[Late intestinal complications of adjuvant radiotherapy of rectal cancers]

Prospective study of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 5 fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer - toxicities and response assessment

Aims and objectives

The past 2 decades witnessed the strengthening of evidence favoring the role of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CHRT) in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. The study aims to evaluate the response and acute toxicities to neoadjuvant CHRT using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of rectal cancer. Predictive factors to achieve pathological complete response (pCR) were analyzed, as a secondary endpoint.

Materials and methods

All consecutive patients who underwent IMRT as part of neoadjuvant CHRT in the treatment of rectal cancer between August 2014 and December 2016 at a tertiary cancer care center were accrued for the study. The cohort underwent CHRT with IMRT technique at a dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions concurrent with continuous infusion of 5 fluorouracil during the first and the last 4 days of CHRT. Surgery was performed 6 weeks later and the pathological response to CHRT was noted.

Results

Forty-three subjects were accrued for the study. Radiation dermatitis and diarrhea were the only observed grade ≥3 acute toxicities. Sphincter preservation rate (SPR) was 43.3%. pCR was observed in 32.6%. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression showed that carcinoembryonic antigen was the only independent predictive factor to achieve pCR.

Conclusion

IMRT as part of neoadjuvant CHRT in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is well tolerated and gives comparable results with respect to earlier studies in terms of pathological response and SPR. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to firmly state that IMRT is superior to 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy.

A comparison of dosimetric parameters between tomotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Tomotherapy for intensity-modulated radiation has been demonstrated to reduce unnecessary irradiations to adjacent organs at risk (OARs). The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters between Tomotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in rectal cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We redesigned three-dimensional conformal plans for 20 rectal cancer patients who had received short-course preoperative radiotherapy with Tomotherapy. The target coverage for 3D-CRT and Tomotherapy was evaluated with the following including the mean dose, V(nGy), D(min), D(max), radiation conformality index (RCI), and radical dose homogeneity index (rDHI).

RESULTS

The mean PTV dose for Tomotherapy is significantly higher than that observed for the 3D-CRT (p = 0.043). However, there is no significant difference in the V(23.25Gy), V(26.25Gy), V(27.5Gy), and RCI values between Tomotherapy and 3D-CRT. However, the average rDHI (p < 0.001) value for Tomotherapy was significantly lower than that reported for the 3D-CRT. Tomotherapy significantly lowered the mean level of irradiation doses to the bladder, small bowel, and femur heads as compared to 3D-CRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Tomotherapy could produce a favorable target coverage and significant dose reduction for the OARs at the expense of acceptable dose inhomogeneity of the PTV compared with 3D-CRT in rectal cancer patients.

[Normal tissue tolerance to external beam radiation therapy: small bowel]

The small bowel is a hollow organ involved in the transit and absorption of food. In relation to its anatomical location, a significant amount of this organ is exposed in whole or in part to ionizing radiation in external radiotherapy during abdominal or pelvic irradiation either for primary cancers or metastasis. The acute functional changes during external beam radiation are mainly leading to diarrhea, abdominal pain and bloating. The main late side effects of irradiation of the small intestine are chronic diarrhea, malabsorption with steatorrhea, abdominal spasms, intestinal obstruction, bleeding and fistulas. The architecture of the small intestine may be considered as parallel with a significant correlation between the irradiated volume of small bowel and the likelihood of acute toxicity, whatever the dose. The literature analysis recommends to consider the volume of small bowel receiving 15 Gy (threshold of 100 to 200 cm(3)) but also 30 and 50 Gy (thresholds of 35 to 300 cm(3), depending on the level of dose considered). Modern techniques of conformal radiotherapy with modulated intensity will probably have beneficial impact on small bowel toxicity.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) vs. 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): dosimetric comparison and clinical implications

Purpose

To compare target dose distribution, comformality, normal tissue avoidance, and irradiated body volume (IBV) in 3DCRT using classic anatomical landmarks (c3DCRT), 3DCRT fitting the PTV (f3DCRT), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).

Materials and methods

Fifteen patients with LARC underwent c3DCRT, f3DCRT, and IMRT planning. Target definition followed the recommendations of the ICRU reports No. 50 and 62. OAR (SB and bladder) constraints were D5 ≤ 50 Gy and Dmax < 55 Gy. PTV dose prescription was defined as PTV95 ≥ 45 Gy and PTVmin ≥ 35 Gy. Target coverage was evaluated with the D95, Dmin, and Dmax. Target dose distribution and comformality was evaluated with the homogeneity indices (HI) and Conformity Index (CI). Normal tissue avoidance of OAR was evaluated with the D5 and V40. IBV at 5 Gy (V5), 10 Gy (V10), and 20 Gy (V20) were calculated.

Results

The mean GTV95, CTV95, and PTV95 doses were significantly lower for IMRT plans. Target dose distribution was more inhomogeneous after IMRT planning and 3DCRTplans had significantly lower CI. The V40 and D5 values for OAR were significantly reduced in the IMRT plans .V5 was greater for IMRT than for f3DCRT planning (p < 0.05) and V20 was smaller for IMRT plans(p < 0.05).

Conclusions

IMRT planning improves target conformity and decreases irradiation of the OAR at the expense of increased target heterogeneity. IMRT planning increases the IBV at 5 Gy or less but decreases the IBV at 20 Gy or more.