Concurrent chemoradiation with volumetric modulated Arc therapy of patients treated for anal cancer-acute toxicity and treatment outcome

Long-term outcomes of definitive radiation with volumetric modulated arc therapy and concurrent chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus in a regional Australian cancer centre

INTRODUCTION

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in the curative intent treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the anus. Volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) is a highly conformal radiation therapy technique that has been implemented to reduce toxicity for these patients. However, there are few reports evaluating the long-term outcomes of VMAT. Thus, we evaluated the survival and toxicity outcomes of anal cancer patients treated in our regional cancer centre undergoing curative intent chemoradiotherapy using VMAT and following the Australian EviQ guidelines.

METHODS

All consecutive patients treated with the VMAT technique for curative-intent definitive chemoradiotherapy for anal SCC at our institution from 2013 until 2022 were retrospectively reviewed for survival and toxicity outcomes. Kaplan-Meier estimates of locoregional control, distant metastasis-free survival, disease-free survival, anal cancer-specific survival and overall survival were obtained.

RESULTS

In total, 44 patients were analysed. The median follow-up was 48.9 months (Range 7.8-107). 97.7% of patients completed the prescribed radiation therapy and 88.6% chemotherapy. Five patients (11.4%) recurred. Four (9.1%) had isolated local failures, and one (2.3%) had an isolated distant failure. There were no regional nodal failures. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for locoregional control, distant metastasis-free survival, disease-free survival, anal cancer-specific survival and overall survival were 90.3%, 97.7%, 88.1%, 97.1% and 87% at 3 years, and 90.3%, 97.7%, 88.1%, 93.0% and 72.3% at 5 years, respectively. Acute grade 3 genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI) and skin toxicities occurred in 2.2%, 6.8% and 13.6% of patients, respectively. There were no acute grade 4 toxicities. Late grade 2 GU and GI toxicities occurred in 6.8% and 11.3% of patients, respectively. There were no late grade 3 or 4 toxicities or treatment-related deaths. The 5 -year colostomy-free survival rate was 86.4%.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes for anal SCC after definitive chemoradiotherapy using VMAT in our regional cancer centre results in low rates of grade 3/4 toxicity, high rates of organ preservation and excellent survival outcomes.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT): a review of clinical outcomes—what is the clinical evidence for the most effective implementation?

Modern conformal radiation therapy using techniques such as modulation, image guidance and motion management have changed the face of radiotherapy today offering superior conformity, efficiency, and reproducibility to clinics worldwide. This review assesses the impact of these advanced radiotherapy techniques on patient toxicity and survival rates reported from January 2017 to September 2020. The main aims are to establish if dosimetric and efficiency gains correlate with improved survival and reduced toxicities and to answer the question ‘What is the clinical evidence for the most effective implementation of VMAT?’. Compared with 3DCRT, improvements have been reported with VMAT in prostate, locally advanced cervical carcinoma and various head and neck applications, leading to the shift in technology to VMAT. Other sites such as thoracic neoplasms and nasopharyngeal carcinomas have observed some improvement with VMAT although not in line with improved dosimetric measures, and the burden of toxicity and the incidence of cancer related deaths remain high, signaling the need to further mitigate toxicity and increase survival. As technological advancement continues, large randomised long-term clinical trials are required to determine the way-forward and offer site-specific recommendations. These studies are usually expensive and time consuming, therefore utilising pooled real-world data in a prospective nature can be an alternative solution to comprehensively assess the efficacy of modern radiotherapy techniques.

Acute toxicity and patient-reported outcomes in anal canal cancer: results of a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Anal canal cancer (ACC) is uncommon. The gold standard of care is chemoradiotherapy treatment. However, this treatment is associated with considerable acute and late side effects. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate acute toxicity and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in these patients from planning to 3 months after treatment.

METHODS

Sixteen patients were recruited to this prospective observational study from March 2015 to December 2017. All patients received volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in 30#. Toxicity data were graded by a Radiation Oncologist using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE) version 4 at planning, weekly during treatment, 6-week and 3-month post-treatment. PRO data were collected using the EORTC QLQ C30 and CR29 questionnaires completed by patients at planning, mid and end treatment and 3-month post-treatment.

RESULTS

The majority of toxicity and PRO items peaked in severity at the end of treatment (week 6). Skin was the only item where >50% of patients had ≥ grade 2 toxicity at any point with 75% having ≥ grade 2 at week 6. Patient-reported embarrassment significantly increased over time (P < 0.001). No meaningful relationships were found between PRO and CTCAE results.

CONCLUSION

After reaching their maximum severity at the end of treatment, the majority of toxicity and PRO items approached baseline levels by 3-month post-treatment. The results of this study suggest that PROs are an important complementary tool to CTCAE and provide greater understanding of patients' perception of treatment side effects.

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Improves Outcomes in Definitive Radiochemotherapy for Anal Cancer Whilst Reducing Acute Toxicities and Increasing Treatment Compliance

Simple Summary

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is the standard of care in definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for anal cancer. Only a limited number of studies have analyzed the clinical results with VMAT (volumetric modulated arc therapy, the advanced form of IMRT). We conducted a retrospective study on patients treated at our institution. We compared the outcomes of VMAT-treated and 3DCRT (3D conformal radiotherapy)-treated patients. VMAT reduced acute toxicities (i.e., primarily dermatitis and enteritis) to a great extent. Additionally, VMAT relevantly improved treatment compliance (i.e., less CRT interruptions/delays, shorter overall treatment time, and higher absolute 5-fluorouracil dose applied). Finally, we found improved cancer-specific survival and distant control in VMAT-treated patients. The present study underlines the great progress that has been achieved with IMRT/VMAT in the CRT of anal cancer. Our study is the first to demonstrate an improvement in treatment compliance and outcomes with VMAT. Future studies could address whether VMAT is advantageous when compared to conventional IMRT.

Abstract

Background: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is the standard of care in chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for anal cancer. Until now, only a limited number of studies have analyzed the results with VMAT (volumetric modulated arc therapy). We conducted a retrospective study on patients treated at our institution. Patients and Methods: We included patients who received curative CRT for anal cancer. We compared VMAT-treated and 3DCRT (3D conformal radiotherapy)-treated patients. We analyzed toxicities (acute: CTCAE criteria; late: LENT/SOMA criteria), treatment compliance, overall survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS), distant control (DC), and locoregional control. Results: A total of 149 patients (3DCRT: n = 87, VMAT: n = 62) were included. The median follow-up was longer in 3DCRT-treated patients (3DCRT: 61.3 months; VMAT: 39.1 months; p < 0.05). VMAT-treated patients had more G3 tumors (3DCRT: 12/87 (13.8%); VMAT: 18/62 (29.0%), p < 0.001). VMAT reduced acute toxicities ≥grade 3 (3DCRT: n = 48/87 (55.2%); VMAT: n = 11/62 (17.7%), p < 0.001). VMAT improved treatment compliance (less interruptions/delays) (3DCRT: 37/87, 42.5%; VMAT: 4/62, 6.5%; p < 0.001), provided a shorter median overall treatment time (3DCRT: 41 days; VMAT: 38 days; p = 0.02), and gave a higher median absolute 5-fluorouracil dose (3DCRT: 13,700 mg; VMAT: 14,400 mg; p = 0.001). Finally, we found improved CSS (p = 0.02; 3DCRT: 81.9% at 3 years; VMAT: 94.1% at 3 years) and DC (p = 0.01; 3DCRT: 89.4% at 3 years; VMAT: 100.0% at 3 years) with VMAT. Summary: Our study is the first to demonstrate improved treatment compliance and outcomes with VMAT for anal cancer. Previous studies have indicated that organs at risk sparing might be more improved with the use of VMAT vs. with conventional IMRT. Future studies should address whether these advantages lead to a further reduction in CRT-associated morbidity.

Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and VMAT for anal cancer: A single institutional experience

To compare the dosimetric results of helical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) in the treatment of anal cancer. Plans were created for 20 (n = 20) patients treated for anal cancer using HT and 2 arc VMAT. Dosimetric comparison was assessed for doses to targets and organs at risk (small bowel, bladder, external genitalia, and femoral heads). Delivery time and dosimetric verification results were also compared. HT showed a higher V95% for both primary and nodal targets (V95% increase by 0.5% to 1.3%; p = ≤0.05). No differences were seen in V105%, V107%, or V110 % between techniques. HT provided better sparing of the small bowel for dose levels V30, V35, and V40 (p = 0.005, 0.001, and 0.030), but was similar at higher doses. Similarly HT provided better bladder dose at V35 only (p = 0.020). Doses to femoral heads and genitalia were similar. Delivery time was higher for the HT plans (4.58 ± 1.1 min) than VMAT (3.13 ± 0.2 minutes) (p = 0.011). Dose verification results were 99.5 ± 0.9% and 100 ± 0% (HT, n = 6) vs 95.0 ± 3.1% and 99.2 ± 0.8% (VMAT, n = 20) for global gamma criteria 3%/3 mm and 4%/4 mm, respectively. Both HT and VMAT produced high quality plans that frequently met most of the dose objectives apart from genitalia V20, V40, bladder V35, and V50. Although absolute dose differences were small, the PTV V95%, small bowel V30, V35, and V40 and bladder V35 were statistically better in the HT plans. VMAT provided a shorter delivery time by 1.45 minutes; however, our HT plans were more likely to pass tighter plan dose verification criteria than VMAT.

Prospective evaluation of acute toxicity and patient reported outcomes in anal cancer and plan optimization

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard therapy for localized anal cancer (AC), but this treatment is associated with substantial toxicity. However, there is a lack of prospectively collected toxicity and patient reported outcome (PRO) data from larger cohorts. The purpose was to prospectively collect and determine agreement between physician assessed toxicity (CTCAE) and PRO during and after CRT and to compare IMRT, VMAT and proton-based planning in a subgroup of patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients, treated with CRT for AC, were included between 2015 and 2017. NCI-CTCAE v.4.0, EORTC QLQ-C30 and CR29 data were collected baseline, mid-therapy, end-of therapy and 2-4 weeks posttherapy. Treatment planning with 5- or 6-fixed field IMRT, 2 and 3 arc VMAT, and 3- and 4-field proton plans were compared.

RESULTS

One-hundred patients were included. Both CTCAE and PROs related to acute toxicity reached a maximum at end of therapy. Incidences of PROs were markedly higher with only slight to fair agreement to CTCAE, (κ 13-37). Comparative planning revealed dosimetric equality of IMRT and VMAT plans, but superiority of proton plans.

CONCLUSIONS

The high incidence of PRO scores and weak agreement to CTCAE suggest that PROs are important tools complementary to CTCAE in evaluating patient symptoms during and after CRT. Proton therapy has the potential to lower radiation doses to most organs at risk.