The lack of impact of pelvic irradiation on small bowel mobility: implications for radiotherapy treatment planning

Urinary dysfunction after colorectal cancer treatment and its impact on quality of life - a national cross-sectional study in women

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate urinary dysfunction and its impact on the quality of life of colorectal cancer survivors. We also wanted to identify the risk factors for impaired urinary function.

METHOD

A national cross-sectional study was performed including patients treated for colorectal cancer between 2001 and 2014. Patients answered questionnaires regarding urinary function and quality of life, including the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS), measuring filling, voiding and incontinence. Data were compared with data on demographics and treatment-related factors from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) database.

RESULTS

We found that rectal cancer treatment significantly impaired urinary function compared with colon cancer treatment (filling score p = 0.003, voiding p < 0.0001, incontinence p = 0.0001). Radiotherapy was the single most influential risk factor for high filling (p = 0.0043), voiding (p < 0.0001) and incontinence (p < 0.0001) scores, whereas type of rectal resection was only significant in crude analysis. Urinary dysfunction was strongly associated with an impaired quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Urinary dysfunction is common after treatment for colorectal cancer, particularly if the treatment includes radiotherapy. All patients must be informed of the risk before cancer treatment, and functional outcome should be routinely assessed at follow-up.

Concurrent Boost Radiotherapy as Preoperative Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Carcinoma: A New Beam Arrangement

Purpose

To describe a new beam arrangement for preoperative concurrent boost radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal carcinoma.

Material and methods

Three different volumes, ie posterior pelvis, total mesorectal space, and gross tumor volume plus 2 cm, are selected to receive radiation doses of 47 Gy, 51 Gy, and 54 Gy, respectively, in 24 fractions. There are two prerequisites for the use of such a radiotherapy schedule: complete displacement of the small bowel outside the boost volume, and horizontal positioning of the rectal long axis. Both conditions can be attained by patient positioning on a new device, the “Up-Down Table” (UDT). The dose gradient between the three volumes is realized with two daily arc rotation fields with an isocenter that is different from the three additional multileaf collimator pelvic fields (postero-anterior + 2 laterolateral).

Results

The treatment data are reported according to the ICRU 62 criteria. A comparison was made between concurrent arc rotation and concomitant static boost techniques.

Conclusion

The new beam arrangement, with the use of the UDT, allows to administer different radiation doses to three volumes with different tumor cell density in order to obtain the same probability of local response in all target volumes without increasing the toxicity.

Radiation dose-volume effects in the stomach and small bowel

Published data suggest that the risk of moderately severe (>or=Grade 3) radiation-induced acute small-bowel toxicity can be predicted with a threshold model whereby for a given dose level, D, if the volume receiving that dose or greater (VD) exceeds a threshold quantity, the risk of toxicity escalates. Estimates of VD depend on the means of structure segmenting (e.g., V15 = 120 cc if individual bowel loops are outlined or V45 = 195 cc if entire peritoneal potential space of bowel is outlined). A similar predictive model of acute toxicity is not available for stomach. Late small-bowel/stomach toxicity is likely related to maximum dose and/or volume threshold parameters qualitatively similar to those related to acute toxicity risk. Concurrent chemotherapy has been associated with a higher risk of acute toxicity, and a history of abdominal surgery has been associated with a higher risk of late toxicity.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer reduces volume of bowel treated to high dose levels

PURPOSE

To investigate the potential for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to spare the bowel in rectal tumors.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The targets (pelvic nodal and rectal volumes), bowel, and bladder were outlined in 5 patients. All had conventional, three-dimensional conformal RT and forward-planned multisegment three-field IMRT plans compared with inverse-planned simultaneous integrated boost nine-field equally spaced IMRT plans. Equally spaced seven-field and five-field and five-field, customized, segmented IMRT plans were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Ninety-five percent of the prescribed dose covered at least 95% of both planning target volumes using all but the conventional plan (mean primary and pelvic planning target volume receiving 95% of the prescribed dose was 32.8 +/- 13.7 Gy and 23.7 +/- 4.87 Gy, respectively), reflecting a significant lack of coverage. The three-field forward planned IMRT plans reduced the volume of bowel irradiated to 45 Gy and 50 Gy by 26% +/- 16% and 42% +/- 27% compared with three-dimensional conformal RT. Additional reductions to 69 +/- 51 cm(3) to 45 Gy and 20 +/- 21 cm(3) to 50 Gy were obtained with the nine-field equally spaced IMRT plans-64% +/- 11% and 64% +/- 20% reductions compared with three-dimensional conformal RT. Reducing the number of beams and customizing the angles for the five-field equally spaced IMRT plan did not significantly reduce bowel sparing.

CONCLUSION

The bowel volume irradiated to 45 Gy and 50 Gy was significantly reduced with IMRT, which could potentially lead to less bowel toxicity. Reducing the number of beams did not reduce bowel sparing and the five-field customized segmented IMRT plan is a reasonable technique to be tested in clinical trials.

Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in the treatment of fixed and semi-fixed rectal tumors. Analysis of results and prognostic factors

PURPOSE

To report the retrospective analysis of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neodjuvant radiochemotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From January 1994 to December 2003, 101 patients with fixed (25%) or semi-fixed (75%) rectal adenocarcinoma were treated by preoperative radiotherapy with a dose of 45 Gy at the whole pelvis and 50.4 Gy at primary tumor, concomitant to four weekly chemotherapies with 5-Fluorouracil (425 mg/m2) and Leucovorin (20 mg/m2). In 71 patients (70.3%) the primary tumor was located up to 6 cm from the anal verge and in 30 (29.7%) from 6.5 cm to 10 cm. Age, gender, tumor fixation, tumor distance from the anal verge, clinical response, surgical technique, and postoperative TNM stage were the prognostic factors analyzed for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local control (LC) at five years.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time was 38 months (range, 2-141). Complete response was observed in eight patients (7.9%), partial in 54 (53.4%) and absence in 39 (38.7%). OS, DFS and LC were 52.6%, 53.8%, and 75.9%, respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 40 (39.6%) patients, local recurrence in 20 (19.8%) and both in 16 (15.8%). Patients with fixed tumors had lower OS (17% Vs 65.6%; p < 0.001), DFS (31.2% Vs 60.9%; p = 0.005), and LC (58% Vs 82%; p = 0.004). Patients with tumors more than 6 cm above the anal verge had better LC (93% Vs 69%; p = 0.04). The postoperative TNM stage was a significant factor for DFS (I:64.1%, II:69.6%, III:35.2%, IV:11.1%; p < 0.001) and for LC (I:75.7%, II: 92.9%, III:54.1%, IV:100%; p = 0.005). Patients with positive lymph nodes had worse OS (37.9% Vs 70.4%, p = 0.006), DFS (32% Vs 72.7%, p < 0.001) and LC (56.2% Vs 93.4%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the neoadjuvant treatment employed was effective for local control. Fixation of the lesion and lymph nodes metastasis were the main adverse prognostic factors. Distant failures were frequent, supporting the need of new drugs for adjuvant chemotherapy.

Acute diarrhea during pelvic irradiation: is small-bowel volume effect different in gynecologic patients with prior abdomen operation or not?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate volume effect of small bowel for diarrhea during pelvic irradiation in gynecologic patients with or without prior abdomen operation.

METHODS

From January 1996 through December 2003, 759 patients undergoing 4-field pelvic irradiation for cervical or uterine cancer were analyzed. Whole pelvic (WP), modified whole pelvic (MWP), or lower pelvic (LP) irradiation were delivered initially. According to contrast medium within small bowel in simulation films, we categorized the small-bowel volume of full dose related to WP fields as small-volume and large-volume groups. We recorded the severity of diarrhea until 39.6 Gy/22 fractions of pelvic irradiation. The actuarial rates of overall and moderate to severe diarrhea were compared among different groups.

RESULTS

Significantly more large-volume distribution (85%) was noted in patients >60 years without prior operation (P < 0.001). Large-volume distribution was 53%, 65%, and 82% in post-operative patients with no diarrhea, mild diarrhea, and moderate to severe diarrhea (P = 0.002), respectively. The corresponding rate was 79%, 77%, and 80% in patients without prior abdomen operation (P = 0.869). In multivariate analysis, prior operation with LP fields (P = 0.005) and prior operation with small volume (P = 0.031) were significantly protective factors for overall diarrhea. The latter was also a protective factor for moderate to severe diarrhea (P = 0.026). Prior operation could diminish overall diarrhea in patients without simultaneous large-field (WP or MWP) and large-volume. Large volume was a significant factor of overall (P = 0.014) and moderate to severe (P = 0.004) diarrhea in large-field patients with operation. The volume effect did not exist in those patients without operation.

CONCLUSION

Age and operation can change small-bowel distribution. Prior operation may attenuate diarrhea if irradiated volume of small bowel is small. There is a volume effect in post-operative rather than non-operative patients receiving large-field irradiation. More practical dose-volume evaluation of small bowel may be applied for volume effect in gynecologic patients without prior operation.

The position and volume of the small bowel during adjuvant radiation therapy for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The rate of small bowel toxicity from adjuvant pelvic radiation therapy (RT) for rectal cancer has been reported to be lower for patients treated preoperatively (Preop). This was probably due to a lesser volume of irradiated small bowel; however, studies of postoperative treatment reported that patients with an abdominoperineal resection (APR), who likely have the largest volume of small bowel in the pelvis, had less acute and chronic toxicity than those with a low anterior resection (LAR). In this study, three-dimensional treatment planning techniques were used to characterize the position and volume of small bowel in the pelvis and compare these to repeat studies obtained during the typical 5-week course of treatment to attempt to explain the above observations.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Treatment planning CT scans were obtained in 30 patients with rectal cancer (10 Preop, 10 LAR, 10 APR), including 12 patients with weekly CT scans during RT (65 scans). The position of the small bowel was measured by the distance to the nearest small bowel from the bones of the posterior pelvis and by the volume of small bowel within four anatomically defined regions of the pelvis. The motion of the small bowel was expressed as the standard deviation of the small bowel position measured with both the distance and the volume in the 12 patients with repeat studies.

RESULTS

Contrast-containing small bowel was found an average 2.9 cm more anterior than small bowel without contrast below the sacral promontory. The position of the small bowel in Preop patients was significantly more anterior (p < or = 0.01) with less volume (p < or = 0.04) in the pelvis than postoperatively treated patients. The small bowel was also more anterior for patients with an LAR vs. APR (p < or = 0.03) but with similar volume in all pelvic regions. Small bowel motion, expressed as the standard deviation of the distance from the bones of the posterior pelvis to the closest small bowel, was 2.9 cm, 1.4 cm, and 0.2 cm for the Preop, LAR, and APR group, respectively. The LAR group had a considerable degree of motion in the posterior pelvis. Increased bladder volume was associated with reduced small bowel volumes, although this benefit decreased during treatment.

CONCLUSION

Because treatment planning CT scans can detect small bowel that does not contain contrast, they may be more accurate than the traditional small bowel series. The Preop patients had significantly less pelvic small bowel supporting the clinical observation of better tolerance to therapy. The higher small bowel toxicity reported for LAR vs. APR patients may be explained by the greater variability of both the position and volume of the small bowel in the posterior pelvis for LAR patients. This finding suggests that a single planning study may not be accurate for the block design used for boost treatment of LAR patients. Bladder-filling techniques were useful for Preop and LAR but not APR patients, and decreased in benefit over time. This study suggested that treatment planning CT scans were more useful than a small bowel series and that more than one treatment planning CT may be obtained in any patient receiving > 45 Gy for rectal cancer. However, further research will be necessary to determine the optimal timing and total number of repeat studies.

Prospective trial of preoperative concomitant boost radiotherapy with continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer

RATIONALE

To evaluate the response to a concomitant boost given during standard chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Concomitant boost radiotherapy was administered preoperatively to 45 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer in a prospective trial. Treatment consisted of 45 Gy to the pelvis with 18 mV photons at 1.8 Gy/fraction using a 3-field belly board technique with continuous infusion 5FU chemotherapy (300mg/m(2)) 5 days per week. The boost was given during the last week of therapy with a 6-hour inter-fraction interval to the tumor plus a 2-3 cm margin. The boost dose equaled 7.5 Gy/5 fractions (1.5 Gy/fraction); a total dose of 52.5 Gy/5 weeks was given to the primary tumor. Pretreatment tumor stage, determined by endorectal ultrasound and CT scan, included 29 with T3N0 [64%], 11 T3N1, 1 T3Nx, 2 T4N0, 1 T4N3, and 1 with TxN1 disease. Mean distance from the anal verge was 5 cm (range 0-13 cm). Median age was 55 years (range 33-77 years). The population consisted of 34 males and 11 females. Median time of follow-up is 8 months (range 1-24 months).

RESULTS

Sphincter preservation (SP) has been accomplished in 33 of 42 (79%) patients resected to date. Three patients did not undergo resection because of the development of metastatic disease in the interim between the completion of chemoradiation (CTX/XRT) and preoperative evaluation. The surgical procedures included proctectomy and coloanal anastomosis (n = 16), low anterior resection (n = 13), transanal resection (n = 4). Tumor down-staging was pathologically confirmed in 36 of the 42 (86%) resected patients, and 13 (31%) achieved a pathologic CR. Among the 28 tumors (67%) located <6 cm from the anal verge, SP was accomplished in 21 cases (75%). Although perioperative morbidity was higher, toxicity rates during CTX/XRT were comparable to that seen with conventional fractionation. Compared to our contemporary experience with conventional CTX/XRT (45Gy; 1.8 Gy per fraction), improvements were seen in SP (79% vs. 59%; p = 0.02), SP for tumors <6 cm from the anal verge (75% vs. 42%; p = 0.003), and down-staging (86% vs. 62%; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

The SP rate with concomitant boost radiation has been highly favorable with rates of response which are higher than those previously reported for chemoradiation without administration of a boost. Further evaluation of this radiotherapeutic strategy appears warranted.

Tumor downstaging and sphincter preservation with preoperative chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the rates of tumor downstaging after preoperative chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CTX/XRT) that delivered 45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks with continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (300 mg/m2/day) was given to 117 patients. The pretreatment stage distribution, as determined by endorectal ultrasound (u), included uT2N0 in 2%, uT3N0 in 47%, uT3N1 in 49%, and uT4N0 in 2% of cases; endorectal ultrasound was not performed in 13% of cases (15 patients). Approximately 6 weeks after completion of CTX/XRT, surgery was performed.

RESULTS

The pathological tumor stages were Tis-2N0 in 26%, T2N1 in 5%, T3N0 in 21%, T3N1 in 15%, T4N0 in 5%, and T4NI in 1%; a complete response (CR) to preoperative CTX/XRT was pathologically confirmed in 32 (27%) of patients. Tumor downstaging occurred in 72 (62%) cases. Only 3% of cases had pathologic evidence of progressive disease. Pretreatment tumor size (< 5 cm vs. > or = 5 cm) was the only factor predictive of tumor downstaging (p < 0.04). A decrease of > 1 T-stage level was accomplished in 45% of those downstaged. Overall, a sphincter-saving (SP) procedure was possible in 59% of patients and an abdominoperineal resection (APR) was required in 41 % of cases. Factors predictive of SP included downstaging (p < 0.03), age > 40 years (p < 0.007), pretreatment tumor distance, 3 to 6 cm from the anal verge (p < 0.00001), tumor size <6 cm (p < 0.02), mobility (p < 0.004), tumor stage <T4 (p < 0.01), and uN negative (p < 0.008). SP was performed in 23 patients (72%) with a CR and in 48 (67%) of downstaged cases. Among the 69 tumors located < 6 cm from the anal verge, 29 (42%) were resected with a SP. The level of response was important for tumors located < 6 cm from the anal verge because a SP was performed in 9 of the 17 (53%) CRs in this group while only 20 of 52 patients (38%) had a SP when residual disease was present after CTX/XRT. For tumors located > 6 cm from the anal verge, SP was performed in 14 of the 15 (93%) patients with a CR and 32 of 33 (97%) of patients with residual disease (p < 0.00004).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant tumor downstaging results from preoperative chemoradiation allowing sphincter sparing surgery in over 40% of patients whose tumors were located < 6 cm from the anal verge and who otherwise would have required colostomy.