:6–12Google Scholar
- Vogelius IR, Bentzen SM (2012) Meta-analysis of the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer in the presence of an overall time factor: bad news, good news, or no news? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 118(21):5432–5440Google Scholar