PURPOSE:Preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is part of the standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers. Tumor regression at the time of operation is desirable, but not much is known about the relationship between radiation dose and tumor regression. In the present study we estimated radiation dose-response curves for various grades of tumor regression after preoperative CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 222 patients, treated withconsistent chemotherapy and radiation therapy techniques, were considered for the analysis. Radiation therapy consisted of a combination of external-beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy. Response at the time of operation was evaluated from the histopathologic specimen and graded on a 5-point scale (TRG1-5). The probability of achieving complete, major, and partial response was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression, and the effect of including clinical parameters in the model was examined. The radiation dose-response relationship for a specific grade of histopathologic tumor regression was parameterized in terms of the dose required for 50% response, D50,i, and the normalized dose-response gradient, γ50,i. RESULTS: A highly significant dose-response relationship was found (P=.002). For complete response (TRG1), the dose-response parameters were D50,TRG1=92.0Gy (95% confidence interval [CI] 79.3-144.9 Gy), γ50,TRG1=0.982 (CI 0.533-1.429), and for major response (TRG1-2) D50,TRG1&2=72.1 Gy (CI 65.3-94.0 Gy), γ50,TRG1&2=0.770 (CI 0.338-1.201). Tumor size and N category both had a significant effect on the dose-response relationships. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a significant dose-response relationship for tumor regression after preoperative CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer for tumor dose levels in the range of 50.4-70 Gy, which is higher than the dose range usually considered.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is part of the standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers. Tumor regression at the time of operation is desirable, but not much is known about the relationship between radiation dose and tumor regression. In the present study we estimated radiation dose-response curves for various grades of tumor regression after preoperative CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 222 patients, treated with consistent chemotherapy and radiation therapy techniques, were considered for the analysis. Radiation therapy consisted of a combination of external-beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy. Response at the time of operation was evaluated from the histopathologic specimen and graded on a 5-point scale (TRG1-5). The probability of achieving complete, major, and partial response was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression, and the effect of including clinical parameters in the model was examined. The radiation dose-response relationship for a specific grade of histopathologic tumor regression was parameterized in terms of the dose required for 50% response, D50,i, and the normalized dose-response gradient, γ50,i. RESULTS: A highly significant dose-response relationship was found (P=.002). For complete response (TRG1), the dose-response parameters were D50,TRG1=92.0 Gy (95% confidence interval [CI] 79.3-144.9 Gy), γ50,TRG1=0.982 (CI 0.533-1.429), and for major response (TRG1-2) D50,TRG1&2=72.1 Gy (CI 65.3-94.0 Gy), γ50,TRG1&2=0.770 (CI 0.338-1.201). Tumor size and N category both had a significant effect on the dose-response relationships. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a significant dose-response relationship for tumor regression after preoperative CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer for tumor dose levels in the range of 50.4-70 Gy, which is higher than the dose range usually considered.
Authors: A K Chan; A O Wong; J Langevin; D Jenken; J Heine; D Buie; D R Johnson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kirsty L Wiltshire; Iain G Ward; Carol Swallow; Amit M Oza; Bernard Cummings; Gregory R Pond; Pamela Catton; John Kim; Jolie Ringash; Chong S Wong; Rebecca Wong; Lillian L Siu; Malcolm Moore; James Brierley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: V Valentini; C Coco; N Cellini; A Picciocchi; M C Fares; M E Rosetto; G Mantini; A G Morganti; B Barbaro; S Cogliandolo; G Nuzzo; M Tedesco; F Ambesi-Impiombato; M Cosimelli; M Rotman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anders Jakobsen; John P Mortensen; Claus Bisgaard; Jan Lindebjerg; Johnny W Hansen; Søren R Rafaelsen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Monique Maas; Patty J Nelemans; Vincenzo Valentini; Prajnan Das; Claus Rödel; Li-Jen Kuo; Felipe A Calvo; Julio García-Aguilar; Rob Glynne-Jones; Karin Haustermans; Mohammed Mohiuddin; Salvatore Pucciarelli; William Small; Javier Suárez; George Theodoropoulos; Sebastiano Biondo; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Geerard L Beets Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: A M Mandard; F Dalibard; J C Mandard; J Marnay; M Henry-Amar; J F Petiot; A Roussel; J H Jacob; P Segol; G Samama Journal: Cancer Date: 1994-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Monica DI Tommaso; Consuelo Rosa; Luciana Caravatta; Antonietta Augurio; Valentina Borzillo; Sara DI Santo; Francesca Perrotti; Maria Taraborrelli; Roberta Cianci; Paolo Innocenti; Pierluigi DI Sebastiano; Antonella Colasante; Domenico Angelucci; Massimo Basti; Giulia Sindici; Lorenzo Mazzola; Giuseppe Pizzicannella; Nicola DI Bartolomeo; Michele Marchioni; Marta DI Nicola; Domenico Genovesi Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Whalen Clark; Erin M Siegel; Y Ann Chen; Xiuhua Zhao; Colin M Parsons; Jonathan M Hernandez; Jill Weber; Shalini Thareja; Junsung Choi; David Shibata Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Ane L Appelt; Ivan R Vogelius; John Pløen; Søren R Rafaelsen; Jan Lindebjerg; Birgitte M Havelund; Søren M Bentzen; Anders Jakobsen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 7.038