John M David1, Gillian Gresham1,2, Salma K Jabbour3, Matthew Deek3, Shant Thomassian1, John M Robertson4, Neil B Newman3, Joseph M Herman5, Arsen Osipov6, Peyman Kabolizadeh4, Richard Tuli1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Research Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NeoCRT) is standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Contemporary radiation techniques and pre-treatment imaging may impact toxicities and pathologic response (PR). Herein we compare intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and advanced pre-treatment imaging in the neoadjuvant treatment of LARC and resulting impact on toxicities and pathologic outcomes relative to 3 dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). METHODS: LARC patients treated at 4 large academic centers in the US from 2007-2016 were reviewed. Patients received 5-FU-based NeoCRT concurrently with IMRT or 3DCRT. PR was recorded as none, partial, or complete. Common terminology for adverse events version 4 was used to grade toxicities. Toxicity rates were compared using Chi-square analysis. Multivariable models were fit adjusting for age, gender, pre-tx CT to identify independent predictors of PR and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were analyzed: 60.1% male and 39.8% female, median age 57.7 years (range, 31-85 years). Clinical characteristics were similar across RT groups. The outcome of partial and complete PR was similar for IMRT and 3DCRT (48.1%, 23.1% vs. 31.7%, 23.3%), respectively. After adjusting for gender, age, and pre-RT chemotherapy type, IMRT and pretreatment PET and/or MRI imaging was significantly associated with increased odds for complete and partial response (OR =2.95, 95% CI: 1.21-7.25, P=0.018; OR =14.70, 95% CI: 3.69-58.78, P<0.0001). Additionally, IMRT was associated with reduced rates of dehydration, dermatitis, rectal pain, rectal bleeding, and diverting ostomy (P<0.05). Overall rates of grade 2 and higher toxicities were significantly reduced in IMRT vs. 3DCRT after adjusting for confounders (OR =0.27, 95% CI: 0.08-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: NeoCRT IMRT with pretreatment PET and/or MRI for LARC leads to reduced acute toxicities and improved PR compared to 3DCRT. Given the challenges associated with prospective validation of these data, IMRT with pretreatment PET and/or MRI should be considered standard treatment for LARC.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NeoCRT) is standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Contemporary radiation techniques and pre-treatment imaging may impact toxicities and pathologic response (PR). Herein we compare intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and advanced pre-treatment imaging in the neoadjuvant treatment of LARC and resulting impact on toxicities and pathologic outcomes relative to 3 dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). METHODS: LARC patients treated at 4 large academic centers in the US from 2007-2016 were reviewed. Patients received 5-FU-based NeoCRT concurrently with IMRT or 3DCRT. PR was recorded as none, partial, or complete. Common terminology for adverse events version 4 was used to grade toxicities. Toxicity rates were compared using Chi-square analysis. Multivariable models were fit adjusting for age, gender, pre-tx CT to identify independent predictors of PR and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were analyzed: 60.1% male and 39.8% female, median age 57.7 years (range, 31-85 years). Clinical characteristics were similar across RT groups. The outcome of partial and complete PR was similar for IMRT and 3DCRT (48.1%, 23.1% vs. 31.7%, 23.3%), respectively. After adjusting for gender, age, and pre-RT chemotherapy type, IMRT and pretreatment PET and/or MRI imaging was significantly associated with increased odds for complete and partial response (OR =2.95, 95% CI: 1.21-7.25, P=0.018; OR =14.70, 95% CI: 3.69-58.78, P<0.0001). Additionally, IMRT was associated with reduced rates of dehydration, dermatitis, rectal pain, rectal bleeding, and diverting ostomy (P<0.05). Overall rates of grade 2 and higher toxicities were significantly reduced in IMRT vs. 3DCRT after adjusting for confounders (OR =0.27, 95% CI: 0.08-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: NeoCRT IMRT with pretreatment PET and/or MRI for LARC leads to reduced acute toxicities and improved PR compared to 3DCRT. Given the challenges associated with prospective validation of these data, IMRT with pretreatment PET and/or MRI should be considered standard treatment for LARC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Radiation; intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT); rectal cancer
Authors: Andrea L Russo; David P Ryan; Darrell R Borger; Jennifer Y Wo; Jackie Szymonifka; Wen-Yih Liang; Eunice L Kwak; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Jeffrey W Clark; Jill N Allen; Andrew X Zhu; David L Berger; James C Cusack; Harvey J Mamon; Kevin M Haigis; Theodore S Hong Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2014-03
Authors: Heidi T Lotz; Floris J Pos; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Marcel van Herk; Joos V Lebesque; Joop C Duppen; Peter Remeijer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Johannes Peter Maarten Burbach; Annemarie Maria den Harder; Martijn Intven; Marco van Vulpen; Helena Marieke Verkooijen; Onne Reerink Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Salma K Jabbour; Shyamal Patel; Joseph M Herman; Aaron Wild; Suneel N Nagda; Taghrid Altoos; Ahmet Tunceroglu; Nilofer Azad; Susan Gearheart; Rebecca A Moss; Elizabeth Poplin; Lydia L Levinson; Ravi A Chandra; Dirk F Moore; Chunxia Chen; Bruce G Haffty; Richard Tuli Journal: Int J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-08-13
Authors: Danielle S Bitterman; Lucas Resende Salgado; Harvey G Moore; Nicholas J Sanfilippo; Ping Gu; Ioannis Hatzaras; Kevin L Du Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 6.244