Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Jan 1;70(1):90-5.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.057. Epub 2007 Sep 12.

Intrarectal amifostine during external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer produces significant improvements in Quality of Life measured by EPIC score

Nicole L Simone  1 , Cynthia Ménard, Benjamin P Soule, Paul S Albert, Peter Guion, Sharon Smith, Denise Godette, Nancy S Crouse, Linda C Sciuto, Theresa Cooley-Zgela, Kevin Camphausen, C Norman Coleman, Anurag K Singh
Affiliations

Intrarectal amifostine during external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer produces significant improvements in Quality of Life measured by EPIC score

Nicole L Simone et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. .

Abstract

Purpose: To test whether intrarectal amifostine limits symptoms of radiation proctitis, measured by using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity score and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) score.

Methods and materials: Patients with localized prostate cancer received amifostine as a rectal suspension 30-45 minutes before daily three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The first 18 patients received 1 g of amifostine, and the next 12 patients received 2 g. Toxicity was assessed at baseline, during treatment, and at follow-up visits by using RTOG grading and the EPIC Quality of Life (QoL) 50-item questionnaire. The Bowel Function subset of the bowel domain (EPIC-BF), which targets symptom severity, and the Bowel Bother subset of the bowel domain (EPIC-BB), which assesses QoL, were evaluated and compared with the RTOG GI toxicity score.

Results: Median follow-up was 30 months (range, 18-36 months). Overall, EPIC-BF and EPIC-BB scores both tracked closely with the RTOG GI toxicity score. Seven weeks after the start of radiation therapy, the incidence of RTOG Grade 2 toxicity was 33% in the 1-g group (6/18 patients) compared with 0% (0/12 patients) in the 2-g group and tended toward statistical significance (p = 0.06). A significant difference between amifostine groups was observed using the EPIC-BF score at 7 weeks (p = 0.04). A difference in EPIC-BB scores between dose groups was evident at 7 weeks (p = 0.07) and was significant at 12 months (p = 0.04).

Conclusions: Higher doses of amifostine produced significant improvements in acute and late bowel QoL (up to 1 year after therapy), measured using the EPIC score.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Notification:

No authors had any conflict of interest to report.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. RTOG GI Toxicity Score
RTOG toxicity was determined at each pre-determined time point for the patients in each group. Mean RTOG scores are presented by dose. Patients who received 1gm Amifostine (---△---) had slightly higher, but not significantly different RTOG scores than the patients who received a 2gm dose (—□—).
Figure 2
Figure 2. EPIC-Bowel Function Composite Score
EPIC-BF toxicity was determined at each pre-determined time point for the patients in each group. Mean RTOG scores are presented by dose. Patients who received 1gm Amifostine (---△---) had slightly higher, EPIC scores than the patients who received a 2gm dose (—□—). This difference was significant (p=0.04) at the 7-week time point (denoted by **).
Figure 3
Figure 3. EPIC-Bowel Bother Composite Score
EPIC-BB toxicity was determined at each pre-determined time point for the patients in each group. Mean RTOG scores are presented by dose. Patients who received 1gm Amifostine (---△---) had slightly higher, EPIC scores than the patients who received a 2gm dose (—□—). This difference was nearly significant (p=0.07) at the 7-week time point (denoted by *) and achieved statistical significance (p=0.04) at 12 months (denoted by **).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51:15–36. - PubMed
    1. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Starkschall G, et al. Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:1097–1105. - PubMed
    1. Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, et al. Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2005;294:1233–1239. - PubMed
    1. Sodicoff M, Conger AD, Pratt NE, et al. Radioprotection by WR-2721 against long-term chronic damage to the rat parotid gland. Radiat Res. 1978;76:172–179. - PubMed
    1. Utley JF, King R, Giansanti JS. Radioprotection of oral cavity structures by WR-2721. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1978;4:643–647. - PubMed

Publication types