Toxicity after 125I prostate brachytherapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Safety of Radiation Therapy in Patients With Prostate Cancer and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has historically been considered a relative contraindication for pelvic radiation therapy (RT). To date, no systematic review has summarized the toxicity profile of RT for patients with prostate cancer and comorbid IBD.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A PRISMA-guided systematic search was conducted on PubMed/Embase for original investigations that reported gastrointestinal (GI; rectal/bowel) toxicity in patients with IBD undergoing RT for prostate cancer. The substantial heterogeneity in patient population, follow-up, and toxicity reporting practices precluded a formal meta-analysis; however, a summary of the individual study-level data and crude pooled rates was described.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective studies with 194 patients were included: 5 examined predominantly low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT) monotherapy, 1 predominantly high-dose-rate BT monotherapy, 3 mixed external beam RT (3-dimensional conformal or intensity modulated RT [IMRT]) + low-dose-rate BT, 1 IMRT + high-dose-rate BT, and 2 stereotactic RT. Among these studies, patients with active IBD, patients receiving pelvic RT, and patients with prior abdominopelvic surgery were underrepresented. In all but 1 publication, the rate of late grade 3+ GI toxicities was <5%. The crude pooled rate of acute and late grade 2+ GI events was 15.3% (n = 27/177 evaluable patients; range, 0%-100%) and 11.3% (n = 20/177 evaluable patients; range, 0%-38.5%), respectively. Crude rates of acute and late grade 3+ GI events were 3.4% (6 cases; range, 0%-23%) and 2.3% (4 cases; range, 0%-15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate RT in patients with comorbid IBD appears to be associated with low rates of grade 3+ GI toxicity; however, patients must be counseled regarding the possibility for lower-grade toxicities. These data cannot be generalized to the underrepresented subpopulations mentioned above, and individualize decision-making is recommended for those high-risk cases. Several strategies should be considered to minimize the probability of toxicity in this susceptible population, including careful patient selection, minimizing elective (nodal) treatment volumes, using rectal sparing techniques, and employing contemporary RT advancements to minimize exposure to GI organs at risk (eg, IMRT, magnetic resonance imaging-based target delineation, and high-quality daily image guidance).

Prostate cancer brachytherapy: SFRO guidelines 2021

Prostate brachytherapy techniques are described, concerning both permanent seed implant and high dose rate brachytherapy. The following guidelines are presented: brachytherapy indications, implant procedure for permanent low dose rate implants and high dose rate with source projector, as well as dose and dose-constraints objectives, immediate postoperative management, post-treatment evaluation, and long-term follow-up.

Low dose rate brachytherapy for primary treatment of localized prostate cancer: A systemic review and executive summary of an evidence-based consensus statement

PURPOSE

The purpose of this guideline is to present evidence-based consensus recommendations for low dose rate (LDR) permanent seed brachytherapy for the primary treatment of prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The American Brachytherapy Society convened a task force for addressing key questions concerning ultrasound-based LDR prostate brachytherapy for the primary treatment of prostate cancer. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify prospective and multi-institutional retrospective studies involving LDR brachytherapy as monotherapy or boost in combination with external beam radiation therapy with or without adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Outcomes included disease control, toxicity, and quality of life.

RESULTS

LDR prostate brachytherapy monotherapy is an appropriate treatment option for low risk and favorable intermediate risk disease. LDR brachytherapy boost in combination with external beam radiation therapy is appropriate for unfavorable intermediate risk and high-risk disease. Androgen deprivation therapy is recommended in unfavorable intermediate risk and high-risk disease. Acceptable radionuclides for LDR brachytherapy include iodine-125, palladium-103, and cesium-131. Although brachytherapy monotherapy is associated with increased urinary obstructive and irritative symptoms that peak within the first 3 months after treatment, the median time toward symptom resolution is approximately 1 year for iodine-125 and 6 months for palladium-103. Such symptoms can be mitigated with short-term use of alpha blockers. Combination therapy is associated with worse urinary, bowel, and sexual symptoms than monotherapy. A prostate specific antigen <= 0.2 ng/mL at 4 years after LDR brachytherapy may be considered a biochemical definition of cure.

CONCLUSIONS

LDR brachytherapy is a convenient, effective, and well-tolerated treatment for prostate cancer.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in men with underlying inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Historically, IBD has been thought to increase the underlying risk of radiation related toxicity in the treatment of prostate cancer. In the modern era, contemporary radiation planning and delivery may mitigate radiation-related toxicity in this theoretically high-risk cohort. This is the first manuscript to report clinical outcomes for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and underlying IBD curatively treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

METHODS

A large institutional database of patients (n = 4245) treated with SBRT for adenocarcinoma of the prostate was interrogated to identify patients who were diagnosed with underlying IBD prior to treatment. All patients were treated with SBRT over five treatment fractions using a robotic radiosurgical platform and fiducial tracking. Baseline IBD characteristics including IBD subtype, pre-SBRT IBD medications, and EPIC bowel questionnaires were reviewed for the IBD cohort. Acute and late toxicity was evaluated using the CTCAE version 5.0.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients were identified who had underlying IBD prior to SBRT for the curative treatment of prostate cancer. The majority (n = 18) were diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and were being treated with local steroid suppositories for IBD. No biochemical relapses were observed in the IBD cohort with early follow up. High-grade acute and late toxicities were rare (n = 1, grade 3 proctitis) with a median time to any GI toxicity of 22 months. Hemorrhoidal flare was the most common low-grade toxicity observed (n = 3).

CONCLUSION

To date, this is one of the largest groups of patients with IBD treated safely and effectively with radiation for prostate cancer and the only review of patients treated with SBRT. Caution is warranted when delivering therapeutic radiation to patients with IBD, however modern radiation techniques appear to have mitigated the risk of GI side effects.

Is prostate cancer radiotherapy using implantable rectum spacers safe and effective in inflammatory bowel disease patients?

•

Radiotherapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease remains controversial.

•

A biodegradable balloon is inserted between the prostate and the rectal wall.

•

The balloon pushes the anterior rectal wall outside of the high-dose area.

•

No grade 3 or more rectal toxicities were observed.

Background

Prostate cancer radiotherapy (RT) in patients with (active) inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains controversial. We hypothesized that RT in combination with a biodegradable prostate-rectum spacer balloon implantation, might be a safe treatment approach with acceptable toxicities for these high risk for rectal toxicity patients.

Materials and methods

We report on a small prospective mono-centric series of 8 patients with all-risk prostate cancer with the comorbidity of an IBD. Four patients had Crohn’s disease and 4 patients had ulcerative colitis. One out of four had an active status of IBD. All patients were intended to be treated with curative high-dose RT: 5 patients were treated with external beam RT (70 Gray (Gy) in 28 fractions), and 3 patients were treated with ¹²⁵I-implant (145 Gy). Toxicities were scored according to the CTCAE v4.03: acute side effects occur up to 3 months after RT, and late side effects start after 3 months.

Results

Median follow-up was 13 months (range: 3–42 months). Only one acute grade 2 gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity was observed: an increased diarrhea (4–6 above baseline) during RT, which resolved completely 6 weeks after treatment. No late grade 3 or more GI toxicity was reported, and no acute and late grade ≥2 genitourinary toxicity events were observed.

Conclusion

Prostate cancer patients with IBD are a challenge to treat with RT. Our results suggest that RT in combination with a balloon implant in selective patients with (active) IBD may be promising, however additional validation is needed.

Should inflammatory bowel disease be a contraindication to radiation therapy: a systematic review of acute and late toxicities

Background:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) [i.e., Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)] has been considered a relative contraindication for radiation therapy (RT) to the abdomen or pelvis, potentially preventing patients with a diagnosis of IBD from receiving definitive therapy for their malignancy.

Method:

Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) conventions, a PubMed/MEDLINE literature search was conducted using the keywords RT, brachytherapy, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis and toxicity.

Results:

A total of 1,206 publications were screened with an addition of 8 studies identified through hand searching. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. The total population across all studies was 497 patients, 50·5% having UC, 37% having CD and an additional 12·5% having unspecified IBD. Primary gastrointestinal malignancy (55%) followed by prostate cancer (40%) composed the bulk of the population. Acute and late grade 3 or greater gastrointestinal specific toxicity ranged from 0–23% to 0–13% respectively for those patients with IBD treated with RT to the abdomen or pelvis. In the literature reviewed, RT does not appear to increase fistula or stricture formation or IBD flares; however, one study did note RT to be a statistically significant risk factor for subsequent IBD flare on multivariate analysis.

Conclusions:

A review of reported acute and late toxicities suggests that patients with IBD should still be considered for definitive radiotherapy. Patient characteristics including IBD distribution relative to the irradiated field, inflammatory activity at the time of radiation, overall disease severity and disease phenotype in the case of CD (fistulising versus stricturing versus inflammatory only) should be considered on an individual basis when evaluating potential patients. When possible, advanced techniques with strict organ at risk dose constraints should be employed to limit toxicity in this patient population.

Rates of Adverse IBD-Related Outcomes for Patients With IBD and Concomitant Prostate Cancer Treated With Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at higher risk for complications from radiation treatment for prostate cancer. However, available data are limited, and controversy remains regarding the best treatment approach for IBD patients who develop prostate cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study across 4 Department of Veterans Affairs hospital systems. Patients with established IBD who were diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer between 1996-2015 were included. We assessed for flares of IBD, IBD-related hospitalizations, and IBD-related surgeries within 6, 12, and 24 months of cancer diagnosis and survival at 1, 2, and 5 years. Flares of IBD were those documented as such by the treating physician, and treatment changed accordingly.

RESULTS

One hundred patients with IBD and prostate cancer were identified. Forty-seven were treated with either treatment with external beam radiation or brachytherapy, and 53 were treated with nonradiation modalities. Comparing cohorts with or without radiation treatment, there were no differences in baseline IBD characteristics, Charlson comorbidity index, or prostate cancer stage. Inflammatory bowel disease flares were 2-fold higher for radiation-treated patients within 6 months (10.6% vs 5.7%) and 6-12 months (4.3% vs 1.9%) after cancer diagnosis. On multiple logistic regression analysis, radiation treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 4.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-20.26) was a significant predictor of flares. However, rates of IBD-related hospitalizations or surgeries were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective, multicenter study, 2-fold higher rates of flare were found within the first year after prostate cancer diagnosis for patients treated with radiation, but there were no differences in IBD-related hospitalizations or surgeries. Although patients should be counseled of these risks, avoidance of radiation therapy in IBD patients with prostate cancer is likely not necessary.

Managing Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Who Develop Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the USA. Interestingly, recent studies suggest that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of developing prostate cancer. Importantly, patients with IBD who develop prostate cancer require thoughtful care when using immunosuppressants to treat the IBD in the setting of malignancy. Further, consideration must be given to the proximity of the prostate to the gastrointestinal tract when treating with radiation where there is concern for the effects of inadvertent exposure of radiation to the diseased bowel. In general, management of immunosuppression after diagnosis of prostate cancer is contingent on the specific immunosuppressive agents, the duration of cancer remission and/or plans for cancer treatment, and the potential risks and benefits of stopping or altering the administration of those agents. Concerns that patients with IBD would have increased risk of disease exacerbation and gastrointestinal toxicity have previously limited the use of radiation. While currently no consensus has been reached regarding the safety of radiation therapy in patients with IBD, recent studies suggest that radiation therapy may be used safely in patients with IBD who develop prostate cancer, especially brachytherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy which may have less bowel toxicity compared to conventional methods of external beam radiation therapy. A multidisciplinary team approach including gastroenterologists, urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists should be undertaken to best treat patients with IBD and prostate cancer.

Implications of Prostate Cancer Treatment in Men With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influences of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a rare but morbid disease with increasing incidence, on prostate cancer management decisions. We examined whether prostate cancer treatment differed for men with IBD, and whether treatment choice was associated with risk of IBD flare.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using Veterans Health Administration cancer registry and administrative data, we identified 52,311 men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2005 to 2008. We used International Classification of Diseases-9 codes and pharmacy and utilization data to identify IBD diagnoses, IBD-directed therapy, and flares (glucocorticoid escalation, hospitalization, and surgical intervention). We compared characteristics across men with and without IBD, and used multivariable regression to examine IBD flares after treatment according to treatment type.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty men (0.5%) had IBD prior to prostate cancer diagnosis. Compared to non-IBD patients, IBD patients were more likely Caucasian (P < .001) with lower-risk cancer (P = .02). Surgery was more common in IBD patients (41% vs 28%, P < .001). In the year following prostate cancer treatment, 18% of IBD patients experienced flares. After adjustment, the only predictor of flare in the year after treatment was flare in the year prior to treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 12.5; 95% confidence interval, 5.4-29.2).

CONCLUSION

IBD patients were more likely to have lower-risk disease and be treated with surgery. Choice of prostate cancer treatment did not predict flares in the subsequent year. Better understanding of the intersection of IBD and prostate cancer can help inform treatment decisions for the increasing number of men managing both diseases.

Long term clinical toxicity of radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

AIM

The study's aim was to examine the clinical impact of radiation therapy (RT) on GI toxicity in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients.

BACKGROUND

IBD has long been considered a risk factor for increased bowel toxicity from RT; however, minimal evidence exists on patients with prostate cancer (PC) and IBD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The tumor registry was queried for patients with IBD and PC from the years 1990-2013. A retrospective review was conducted for patients who received RT. Radiation treatment and toxicity data were collected.

RESULTS

Average length of follow-up was 12 years (median 9.54, range 0.42-19.9). The majority had well controlled baseline bowel function on medical management. Prior to radiation, 60% of patients (9/15) and 40% (6/15) reported grade 0 (G0) and grade (G1) diarrhea at baseline, respectively. No baseline proctitis existed. Following radiation treatment, 78% (14/18) of patients experienced G0 diarrhea while 22% (4/18) reported G1 diarrhea. No patients suffered from greater than G1 diarrhea. Sixty-six percent (12/18), 17% (3/18) and 17% (3/18) of patients experienced G0, G1, and G2 proctitis, respectively. No patients suffered post-radiation stricture formation, and all patients with G2 proctitis received 3dCRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited published data is available exploring RT for patients with PC and IBD. This analysis offers valuable insight into appropriate counseling for a rare patient subset. Radiation improved late G1 diarrhea rates. Grade 2 proctitis was only encountered in 3dCRT patients. No post-radiation complications occurred. Our findings suggest that IBD patients experience minimal toxicity in the era of IMRT based RT.

Optimal management of prostate cancer with lethal biology--state-of-the-art local therapy

Defining prostate cancer with lethal biology based upon clinical criteria is challenging. Locally advanced/High-Grade prostate cancer can be downstaged or even downgraded with cure in up to 60% of patients with primary therapy.12345 However, what is known is that high-grade prostate cancers have a greater potential for recurrence and progression to metastatic disease, which can ultimately result in a patient's death. Patients with clinical features of “high-risk” prostate cancer (cT2c, PSA >20, ≥ Gl 8 on biopsy) are more likely to harbor more aggressive pathologic findings. The optimal management of high-risk prostate cancer is not known as there are not prospective studies comparing surgery to radiation therapy (RT). Retrospective and population-based studies are subject to many biases and attempts to compare surgery and radiation have demonstrated mixed results. Some show equivalent survival outcomes6 while others showing an advantage of surgery over RT.7891011 Local therapy for high-risk disease does appear to be beneficial. Improved outcomes realized with local therapy have been clearly demonstrated by several prospective studies evaluating androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone versus ADT plus RT. The combination of local with systemic treatment showed improved disease-specific and overall survival outcomes.121314 Unfortunately, primary ADT for N0M0 prostate cancer is still inappropriately applied in general practice.11 While the surgical literature is largely retrospective, it too demonstrates that surgery in the setting of high-risk prostate cancer is effective in providing durable disease-specific and overall survivals.2315

Rectal Ulcers and Rectoprostatic Fistulas after (125)I Low Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy

PURPOSE

Radiation induced rectal ulcers and fistulas are rare but significant complications of low dose rate prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. We describe the incidence of ulcers and fistulas, and associated risk factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of 4,690 patients with localized prostate cancer who were treated with low dose rate (125)I prostate brachytherapy to a dose of 144 Gy with or without 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. Patient, disease, comorbidity, treatment, dosimetric and posttreatment intervention factors were analyzed for an association with ulcer or fistula formation.

RESULTS

At a median followup of 53 months 21 cases were identified, including 15 rectal ulcer cases, of which 6 progressed to fistulas, and an additional 6 cases of fistulas with no prior documented ulcers. Overall 9 rectal ulcer cases (0.19%) and 12 fistula cases (0.26%) were identified. In 8 of 15 patients ulcers healed with conservative management. No fistulas healed without surgical management. Two patients with fistulas died. Eight patients diagnosed with rectal ulcers subsequently underwent rectal biopsies, after which fistulas developed in 3. One patient with a de novo fistula underwent a preceding biopsy. Urinary interventions such as transurethral resection of the prostate were performed after brachytherapy in 5 of 12 patients with fistulas compared to 0 of 9 with ulcers alone. Argon plasma coagulation of the rectum for hematochezia was performed after brachytherapy in 3 of 12 patients with fistulas.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of post-brachytherapy rectal ulcers and fistulas are low as previously described. Post-brachytherapy interventions such as rectal biopsy, argon coagulation and urinary intervention may increase the risk of fistulas.

Acute and Late Bowel Toxicity in Radiotherapy Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review

AIMS

Inflammatory bowel disease has traditionally been considered a relative contraindication for radiotherapy due to a perceived increased risk of disease exacerbation and bowel toxicity. The aim of this review was to evaluate the current literature regarding rates of radiotherapy-induced acute and late bowel toxicity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and to compare these data with those of patients without the disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Ovid Medline search was conducted to identify original articles pertaining to the review question. Using the PRISMA convention a total of 442 articles screened, resulting 8 articles which were suitable for inclusion in the review.

RESULTS

In general, the grading of toxicity was scored using either the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scoring systems. It was found that acute bowel toxicity of ≥ grade 3 occurred in 20% of patients receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and in 7% of patients receiving brachytherapy. Late bowel toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred in 15% of EBRT patients and in 5% of patients receiving brachytherapy. Brachytherapy was shown to have similar rates of toxicity and EBRT produced a moderate increase in both acute and late toxicity when compared with individuals without inflammatory bowel disease.

CONCLUSION

In view of these results, we suggest that brachytherapy should be considered as a suitable treatment option for treating pelvic malignancy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, whereas EBRT should be used with caution.

Radiation therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal cancer: risks and benefits

PURPOSE

The effects of radiotherapy are debated in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We examined IBD patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and compared those who underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to those who did not. We then compared those same patients treated with EBRT to similarly treated non-IBD patients to ascertain differences in toxicity and perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Fifty-seven IBD patients with CRC received EBRT, of which 23 had perioperative follow-up and 15 had complete records. The 23 patients were compared to 229 IBD patients with CRC who did not receive EBRT. The 15 patients were matched, 1:2, to similarly treated non-IBD patients with CRC based on age (±5 years), treatment year (±1 year), BMI (±10 kg/m2), and clinical stage.

RESULTS

There was significantly more postoperative bleeding (5.3 % vs. 0 %, p < 0.01), wound dehiscence (3.5 % vs. 0 %, p < 0.01), and perineal infection (8.8 % vs. 1.3 %, p < 0.01) in IBD patients with EBRT compared to those without EBRT. IBD patients were significantly more likely to have grade 3 or higher lower GI toxicity (40 % vs. 7 %, p = 0.02) and wound dehiscence (36 % vs. 7 %, p = 0.02) than non-IBD patients, however without significant difference in bleeding, infection, ileus, or survival.

CONCLUSION

IBD patients with CRC who received EBRT were more likely than similar patients without EBRT to experience perioperative complications. These patients also experienced more lower GI toxicity than similarly treated non-IBD patients with CRC. The expected decrease in survival in IBD-associated CRC was not observed. Thus, EBRT may contribute to a survival benefit in this group.

Late rectal toxicity after low-dose-rate brachytherapy: incidence, predictors, and management of side effects

As clinical outcomes for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer continue to improve, patients and physicians are increasing making treatment decisions based on concerns regarding long-term morbidity. A primary concern is late radiation proctitis, a clinical entity embodied by various signs and symptoms, ranging from diarrhea to rectal fistulas. Here, we present a comprehensive literature review examining the clinical manifestations and pathophysiology of late radiation proctitis after low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT), as well as its incidence and predictors. The long-term risks of rectal bleeding after BT are on the order of 5-7%, whereas the risks of severe ulceration or fistula are on the order of 0.6%. The most robust predictor appears to be the volume of rectum receiving the prescription dose. In certain situations (e.g., salvage setting, for patients with increased radiosensitivity, and following aggressive biopsy after BT), the risk of these severe toxicities may be increased by up to 10-fold. A variety of excellent management options exist for rectal bleeding, with endoscopic methods being the most commonly used.

Evaluating toxicity from definitive radiation therapy for prostate cancer in men with inflammatory bowel disease: Patient selection and dosimetric parameters with modern treatment techniques

PURPOSE

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is considered a contraindication to abdominopelvic radiation therapy (RT). We examined our experience in men with IBD who were treated with definitive RT for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We queried our institutional database for patients with a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, or IBD not otherwise specified. Endpoints were: acute and late ≥grade 2 (G2) GI toxicity and IBD flare after RT. Outcomes were compared with controls using propensity scoring matched 3 to 1. We matched controls to the IBD cohort according to: RT technique, RT dose, risk group, hormone use, treatment year, and age. We determined predictors of acute outcomes using the Fisher exact test and time to outcomes using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Between 1990 and 2010, 84 men were included. Sixty-three men served as matched controls and 21 with IBD: 13 ulcerative colitis, 7 Crohn disease, and 1 IBD not otherwise specified. For men with IBD, median age was 69 years, and median follow-up was 49 months. Median flare-free interval before RT was 10 years. Seven were taking IBD medications during RT. There was no difference in acute or late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in the IBD group versus controls. Among IBD patients, IBD medication use was the only predictor of acute ≥G2 GI toxicity: 57.1% with medication versus7.7% without (49.4% absolute difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.0%-88.9%, P = .03). The 5-year risk of late GI toxicity in men with IBD versus controls was not statistically significant (hazard ratio = 1.19, 95%CI 0.28-5.01, P = .83). The crude incidence of late ≥G2 GI toxicity was 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute GI toxicity appears to be exacerbated in patients on concomitant medical therapy for IBD. Overall, late GI toxicity was relatively low and not significantly different between patients with IBD versus no IBD. However, the small sample size limits the interpretation of our estimates and the wide confidence intervals indicate these patients warrant careful selection.