Radiation Therapy Techniques and Treatment-Related Toxicity in the PORTEC-3 Trial: Comparison of 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy techniques have developed from 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), with better sparing of the surrounding normal tissues. The current analysis aimed to investigate whether IMRT, compared to 3DCRT, resulted in fewer adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported symptoms in the randomized PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data on AEs and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) of the PORTEC-3 trial were available for analysis. Physician-reported AEs were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. QoL was assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30, CX24, and OV28 questionnaires. Data were compared between 3DCRT and IMRT. A P value of ≤ .01 was considered statistically significant due to the risk of multiple testing. For QoL, combined scores 1 to 2 ("not at all" and "a little") versus 3 to 4 ("quite a bit" and "very much") were compared between the techniques. RESULTS: Of 658 evaluable patients, 559 received 3DCRT and 99 IMRT. Median follow-up was 74.6 months. During treatment no significant differences were observed, with a trend for more grade ≥3 AEs, mostly hematologic and gastrointestinal, after 3DCRT (37.7% vs 26.3%, P = .03). During follow-up, 15.4% (vs 4%) had grade ≥2 diarrhea, and 26.1% (vs 13.1%) had grade ≥2 hematologic AEs after 3DCRT (vs IMRT) (both P < .01). Among 574 (87%) patients evaluable for QoL, 494 received 3DCRT and 80 IMRT. During treatment, 37.5% (vs 28.6%) reported diarrhea after 3DCRT (vs IMRT) (P = .125); 22.1% (versus 10.0%) bowel urgency (P = 0039), and 18.2% and 8.6% abdominal cramps (P = .058). Other QoL scores showed no differences. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT resulted in fewer grade ≥3 AEs during treatment and significantly lower rates of grade ≥2 diarrhea and hematologic AEs during follow-up. Trends toward fewer patient-reported bowel urgency and abdominal cramps were observed after IMRT compared to 3DCRT.

Dose Escalation Using Contact X-ray Brachytherapy After External Beam Radiotherapy as Nonsurgical Treatment Option for Rectal Cancer: Outcomes From a Single-Center Experience.

PURPOSE: To review the outcomes of rectal cancer patients treated with a nonsurgical approach using contact x-ray brachytherapy (CXB) when suspicious residual disease (≤3 cm) was present after external beam chemoradiation therapy/radiation therapy (EBCRT/EBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Outcome data for rectal cancer patients referred to our institution from 2003 to 2012 were retrieved from an institutional database. These patients were referred after initial local multidisciplinary team discussion because they were not suitable for, or had refused, surgery. All selected patients received a CXB boost after EBCRT/EBRT. Most patients received a total of 90 Gy of CXB delivered in 3 fractions over 4 weeks. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 2.5 years (range 1.2-8.3). Of 345 consecutive patients with rectal cancer referred to us, 83 with suspicious residual disease (≤3 cm) after EBCRT/EBRT were identified for a CXB boost. Their median age was 72 years (range 36-87), and 58 (69.9%) were men. The initial tumor stages were cT2 (n = 28) and cT3 (n = 55), and 54.2% were node positive. A clinical complete response (cCR) was achieved in 53 patients (63.8%) after the CXB boost that followed EBCRT/EBRT. Of these 53 patients, 7 (13.2%) developed a relapse after achieving a cCR, and the 6 patients (11.6%) with nonmetastatic regrowth underwent salvage surgery (100%). At the end of the study period, 69 of 83 patients (83.1%) were cancer free. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that a CXB boost for selected patients with suspicious residual disease (≤3 cm) after EBCRT/EBRT can be offered as an alternative to radical surgery. In our series, patients with a sustained cCR had a low rate of local regrowth, and those with nonmetastatic regrowth could be salvaged successfully. This approach could provide an alternative treatment option for elderly or comorbid patients who are not suitable for surgery and those with rectal cancer who wish to avoid surgery.

Dose escalation using contact X-ray brachytherapy (Papillon) for rectal cancer: does it improve the chance of organ preservation?

OBJECTIVE: A watch and wait policy for patients with a clinical complete response (cCR) after external beam chemoradiotherapy (EBCRT) for rectal cancer is an attractive option. However, approximately one-third of tumours will regrow, which requires surgical salvage for cure. We assessed whether contact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) can improve organ preservation by avoiding surgery for local regrowth. METHODS: From our institutional database, we identified 200 of 573 patients treated by CXB from 2003 to 2012. Median age was 74 years (range 32-94), and 134 (67%) patients were males. Histology was confirmed in all patients and was staged using CT scan, MRI or endorectal ultrasound. All patients received combined CXB and EBCRT, except 17 (8.5%) who had CXB alone. RESULTS: Initial cCR was achieved in 144/200 (72%) patients. 38/56 (68%) patients who had residual tumour received immediate salvage surgery. 16/144 (11%) patients developed local relapse after cCR, and 124/144 (86%) maintained cCR. At median follow up of 2.7 years, 161 (80.5%) patients were free of cancer. The main late toxicity was bleeding (28%). Organ preservation was achieved in 124/200 (62%) patients. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that CXB can reduce local regrowth to 11% compared with around 30% after EBCRT alone. Organ preservation of 62% achieved was higher than reported in most published watch and wait studies. Advances in knowledge: CXB is a promising treatment option to avoid salvage surgery for local regrowth, which can improve the chance of organ preservation in patients who are not suitable for or refuse surgery.