ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S5989

RTT - Treatment planning, OAR and target definitions

ESTRO 2024

Results:

All patients completed treatment as planned and had minimum follow up of 1 month (range 1-6). Over the course of treatment Grade 1 GU toxicity was less for HDR compared to EBRT (1 reported AEs vs 6) as seen in Figure 1. Additionally, there were no GI AEs reported in treatment for the HDR group but 2 in the EBRT group. At 1 month post treatment there were more AEs reported for both Grade 1 and Grade ≥2 in the HDR group (Fig. 2). Of the Grade 2 AEs reported in Figure 2 all were in the GU category with n =2 urinary tract pain, n=2 urinary frequency, n=1 dysuria, n=1 weak urinary stream, n= 1 urinary retention in the HDR group and single incidence (n=1 urinary tract obstruction) in those who received EBRT. ‘Other’ reported AEs from the HDR group include fatigue during treatment (n=1) and at 1 month (n=4). EBRT had a single ‘other’ AEs reported at 1 month of erectile dysfunction. The mean score and standard deviation collected from EPIC for bladder and bowel subscales at 1-month follow up were similar between those who received HDR and EBRT with 81.1(29.7) and 94.1 (13.9) vs 85.2(23.1) and 93.9(15.0) respectively. There were also no statistically significant differences when looking further at additional subsets, urinary function was 87.7(13.1) vs 89.8(8.3) for HDR and EBRT and urinary bother 74.2(21.8) vs 81.63(11.0). Bowel function was 94.3(6.2) vs 92.9(8.3) for HDR and EBRT and bowel bother 93.9(7.5) vs 94.8(8.8). The mean change in score from baseline assessment was –6.5 in bladder and 0.8 in rectal subscales for HDR patients compared to –1.1 and 0.0 for EBRT patients

Fig 1