Esmée A Dijkstra1, Véronique E M Mul2, Patrick H J Hemmer3, Klaas Havenga3, Geke A P Hospers1, Christina T Muijs2, Boudewijn van Etten4. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. b.van.etten@umcg.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus yet for the best treatment regimen in patients with recurrent rectal cancer (RRC). This study aims to evaluate toxicity and oncological outcomes after re-irradiation in patients with RRC in our center. Clinical (cCR) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates and radicality were also studied. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2018, 61 locally advanced RRC patients were treated and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received radiotherapy at a dose of 30.0-30.6 Gy (reCRT) or 50.0-50.4 Gy chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in cases of no prior irradiation because of low-risk primary rectal cancer. In both groups, patients received capecitabine concomitantly. RESULTS: In total, 60 patients received the prescribed neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy followed by surgery, 35 patients (58.3%) in the reRCT group and 25 patients (41.7%) in the long-course CRT group. There were no significant differences in overall survival (p = 0.82), disease-free survival (p = 0.63), and local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.17) between the groups. Patients in the long-course CRT group reported more skin toxicity after radiotherapy (p = 0.040). No differences were observed in late toxicity. In the long-course CRT group, a significantly higher cCR rate was observed (p = 0.029); however, there was no difference in the pCR rate (p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of RRC patients with re-irradiation is comparable to treatment with long-course CRT regarding toxicity and oncological outcomes. In the reCRT group, less cCR was observed, although there was no difference in pCR. The findings in this study suggest that it is safe and feasible to re-irradiate RRC patients.
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus yet for the best treatment regimen in patients with recurrent rectal cancer (RRC). This study aims to evaluate toxicity and oncological outcomes after re-irradiation in patients with RRC in our center. Clinical (cCR) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates and radicality were also studied. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2018, 61 locally advanced RRC patients were treated and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received radiotherapy at a dose of 30.0-30.6 Gy (reCRT) or 50.0-50.4 Gy chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in cases of no prior irradiation because of low-risk primary rectal cancer. In both groups, patients received capecitabine concomitantly. RESULTS: In total, 60 patients received the prescribed neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy followed by surgery, 35 patients (58.3%) in the reRCT group and 25 patients (41.7%) in the long-course CRT group. There were no significant differences in overall survival (p = 0.82), disease-free survival (p = 0.63), and local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.17) between the groups. Patients in the long-course CRT group reported more skin toxicity after radiotherapy (p = 0.040). No differences were observed in late toxicity. In the long-course CRT group, a significantly higher cCR rate was observed (p = 0.029); however, there was no difference in the pCR rate (p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of RRC patients with re-irradiation is comparable to treatment with long-course CRT regarding toxicity and oncological outcomes. In the reCRT group, less cCR was observed, although there was no difference in pCR. The findings in this study suggest that it is safe and feasible to re-irradiate RRC patients.
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: Vincenzo Valentini; Alessio G Morganti; M Antonietta Gambacorta; Mohammed Mohiuddin; G Battista Doglietto; Claudio Coco; Antonino De Paoli; Carlo Rossi; Annamaria Di Russo; Francesca Valvo; Giampaolo Bolzicco; Maurizio Dalla Palma Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-01-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Morten Braendengen; Kjell M Tveit; Ake Berglund; Elke Birkemeyer; Gunilla Frykholm; Lars Påhlman; Johan N Wiig; Per Byström; Krzysztof Bujko; Bengt Glimelius Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544