Zhifei Sun1, Mohamed A Adam2, Jina Kim2, Brian Czito3, Christopher Mantyh2, John Migaly2. 1. Department of Surgery, Duke University, Box 3443, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. zhifei.sun@duke.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Duke University, Box 3443, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in rectal cancer has steadily increased over traditional 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) due to perceived benefit of delivering higher treatment doses while minimizing exposure to surrounding tissues. However, IMRT is technically challenging and costly, and its effects on rectal cancer outcomes remain unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adults with clinical stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with 45-54 Gy of radiation and surgery were included from the 2006-2013 National Cancer Data Base. Patients were grouped based the modality of radiation received: IMRT or 3D-CRT. Multivariable regression modeling adjusting for demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics was used to examine the impact of IMRT vs. 3D-CRT on pathologic downstaging, resection margin positivity, sphincter loss surgery, 30-day unplanned readmission and mortality after surgery, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among 7386 patients included, 3330 (45 %) received IMRT and 4056 (55 %) received 3D-CRT. While the mean radiation dose delivered was higher with IMRT (4735 vs. 4608 cGy, p < 0.001), it was associated with higher risks of positive margins (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.57; p < 0.001) and sphincter loss surgery (OR 1.32; p < 0.001). There were no differences between IMRT and 3D-CRT in the likelihood of pathologic downstaging (OR 0.89, p = 0.051), unplanned readmission (OR 0.79; p = 0.07), or 30-day mortality (OR 0.61; p = 0.31) after surgery. Additionally, there were no differences in overall survival at 8 years (IMRT vs. 3D-CRT: 64 vs. 64 %; adjusted hazard ratio 1.06, p = 0.47). CONCLUSION: IMRT is associated with worse local tumor control without any long-term survival benefit for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Given the lack of significant advantage and the higher cost of IMRT, caution should be exercised when using IMRT instead of traditional 3D-CRT for rectal cancer.
INTRODUCTION: The use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in rectal cancer has steadily increased over traditional 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) due to perceived benefit of delivering higher treatment doses while minimizing exposure to surrounding tissues. However, IMRT is technically challenging and costly, and its effects on rectal cancer outcomes remain unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adults with clinical stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with 45-54 Gy of radiation and surgery were included from the 2006-2013 National Cancer Data Base. Patients were grouped based the modality of radiation received: IMRT or 3D-CRT. Multivariable regression modeling adjusting for demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics was used to examine the impact of IMRT vs. 3D-CRT on pathologic downstaging, resection margin positivity, sphincter loss surgery, 30-day unplanned readmission and mortality after surgery, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among 7386 patients included, 3330 (45 %) received IMRT and 4056 (55 %) received 3D-CRT. While the mean radiation dose delivered was higher with IMRT (4735 vs. 4608 cGy, p < 0.001), it was associated with higher risks of positive margins (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.57; p < 0.001) and sphincter loss surgery (OR 1.32; p < 0.001). There were no differences between IMRT and 3D-CRT in the likelihood of pathologic downstaging (OR 0.89, p = 0.051), unplanned readmission (OR 0.79; p = 0.07), or 30-day mortality (OR 0.61; p = 0.31) after surgery. Additionally, there were no differences in overall survival at 8 years (IMRT vs. 3D-CRT: 64 vs. 64 %; adjusted hazard ratio 1.06, p = 0.47). CONCLUSION: IMRT is associated with worse local tumor control without any long-term survival benefit for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Given the lack of significant advantage and the higher cost of IMRT, caution should be exercised when using IMRT instead of traditional 3D-CRT for rectal cancer.
Authors: Rolf Sauer; Heinz Becker; Werner Hohenberger; Claus Rödel; Christian Wittekind; Rainer Fietkau; Peter Martus; Jörg Tschmelitsch; Eva Hager; Clemens F Hess; Johann-H Karstens; Torsten Liersch; Heinz Schmidberger; Rudolf Raab Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Arti Parekh; Minh Tam Truong; Itai Pashtan; Muhammad M Qureshi; Neil E Martin; Omer Nawaz; Sandra Cerda; John Willins; Kevan L Hartshorn; Lisa A Kachnic Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2013-09
Authors: Theodore S Hong; Jennifer Moughan; Michael C Garofalo; Johanna Bendell; Adam C Berger; Nicklas B E Oldenburg; Pramila Rani Anne; Francisco Perera; R Jeffrey Lee; Salma K Jabbour; Adam Nowlan; Albert DeNittis; Christopher Crane Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jason M Samuelian; Matthew D Callister; Jonathan B Ashman; Tonia M Young-Fadok; Mitesh J Borad; Leonard L Gunderson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lisa A Kachnic; Kathryn Winter; Robert J Myerson; Michael D Goodyear; John Willins; Jacqueline Esthappan; Michael G Haddock; Marvin Rotman; Parag J Parikh; Howard Safran; Christopher G Willett Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick Richard; Mark Phillips; Wade Smith; Darin Davidson; Edward Kim; Gabrielle Kane Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marsha Reyngold; Joyce Niland; Anna Ter Veer; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Lily Lai; Joshua E Meyer; Steven J Nurkin; Deborah Schrag; John M Skibber; Al B Benson; Martin R Weiser; Christopher H Crane; Karyn A Goodman Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-10-12