The effect of radiologic imaging studies on the risk of secondary malignancy development in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma

Optimisation of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for untreated Hodgkin lymphoma patients with respect to second malignant neoplasms, overall and progression-free survival: individual participant data analysis

BACKGROUND

Efficacy and the risk of severe late effects have to be well-balanced in treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Late adverse effects include secondary malignancies which often have a poor prognosis. To synthesise evidence on the risk of secondary malignancies after current treatment approaches comprising chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, we performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from patients treated for newly diagnosed HL.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated several questions concerning possible changes in the risk of secondary malignancies when modifying chemotherapy or radiotherapy (omission of radiotherapy, reduction of the radiation field, reduction of the radiation dose, use of fewer chemotherapy cycles, intensification of chemotherapy). We also analysed whether these modifications affect progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL trials databases comprehensively in June 2010 for all randomised trials in HL since 1984. Key international trials registries were also searched. The search was updated in March 2015 without collecting further IPD (one further eligible study found) and again in July 2017 (no further eligible studies).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for untreated HL patients which enrolled at least 50 patients per arm, completed recruitment by 2007 and performed a treatment comparison relevant to our objectives.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study groups submitted IPD, including age, sex, stage and the outcomes secondary malignant neoplasm (SMN), OS and PFS as time-to-event data. We meta-analysed these data using Petos method (SMN) and Cox regression with inverse-variance pooling (OS, PFS) for each of the five study questions, and performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the applicability and robustness of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 21 eligible trials and obtained IPD for 16. For four studies no data were supplied despite repeated efforts, while one study was only identified in 2015 and IPD were not sought. For each study question, between three and six trials with between 1101 and 2996 participants in total and median follow-up between 6.7 and 10.8 years were analysed. All participants were adults and mainly under 60 years. Risk of bias was assessed as low for the majority of studies and outcomes. Chemotherapy alone versus same chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. Omitting additional radiotherapy probably reduces secondary malignancy incidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.82, low quality of evidence), corresponding to an estimated reduction of eight-year SMN risk from 8% to 4%. This decrease was particularly true for secondary acute leukemias. However, we had insufficient evidence to determine whether OS rates differ between patients treated with chemotherapy alone versus combined-modality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.11, moderate quality of evidence). There was a slightly higher rate of PFS with combined modality, but our confidence in the results was limited by high levels of statistical heterogeneity between studies (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.73, moderate quality of evidence). Chemotherapy plus involved-field radiation versus same chemotherapy plus extended-field radiation (early stages) . There is insufficient evidence to determine whether smaller radiation field reduces SMN risk (Peto OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16, low quality of evidence), OS (HR 0.89, 95% C: 0.70 to 1.12, high quality of evidence) or PFS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21, high quality of evidence). Chemotherapy plus lower-dose radiation versus same chemotherapy plus higher-dose radiation (early stages). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of lower-radiation dose on SMN risk (Peto OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.50, low quality of evidence), OS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28, high quality of evidence) or PFS (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.48, high quality of evidence). Fewer versus more courses of chemotherapy (each with or without radiotherapy; early stages). Fewer chemotherapy courses probably has little or no effect on SMN risk (Peto OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.62), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to1.34) or PFS (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.45).Outcomes had a moderate (SMN) or high (OS, PFS) quality of evidence. Dose-intensified versus ABVD-like chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy in each case). In the mainly advanced-stage patients who were treated with intensified chemotherapy, the rate of secondary malignancies was low. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of chemotherapy intensification (Peto OR 1.37, CI 0.89 to 2.10, low quality of evidence). The rate of secondary acute leukemias (and for younger patients, all secondary malignancies) was probably higher than among those who had treatment with standard-dose ABVD-like protocols. In contrast, the intensified chemotherapy protocols probably improved PFS (eight-year PFS 75% versus 69% for ABVD-like treatment, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.7 to 0.95, moderate quality of evidence). Evidence suggesting improved survival with intensified chemotherapy was not conclusive (HR: 0.85, CI 0.70 to 1.04), although escalated-dose BEACOPP appeared to lengthen survival compared to ABVD-like chemotherapy (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79, moderate quality of evidence).Generally, we could draw valid conclusions only in terms of secondary haematological malignancies, which usually occur less than 10 years after initial treatment, while follow-up within the present analysis was too short to record all solid tumours.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The risk of secondary acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndrome (AML/MDS) is increased but efficacy is improved among patients treated with intensified chemotherapy protocols. Treatment decisions must be tailored for individual patients. Consolidating radiotherapy is associated with an increased rate of secondary malignancies; therefore it appears important to define which patients can safely be treated without radiotherapy after chemotherapy, both for early and advanced stages. For early stages, treatment optimisation methods such as use of fewer chemotherapy cycles and reduced field or reduced-dose radiotherapy did not appear to markedly affect efficacy or secondary malignancy risk. Due to the limited amount of long-term follow-up in this meta-analysis, further long-term investigations of late events are needed, particularly with respect to secondary solid tumours. Since many older studies have been included, possible improvement of radiotherapy techniques must be considered when interpreting these results.

Radiation risks associated with serial imaging in colorectal cancer patients: Should we worry?

To provide an overview of the radiation related cancer risk associated with multiple computed tomographic scans required for follow up in colorectal cancer patients. A literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was carried out and limited to the last 10 years from December 2012. Inclusion criteria were studies where computed tomographic scans or radiation from other medical imaging modalities were used and the risks associated with ionizing radiation reported. Thirty-six studies were included for appraisal with no randomized controlled trials. Thirty-four of the thirty-six studies showed a positive association between medical imaging radiation and increased risk of cancer. The radiation dose absorbed and cancer risk was greater in children and young adults than in older patients. Most studies included in the review used a linear, no-threshold model to calculate cancer risks and this may not be applicable at low radiation doses. Many studies are retrospective and ensuring complete follow up on thousands of patients is difficult. There was a minor increased risk of cancer from ionizing radiation in medical imaging studies. The radiation risks of low dose exposure (< 50 milli-Sieverts) are uncertain. A clinically justified scan in the context of colorectal cancer is likely to provide more benefits than harm but current guidelines for patient follow up will need to be revised to accommodate a more aggressive approach to treating metastatic disease.

Radiation exposures of cancer patients from medical X-rays: how relevant are they for individual patients and population exposure?

X-ray procedures have a substantial impact not only on patient care but also on man-made radiation exposure. Since a reliable risk-benefit analysis of medical X-rays can only be performed for diagnosis-related groups of patients, we determined specific exposure data for patients with the ten most common types of cancer. For all patients with the considered cancers undergoing medical X-ray procedures in a maximum-care hospital between 2000 and 2005, patient- and examination-specific data were retrieved from the hospital/radiology information system. From this data, the cumulative 5-year effective dose was estimated for each patient as well as the mean annual effective dose per patient and the mean patient observation time for each cancer site. In total, 151,439 radiographic, fluoroscopic, and CT procedures, carried out in 15,866 cancer patients (age, 62+/-13 years), were evaluated. The mean 5-year cumulative dose varied between 8.6 mSv (prostate cancer) and 68.8 mSv (pancreas cancer). Due to an increasing use of CT scans, the mean annual effective dose per patient increased from 13.6 to 18.2 mSv during the 6-year period. Combining the results obtained in this study for a particular hospital with cancer incidence data for Germany, we estimated that cancer patients having X-ray studies constitute at least 1% of the population but receive more than 10% of the total effective dose related to all medical X-ray procedures performed nationwide per year. A large fraction of this dose is radiobiologically ineffective due to the reduced life expectancy of cancer patients.