Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 May 1;83(1):38-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.1953. Epub 2011 Oct 8.

Late fecal incontinence after high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer: better prediction using longitudinal definitions.

Author information

1
Department of Medical Physics, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy. fiorino.claudio@hsr.it

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To model late fecal incontinence after high-dose prostate cancer radiotherapy (RT) in patients accrued in the AIROPROS (prostate working group of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology) 0102 trial using different endpoint definitions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS:

The self-reported questionnaires (before RT, 1 month after RT, and every 6 months for ≤3 years after RT) of 586 patients were available. The peak incontinence (P_INC) and two longitudinal definitions (chronic incontinence [C_INC], defined as the persistence of Grade 1 or greater incontinence after any Grade 2-3 event; and mean incontinence score [M_INC], defined as the average score during the 3-year period after RT) were considered. The correlation between the clinical/dosimetric parameters (including rectal dose-volume histograms) and P_INC (Grade 2 or greater), C_INC, and M_INC of ≥1 were investigated using multivariate logistic analyses. Receiver operating characteristic curves and the area under the curve were used to assess the predictive value of the different multivariate models.

RESULTS:

Of the 586 patients, 36 with a Grade 1 or greater incontinence score before RT were not included in the present analysis. Of the 550 included patients, 197 (35.8%) had at least one control with a Grade 1 or greater incontinence score (M_INC >0). Of these 197 patients, 37 (6.7%), 22 (4.0%), and 17 (3.1%) were scored as having P_INC, M_INC ≥1, and C_INC, respectively. On multivariate analysis, Grade 2 or greater acute incontinence was the only predictor of P_INC (odds ratio [OR], 5.9; p = .0009). Grade 3 acute incontinence was predictive of C_INC (OR, 9.4; p = .02), and percentage of the rectal volume receiving >40 Gy of ≥80% was predictive of a M_INC of ≥1 (OR, 3.8; p = .008) and of C_INC (OR, 3.6; p = .03). Previous bowel disease, previous abdominal/pelvic surgery, and the use of antihypertensive (protective factor) correlated highly with both C_INC and M_INC ≥1. The predictive values of the models for C_INC (area under the curve, 0.83) and M_INC ≥1 (area under the curve, 0.73) were greater than the ones for P_INC (area under the curve, 0.62) and more reliable (p = .0001-.0003 against p = .02). Nomograms for the two longitudinal definitions were derived.

CONCLUSIONS:

The longitudinal definitions of fecal incontinence (C_INC and M_INC ≥1) were helpful in accounting for both the persistence and the severity of the incontinence. A significant fraction of peak events was consequential to acute incontinence, and a longer duration of symptoms mainly depended on the rectal dose bath (percentage of rectal volume receiving >40 Gy), and pretreatment clinical factors.

PMID:
21985939
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.1953
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center