Treatment of primary rectal adenocarcinoma after prior pelvic radiation: The role of hyperfractionated accelerated reirradiation

Radiation therapy for de novo anorectal cancer in patients with a history of prostate radiation therapy

Introduction

Radiation therapy (RT) for anorectal cancer after prior prostate cancer RT is usually avoided due to concern for complications. Data on this topic is scarce. Our aim was to evaluate tolerability, toxicity, and clinical outcomes associated with a second course of pelvic radiation in men with de novo anorectal cancers previously treated with RT for prostate cancer.

Materials/methods

We conducted a single-institution retrospective study of men treated with RT for rectal or anal cancer after prior prostate RT. Toxicity data were collected. Treatment plans were extracted to assess doses to organs at risk and target coverage. Cumulative incidence was calculated for local and distant progression. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

We identified 26 patients who received anorectal RT after prostate cancer RT: 17 for rectal cancer and 9 for anal cancer. None had metastatic disease. Prior prostate RT was delivered using low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR), external beam RT (EBRT), or EBRT + LDR. RT for rectal cancer was delivered most commonly using 50.4Gy/28 fractions (fr) or 1.5 Gy twice-daily to 30-45 Gy. The most used RT dose for anal cancer was 50Gy/25 fr. Median interval between prostate and anorectal RT was 12.3 years (range:0.5 - 25.3). 65% and 89% of rectal and anal cancer patients received concurrent chemotherapy, respectively. There were no reported ≥Grade 4 acute toxicities. Two patients developed fistulae; one was urinary-cutaneous after prostate LDR and 45Gy/25fr for rectal cancer, and the other was recto-vesicular after prostate LDR and 50Gy/25fr for anal cancer. In 11 patients with available dosimetry, coverage for anorectal cancers was adequate. With a median follow up of 84.4 months, 5-yr local progression and OS were 30% and 31% for rectal cancer, and 35% and 49% for anal cancer patients, respectively.

Conclusion

RT for anorectal cancer after prior prostate cancer RT is feasible but should be delivered with caution since it poses a risk of fistulae and possibly bleeding, especially in patients treated with prior LDR brachytherapy. Further studies, perhaps using proton therapy and/or rectal hydrogel spacers, are needed to further decrease toxicity and improve outcomes.

Re-irradiation for recurrent rectal cancer - a single-center experience

Background: There is no clear consensus on the use of re-irradiation (reRT) in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). The aim of the present study was to investigate all reRT administered for rectal cancer at a large referral institution and to evaluate patient outcomes and toxicity.Material and methods: All patients with rectal cancer were identified who had received previous pelvic radiotherapy (RT) and underwent reRT during 2006-2016. Medical records and RT details of the primary tumor treatments and rectal cancer recurrence treatments were registered, including details on reRT, chemotherapy, surgery, adverse events, and long-term outcomes.Results: Of 77 patients who received ReRT, 67 had previously received pelvic RT for rectal cancer and were administered reRT for LRRC. Re-irradiation doses were 30.0-45.0 Gy, most often given as hyperfractionated RT in 1.2-1.5 Gy fractions twice daily with concomitant capecitabine. The median time since initial RT was 29 months (range, 13-174 months). Of 36 patients considered as potentially resectable, 20 underwent surgery for LRRC within 3 months after reRT. Operated patients had better 3-year overall survival (OS) (62%) compared to those who were not operated (16%; HR 0.32, p = .001). The median gross tumor volume (GTV) was 107 cm³, and 3-year OS was significantly better in patients with GTV <107 cm³ (44%) compared to patients with GTV ≥107 cm³ (21%; HR 0.52, p = .03).Conclusion: Three-year survival was significantly better for patients who underwent surgery after reRT or who had small tumor volume. Prospective clinical trials are recommended for further improvements in patient selection, outcomes, and toxicity assessment.

Definitive hyperfractionated, accelerated proton reirradiation for patients with pelvic malignancies

Introduction

Pelvic reirradiation (re-RT) presents challenges due to concerns for late toxicity to tissues-at-risk including pelvic bone marrow (PBM). We routinely utilize a hyperfractionated, accelerated re-RT for recurrent rectal or anal cancer in the setting of prior radiation. We hypothesized that proton beam radiation (PBR) is uniquely suited to limit doses to pelvic non-target tissues better than photon-based approaches.

Materials and methods

All patients who received hyperfractionated, accelerated PBR re-RT to the pelvis from 2007 to 2017 were identified. Re-RT was delivered twice daily with a 6 h minimum interfraction interval at 1.5 Gray Relative Biological Effectiveness (Gy(RBE)) per fraction to a total dose of 39-45 Gy(RBE). Concurrent chemotherapy was given to all patients. Comparison photon plans were generated for dosimetric analysis. Dosimetric parameters compared using a matched-pair analysis and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Survival analysis was performed Kaplan Meier curves.

Results

Fifteen patients were identified, with a median prior pelvic RT dose of 50.4 Gy (range 25-80 Gy). Median time between the initial RT and PBRT re-RT was 4.7 years (range 1.0-36.1 years). In comparison to corresponding photon re-RT plans, PBR re-RT plans had lower mean PBM dose, and lower volume of PBM getting 5 Gy, 10 Gy, 20 Gy, and 30 Gy (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.033, respectively).With median 13.9 months follow-up after PBR re-RT, five patients had developed local recurrences, and four patients had developed distant metastases. One-year overall survival following PBR re-RT was 67.5% and one-year progression free survival was 58.7%. No patients developed acute or late Grade 4 toxicity.

Conclusion

PBR re-RT affords improved sparing of PBM compared with photon-based re-RT. Clinically, PBR re-RT is well-tolerated. However, given modest control rates with definitive re-RT without subsequent surgical resection, a multidisciplinary approach should be favored in this setting when feasible.