| Literature DB >> 27378828 |
Masahiro Ohtani1, Hiroyuki Suto1, Takuto Nosaka1, Yasushi Saito1, Yoshihiko Ozaki1, Ryoko Hayama1, Tatsushi Naito1, Kazuto Takahashi1, Kazuya Ofuji1, Hidetaka Matsuda1, Katsushi Hiramatsu1, Tomoyuki Nemoto1, Hiroki Shioura2, Hirohiko Kimura2, Yoshitaka Aoki3, Osamu Yokoyama3, Yasunari Nakamoto1.
Abstract
Background. Chronic radiation proctopathy (CRP) is late toxicity and associated with morbidity. Aim. To investigate the predictors of prognosis in patients with CRP after brachytherapy (BT). Methods. One hundred four patients with prostate cancer were treated with BT or BT followed by external-beam radiotherapy (BT + EBRT). We retrospectively investigated the 5-year incidence of rectal bleeding and endoscopic findings of CRP using the Vienna Rectoscopy Score (VRS). Twenty patients with VRS ≥ 1 were divided into the improved VRS group without treatment, unchanged VRS group, and treated group. The parameters associated with alteration of VRS were analyzed. Results. The incidence of rectal bleeding was 24%. The risk of rectal bleeding was higher in patients treated with BT + EBRT compared to those treated with BT (p < 0.0001). The incidence of superficial microulceration was higher in the improved VRS group than in the unchanged VRS group (p < 0.05). The incidence of multiple confluent telangiectasia or superficial ulcers > 1 cm(2) was higher in the treated group than in both the improved and unchanged VRS groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions. Patients treated with BT + EBRT have a high risk of CRP. Endoscopic findings were useful for prognostic prediction of CRP.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27378828 PMCID: PMC4917689 DOI: 10.1155/2016/1414090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagn Ther Endosc ISSN: 1026-714X
Patient characteristics.
| Characteristic | |
|---|---|
| Number of patients | 104 |
| Age, mean ± SD | 68.1 ± 6.6 |
| Clinical stage, | |
| T1c | 81 (77.8) |
| T2a | 16 (15.4) |
| T2b | 4 (3.8) |
| T2c | 3 (2.9) |
| Use of antithrombotic drugs (%) | 21 (20.2) |
| Presence of DM (%) | 12 (11.5) |
| Volume of prostate, (cc) mean ± SD | 25.6 ± 8.3 |
| Treatment | |
| EBRT boost (%) | 53 (51.0) |
| Median dose of EBRT (range) | 45 (43–55.6) |
| Median number of seeds (range) | 70 (40–100) |
| ADT (%) | 39 (37.5) |
DM, diabetes mellitus; EBRT, external-beam radiotherapy; ADT, androgen deprivation therapy.
Incidence of rectal bleeding, endoscopic examination, and treatment.
|
| |
|---|---|
| CTCAE rectal bleeding scale | |
| Grade 1 | 13 (12.5%) |
| Grade 2 | 5 (4.8%) |
| Grade 3 | 7 (6.7%) |
| Total | 25 (24.0%) |
| Endoscopic examination | |
| Number of patients who underwent endoscopy | 56 (53.8%) |
| Total number of endoscopy | 101 |
| Number of patients who underwent endoscopy in group of grade ≥ 1 rectal bleeding | 24 |
| Treatment | |
| Iron supplementation | 9 |
| Endoscopic argon plasma coagulation | 5 |
| Hyperbaric oxygen therapy | 2 |
Clinical parameters associated with rectal bleeding.
| Parameter | Grade ≥ 1 rectal bleeding (%) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Age, years | ||
| ≥70 | 14/43 (32.5) | 0.11 |
| <70 | 11/61 (18.0) | |
| Stage | ||
| T1 | 19/81 (23.4) | 0.79 |
| T2 | 6/23 (26.1) | |
| Use of antithrombotic drugs | ||
| Yes | 7/21 (33.3) | 0.27 |
| No | 18/83 (21.6) | |
| Presence of DM | ||
| Yes | 2/12 (16.6) | 0.73 |
| No | 23/92 (25.0) | |
| Prostate volume, cc | ||
| ≥25 | 11/49 (22.4) | 0.82 |
| <25 | 14/55 (25.4) | |
| EBRT boost | ||
| Yes | 22/53 (41.5) | <0.0001 |
| No | 3/51 (5.9) | |
| Number of seeds | ||
| ≥70 | 10/52 (19.2) | 0.35 |
| <70 | 15/52 (28.8) | |
| Use of ADT | ||
| Yes | 8/39 (21.0) | 0.64 |
| No | 17/65 (10.8) |
DM, diabetes mellitus; EBRT, external-beam radiotherapy; ADT, androgen deprivation therapy.
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier curve for grade ≥ 1 rectal bleeding over 5 years (p < 0.0001). BT: brachytherapy; EBRT: external-beam radiotherapy.
Figure 2Correlation between VRS and CTCAE grade of rectal bleeding. The statistical significance was analyzed by Spearman's correlation test (p < 0.01). VRS: Vienna Rectoscopy Score.
Figure 3Change in VRS over time, in patients with CTCAE grade ≥ 1. VRS: Vienna Rectoscopy Score.
Figure 4Change in VRS over time, in patients with CTCAE grade 0. VRS: Vienna Rectoscopy Score.
Endoscopic and clinical factors for improvement of VRS in patients with VRS ≥ 1 who underwent follow-up endoscopic examination.
| Treated group (HBO or APC) | Improved group | Unchanged group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4 | 5 | 11 | |
|
| ||||
| VRS | ||||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |
| ≥3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | |
|
| ||||
| TE score | ||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | |
| 2 | 1 | 5 | 7 | |
| 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| UL score | ||||
| 0 | 0 | 2 | 11 | |
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| UL 1 (+) | 1/4 | 3/5a | 0/7a | <0.05a |
| TE 3 or UL ≥ 2 | 3/4b | 0/5b | 0/5b | <0.05b |
|
| ||||
| Age, years | 71.8 ± 8.3 | 67.2 ± 3.1 | 69.7 ± 4.2 | NS |
| Stage T1/T2 | 2/2 | 3/2 | 6/1 | NS |
| Use of ADT | 2 | 2 | 5 | NS |
| Use of antithrombotic drugs | 2 | 1 | 1 | NS |
|
| 22.5 ± 5.5 | 25.1 ± 7.0 | 24.6 ± 9.4 | NS |
| Use of EBRT boost | 4 | 5 | 7 | NS |
| Number of seeds | 71.3 ± 6.3 | 61.0 ± 13.8 | 62.9 ± 13.3 | NS |
VRS, Vienna Rectoscopy Score; HBO, hyperbaric oxygen therapy; APC, argon plasma coagulation; TE, telangiectasia; UL, ulceration; ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; EBRT, external-beam radiotherapy; NS, not significant.
aThe improved group versus the unchanged group, p < 0.05.
bThe treated group versus the improved group; the treated group versus the unchanged group, p < 0.05.