PURPOSE: To compare the therapeutic effect and complications of modified radiation fields (MRFs) with those of conventional pelvic radiation fields (CPRFs) for rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From December 1996 to October 2009, a total of 160 patients with rectal carcinoma who received total mesorectal excision and postoperative radiotherapy were examined. Ninety-four patients were in the CPRFs group, and 66 were in the MRFs group. The dose was 50 Gy per 25 fractions in the initial plan. RESULTS: The treatment volume and the volume of small bowel that received more than 15 Gy of the MRFs was smaller than that of the CPRFs (P < .001). The rates of local recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival were not statistically significant between the MRFs and CPRFs groups (P > .05). There was a statistical difference (P < .05) in the incidence of acute toxicity, which included serious complications in the lower digestive tract (grade ≥3). The completion rate for the initial radiotherapy plan was higher in the MRFs group than in the CPRFs group (P = .027). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CPRFs, MRFs manifested a lower incidence of complications and the same therapeutic effects. This finding will facilitate the clinical application of MRFs for patients with rectal cancer. Crown
PURPOSE: To compare the therapeutic effect and complications of modified radiation fields (MRFs) with those of conventional pelvic radiation fields (CPRFs) for rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From December 1996 to October 2009, a total of 160 patients with rectal carcinoma who received total mesorectal excision and postoperative radiotherapy were examined. Ninety-four patients were in the CPRFs group, and 66 were in the MRFs group. The dose was 50 Gy per 25 fractions in the initial plan. RESULTS: The treatment volume and the volume of small bowel that received more than 15 Gy of the MRFs was smaller than that of the CPRFs (P < .001). The rates of local recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival were not statistically significant between the MRFs and CPRFs groups (P > .05). There was a statistical difference (P < .05) in the incidence of acute toxicity, which included serious complications in the lower digestive tract (grade ≥3). The completion rate for the initial radiotherapy plan was higher in the MRFs group than in the CPRFs group (P = .027). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CPRFs, MRFs manifested a lower incidence of complications and the same therapeutic effects. This finding will facilitate the clinical application of MRFs for patients with rectal cancer. Crown