HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY
-
Upload
rejil-rajan -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
22 -
download
2
Transcript of HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY
![Page 1: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
HYPOFRACTIONATION RETURNSRejil Rajan
![Page 2: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Total dose
Dose per fraction
Number of fractions per day
Total duration
![Page 3: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION
![Page 4: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Wintz was a leader of the Erlangen school, where it was believed that fractionated treatment was decisively inferior, to be judged a "primitive method" and "weak irradiation."
single
![Page 5: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Popularised by Gosta Forsell
Stockholm
method
![Page 6: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Fractionated treatments becoming more popular than hypofractionated ,And it was almost abandoned across world as curative treatment
![Page 7: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
HYPOFRACTIONATION RETURNS
![Page 8: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
In the early 1950s, the comeback of hypofractionation started quietly and came from Stockholm, the city where hypofractionation was first championed by Forsell 50 years previously.
Lars Leksell. Leksell had-“stereotaxy.” Working with a radiation physicist, Borge Larsson, they created the first
Gamma Knife (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden).
![Page 9: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
RATIONALE High dose per fraction = High cell kill
High dose per fraction = Increase late effects
But always was preferred in palliative setting - because of logistic reasons
But as we understand radiobiology better, hypofractionation is back For the tumors with low α/β ratio like Prostate cancer where it is Seen that prostate cancer cell are sensitive to dose per fraction.
Interest also because of the newer conformal techniques like stereotactic treatments, IMRT have emerged where the chance of irradiating normal tissues with high dose per fraction is less.
Tumour control
Late adverse effects
![Page 10: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
CELL SURVIVAL CURVEalpha is the log of number of cells
sterilized non-repairable way per gray of ionizing radiation.
beta is the log of the number of cells sterilized in a
repairable way per gray squared.
![Page 11: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
ALPHA/BETA RATIO Mathematically, when αD = βD². i.e. when the two components are equally responsible
for cell kill, D = α/β.
i.e. the dose at which the linear and quadratic components of cell killing are equal. (Unit = Gy)
It is the ratio of “intrinsic radiosensitivity” to “repair capability” of a specified tissue.
HIGH (>8 Gy) for rapidly proliferating tissues and most tumors (eg HNSCC, mucosa).
SMALL (<6 Gy) for slowly proliferating tissues, including late normal-tissues and tumours like Ca prostate and Ca breast.
![Page 12: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
HYPOFRACTIONATION IN BREAST
![Page 13: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
RADIOBIOLOGY Assumption of better tumour control. Alpha/beta-3-5
LOGISTICS Logistic advantages. Economic favourability.
WHY INTEREST IN HYPOFRACTIONATION??
![Page 14: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
EVIDENCE OF HYPOFRACTIONATION IN CARCINOMA BREAST
![Page 15: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
1234 Patients, T1-2N0M0, C/M -ve ARMS: 50 Gy/25#/35 (622 patients) days Vs 42.5 Gy/16#/22 days
(612 patients). Primary endpoint: LR. Secondary endpoints: distant recurrence, OS, breast cosmesis
(EORTC rating), late RT toxicity.
JNCI, Vol. 94, No. 15, August 7, 2002
![Page 16: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
• To compare local recurrence• To compare disease free survival,
overall survival,cosmesis,late radiation toxicity of skin and subcutaneous tissue
aim• Post lumpectomy• Pathologically negative axillary lymph
nodes (pT1-T2N0M0)• Clear resection margins
Study patient
s
![Page 17: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
1234 Patients
50Gy/25#/35 days
42.5Gy/16#/22 days
![Page 18: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
RESULTS
JNCI, Vol. 94, No. 15, August 7, 2002
![Page 19: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
SURVIVAL
DFS, p=0.37DFS, p=0.37 OS, p=0.78
JNCI, Vol. 94, No. 15, August 7, 2002
![Page 20: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
LATE EFFECTS
Excellent to good cosmetic outcome at 3 yrs and 5yrs
76.8% (SA) Vs 77.0%(LA) 76.8% (SA) Vs 77.4%(LA)
JNCI, Vol. 94, No. 15, August 7, 2002
![Page 21: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
![Page 22: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
• To study effect of fraction size > 2 Gy on late normal tissue responses
• To compare change in breast appearance, palpable breast induration
aim• Post lumpectomy• T1-3 N0-1 M0• Clear resection margins• Under 75 years of age at presentation
Study patient
s
![Page 23: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
ELIGIBILITY:T1-3,N0-1,M0, <75 yrs.
1410 Patients
50Gy/25#/5 weeks
42.9 Gy/13#/5 weeks
39 Gy/13#/5 weeks.
![Page 24: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
RESULTS
After a minimum 5-year follow up, the risk of scoring any change in breast appearance after 50 Gy/25 F, 39 Gy/13 F and 42.9 Gy/13 F was 39.6, 30.3 and 45.7%, from which an alpha/beta value of 3.6 Gy (95% CI 1.8-5.4) is estimated.
P=0.01
P=0.05P=0.01
P=0.18
![Page 25: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
LC RESULTS
After a median follow-up of 9.7 years for the 838 (95%) patients who survived, the risk of ipsilateral tumour relapse after 10 years was 12.1% (95% CI 8.8-15.5) in the 50 Gy group, 14.8% (11.2-18.3) in the 39 Gy group, and 9.6% (6.7-12.6) in the 42.9 Gy group(difference between 39 Gy and 42.9 Gy groups, chi2 test, p=0.027)
![Page 27: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 331–41
![Page 28: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
• To measure the sensitivity of normal and malignant tissues to fraction size
• To compare loco-regional relapse, distant relapse,disease free survival, overall survival, late normal tissue effects, quality of lifeaim
• Post lumpectomy/post mastectomy• pT1-3 N0-1 M0• Clear resection margins• > 18 years• No immediate surgical reconstruction
Study patient
s
![Page 29: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
2236 Patients
50Gy/25#/5 weeks
41.6Gy/13#/5 weeks
39 Gy/13#/5 weeks.
![Page 30: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
RESULTS
The estimated absolute differences in local-regional relapse rates compared with 50 Gy at 5 years were 0·2% (95% CI −1·3% to 2·6%) after 41·6 Gy and 0·9% (95% CI −0·8% to 3·7%) after 39 Gy.
![Page 31: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
![Page 32: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
![Page 33: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
P=0.01
P=0.62
![Page 34: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
LRR: estimated maximum 2.1% and 3.2% excess risk with 41.6 Gy and 39 Gy compared with 50 Gy.
DFS, OS not significantly different.
Cosmesis: 39 Gy/13# more favourable.
a/b for LR relapse: 4.8 Gy (CI 0-16.3).
a/b for change in breast appearance: 3.1 Gy (CI 1.6-4.6).
CONCLUSIONS
![Page 35: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
START B TRIAL Patient criteria: pT1-3aN0-1M0,
post BCS/ Mastectomy, negative CM, age>18 years, no immediate reconstruction.
2215 patients from 23 UK centres.
Stratified by: centre, type of Sx (BCS Vs MRM), boost or not.
Randomised to: 50 Gy/25#, 40 Gy/15#
Lancet 2008; 371: 1098–107
![Page 36: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
• To compare loco-regional relapse, distant relapse,disease free survival, overall survival, late normal tissue effects, quality of lifeaim
• Post lumpectomy/post mastectomy• pT1-3 N0-1 M0• Clear resection margins• > 18 years• No immediate surgical reconstruction
Study patient
s
![Page 37: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
2215 Patients
50Gy/25#/5 weeks
40Gy/15#/3 weeks.
![Page 38: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
RESULTS
Lancet 2008; 371: 1098–107
P=0.01
P=0.35
![Page 39: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
![Page 40: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
CONCLUSION: 40 GY IN 15 FRACTIONS OFFER RATES OF LR RELAPSE AND LATE ADVERSE EFFECTS AT LEAST AS FAVOURABLE AS THE STANDARD SCHEDULE OF 50 GY IN 25 FRACTIONS.
Lancet 2008; 371: 1098–107
![Page 41: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
COMPARISON OF THE TRIALS
![Page 42: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
![Page 43: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Eligibility: age>50 yrs, pT<3 cm, post BCS, CM –ve, N0M0, no NACT/Adj CT.
915 patients accrued.
RANDOMISED TO- 50 Gy/25#/5 weeks Vs 30 Gy/5#/5 weeks Vs 28.5 Gy/5#/5 weeks.
No boost in any arm.
![Page 44: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
![Page 45: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
CONCLUSION:
At 3years median follow-up, 28.5Gy in 5 fractions is comparable to 50Gy in 25 fractions, and significantly milder than 30Gy in 5 fractions, in terms of adverse effects in the breast.
Radiotherapy and oncology 2011
![Page 47: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
RECENT UPDATES OF START A AND START B
![Page 48: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
START A START B
![Page 49: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL
START A START B
![Page 50: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
![Page 51: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
LATE ADVERSE EFFECTS
![Page 52: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
![Page 53: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
EVIDENCE OF HYPOFRACTIONATION IN CARCINOMA PROSTATE
![Page 54: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
• STAGE-T1b-T3aN0M0• PSA <30 ng/mL• PS-0 or 1• Estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less
than 30%
![Page 55: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
450 Patients
74Gy/37#/7.4weeks 60 Gy/20#/4 weeks 57 Gy/19#/3.8
weeks.
![Page 56: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
50·5 months med ian fo l low-up :
6 (4 ·3%) o f 138 men in the 74 Gy group had bowel tox ic i ty of g rade 2 o r worse on the RTOG sca le a t 2 years , 5 (3 ·6%) o f 137 men in the 60 Gy group, and 2 (1·4%) o f 143 men in the 57 Gy group.
For b ladder tox ic i t ies , 3 (2 ·2%) o f 138 men, 3 (2 ·2%) o f 137 , and none (0 ·0%; 97·5% CI 0 ·0–2·6) o f 143 had scores o f g rade 2 o r worse on the RTOG sca le a t 2 years .
Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy seems equally well tolerated as conventionally fractionated treatment at 2 years.
![Page 57: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Same patient characteristics as previous CHHiP TRIAL
![Page 58: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
2100 Patients
74Gy/37#/7.4weeks 60 Gy/20#/4 weeks 57 Gy/19#/3.8 weeks.
![Page 59: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Median follow-up was 50·0 months Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19
fractions groups at 2 years showed (respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59).
no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men
No differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months.
![Page 60: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy.
![Page 61: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years Stage T1b–T4 NX-0MX-0 PSA concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower WHO performance status of 0–2
![Page 62: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
820 Patients
78Gy/39#/8weeks 64.6 Gy/19#/6.5 weeks
![Page 63: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
median follow-up was 60 months The incidence of grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity at 3 years was 39·0%
(95% CI 34·2-44·1) in the standard fractionation group and 41·3% (36·6-46·4) in the hypofractionation group
The incidence of grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity at 3 years was 17·7% (14·1-21·9) in standard fractionation and 21·9% (18·1-26·4) hypofractionation.
Cumulative grade 3 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was significantly higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group (19·0% [95% CI 15·2-23·2] vs 12·9% [9·7-16·7], p=0·021
no significant difference between cumulative grade 3 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity (2·6% [95% CI 1·2-4·7]) in the standard fractionation group and 3·3% [1·7-5·6] in the hypofractionation group; p=0·55).
![Page 64: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
![Page 65: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
EVIDENCE OF HYPOFRACTIONATION IN CARCINOMA GLOTTIS
![Page 66: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
![Page 67: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
![Page 68: HYPOFRACTIONATION IN RADIOTHERAPY](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022022203/5875938a1a28ab901c8b75f3/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)