Table 3.
Unadjusted | Adjusteda | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CRT (n = 6310) |
IMRT (n = 6666) |
CRT (n = 6478) |
IMRT (n = 6438) |
|||||||||||
Outcome per 100 Person-Years |
Total Events |
100 Person Years |
Rate | Total Events |
100 Person-Years | Rate | IMRT vs CRT Rate Ratio (95% CI) |
Total Events | 100 Person Years |
Rate | Total Events |
100 Person Years |
Rate | IMRT vs CRT Rate Ratio (95% CI) |
Gastrointestinal events | ||||||||||||||
Procedures (including colonoscopy) |
3187 | 195 | 16.3 | 2940 | 167 | 17.6 | 1.08 (1.03–13) | 2989 | 180 | 16.6 | 3011 | 177 | 17.0 | 1.02 (0.97–.07) |
Diagnoses | 2946 | 212 | 13.9 | 2450 | 182 | 13.5 | 0.97 (0.92–1.02) | 2828 | 192 | 14.7 | 2594 | 194 | 13.4 | 0.91 (0.86–0.96) |
Urinary nonincontinence events | ||||||||||||||
Procedures | 564 | 293 | 1.9 | 439 | 234 | 1.9 | 0.98 (0.86–.11) | 493 | 260 | 1.9 | 483 | 257 | 1.9 | 0.99 (0.87–.12) |
Diagnoses | 2003 | 248 | 8.1 | 1747 | 199 | 8.8 | 1.09 (1.02–1.16) | 1941 | 220 | 8.8 | 1869 | 214 | 8.8 | 0.99 (0.93–1.06) |
Urinary incontinence events | ||||||||||||||
Procedures | 1904 | 246 | 7.7 | 1854 | 194 | 9.5 | 1.23 (1.16–.32) | 1867 | 219 | 8.5 | 1888 | 211 | 8.9 | 1.05 (0.98–.12) |
Diagnoses | 970 | 283 | 3.4 | 785 | 226 | 3.5 | 1.01 (0.92–1.11) | 917 | 251 | 3.7 | 858 | 249 | 3.5 | 0.94 (0.86–1.04) |
Erectile dysfunction events | ||||||||||||||
Procedures | 202 | 303 | 0.7 | 200 | 240 | 0.8 | 1.25 (1.03–.52) | 224 | 268 | 0.8 | 200 | 265 | 0.8 | 0.90 (0.75–.09) |
Diagnoses | 1186 | 265 | 4.5 | 1342 | 208 | 6.5 | 1.44 (1.33–1.56) | 1239 | 235 | 5.3 | 1342 | 228 | 5.9 | 1.12 (1.03–1.20) |
Hip fracture | 301 | 302 | 1.0 | 186 | 240 | 0.8 | 0.78 (0.65–0.93) | 272 | 267 | 1.0 | 209 | 265 | 0.8 | 0.78 (0.65–0.93) |
Additional cancer therapy | 896 | 302 | 3.0 | 575 | 249 | 2.3 | 0.78 (0.70–0.87) | 839 | 270 | 3.1 | 677 | 270 | 2.5 | 0.81 (0.73–0.89) |
Abbreviations: CRT, conformal radiation therapy; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Rates shown are adjusted for the variables presented in Tables 1 and 2, using propensity scores implemented by inverse probability of treatment weighting.