Coverage of Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer Patients with Routine Radiation Therapy Practice and Associated Locoregional Recurrence Rates.

PURPOSE: Involved internal iliac and obturator lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) are a known risk factor for the occurrence of ipsilateral local recurrences (LLR) in rectal cancer. This study examined coverage of LLNs with routine radiation therapy practice in the Netherlands and associated LLR rates. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with a primary tumor ≤8 cm of the anorectal junction, cT3-4 stage, and at least 1 internal iliac or obturator LLN with short axis ≥5 mm who received neoadjuvant (chemo)radiation therapy, were selected from a national, cross-sectional study of patients with rectal cancer treated in the Netherlands in 2016. Magnetic resonance images and radiation therapy treatment plans were reviewed regarding segmented LLNs as gross tumor volume (GTV), location of LLNs within clinical target volume (CTV), and received proportion of the planned radiation therapy dose. RESULTS: A total of 223 out of 3057 patients with at least 1 LLN ≥5 mm were selected. Of those, 180 (80.7%) LLNs were inside the CTV, of which 60 (33.3%) were segmented as GTV. Overall, 202 LLNs (90.6%) received ≥95% of the planned dose. Four-year LLR rates were not significantly higher for LLNs situated outside the CTV compared with those inside (4.0% vs 12.5%, P = .092) or when receiving <95% versus ≥95% of the planned radiation therapy dose (7.1% vs 11.3%, P = .843), respectively. Two of 7 patients who received a dose escalation of 60 Gy developed an LLR (4-year LLR rate of 28.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation of routine radiation therapy practice showed that adequate coverage of LLNs was still associated with considerable 4-year LLR rates. Techniques resulting in better local control for patients with involved LLNs need to be explored further.

Long-term efficacy of low-dose radiation therapy on symptoms in patients with knee and hand osteoarthritis: follow-up results of two parallel randomised, sham-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose radiation therapy is commonly used as treatment for benign diseases, including osteoarthritis, in some countries (eg, Germany). We have previously presented our 3-month follow-up results of two randomised sham-controlled trials, in which no substantial effects of low-dose radiation therapy on clinical outcomes were seen in patients with knee and hand osteoarthritis. Here we report the 6-month and 12-month results of these studies. METHODS: In one randomised sham-controlled trial, patients with knee osteoarthrosis were recruited, and in the other trial patients with hand osteoarthritis were recruited. All patients were recruited from the department of rheumatology of Sint Maartenskliniek (Nijmegen, The Netherlands) and the trials were undertaken in parallel. Patients were eligible if they had knee or hand osteoarthritis according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, had a pain score of 5 or more on a 0-10 scale for at least 15 of the past 30 days, and did not meet 2011 modified ACR criteria for fibromyalgia. In each study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by pain score (<8 vs ≥8) using a computer-generated randomisation list and stratified block randomisation, to low-dose radiation therapy (six fractions of 1 Gy low-dose radiation therapy in 2 weeks) or sham (six sessions with 0 Gy of radiation therapy in 2 weeks) intervention. Patients and researchers involved in patient contact or assessments were masked to group allocation, whereas the radiotherapy technologist who did the treatment was unmasked. Patients completed questionnaires (numeric rating scale of patients' global assessment and validated measures for pain and functioning) at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months after starting treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who responded according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Osteoarthritis Research Society International responder criteria at 3 months, which has been reported previously. Here we report the proportion of participants who responded at 6 months and 12 months, and other clinical outcomes of pain, functioning, and patients' global assessment of their symptoms. We used logistic and linear mixed-models analyses to assess differences in number of responders and continuous outcomes. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one fraction of low-dose radiation or sham treatment. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR4574, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2015, and May 3, 2017, 213 patients were screened for inclusion for the knee osteoarthritis study, of whom 55 were eligible and randomly assigned to low-dose radiation therapy (n=27) or sham intervention (n=28). In parallel, for the hand osteoarthritis study, 368 patients were screened and 56 were randomly assigned low-dose radiation (n=28) or sham intervention (n=28). Some minor imbalances in baseline demographic characteristics in terms of sex and age were seen in both the knee and hand cohorts. In the knee osteoarthritis cohort, 48 patients were assessible at 6 months and 50 were assessible at 12 months, and in the hand osteoarthritis cohort 52 patients were assessible at 6 and 12 months. We found no significant differences at 6 or 12 months in the proportion of participants who had a response for both groups. In the knee osteoarthritis group, at 6 months, the number of responders was nine (41%) of 22 patients who received low-dose radiation therapy versus nine (35%) of 26 patients who received the sham intervention (difference in proportion 7% [95% CI -20 to 33]; odds ratio [OR] 1·34 [95% CI 0·41 to 4·42]); and at 12 months, 13 (52%) of 25 patients versus 11 (44%) of 25 patients responded (difference in proportion 8% [-19 to 35]; OR 1·41 [0·45 to 4·48]). In the hand osteoarthritis group, at 6 months, the number of responders was seven (28%) of 25 patients who received low-dose radiation therapy versus 11 (31%) of 27 patients who received the sham intervention (difference in proportion 12% [-38 to 13]; OR 0·57 [0·18 to 1·81]); and at 12 months, eight (31%) of 26 patients versus seven (27%) of 26 patients responded (difference in proportion 4% [-20 to 29]; OR 1·23 [0·37 to 4·12]). We did not find any difference between groups in other clinical outcomes at 6 or 12 months. Three participants with knee osteoarthritis in the sham intervention group and two participants with hand osteoarthritis in the low-dose radiation therapy group had serious adverse effects, none of which were considered to be related to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: We did not find evidence of a delayed effect of low-dose radiation therapy for patients with knee and hand osteoarthritis. Our placebo-controlled results suggest that the large effects of low-dose radiation therapy reported in clinical practice and observational studies can probably be explained by a regression to the mean effect and response to placebo. FUNDING: Dutch Arthritis Foundation and Stichting Landelijk Katholiek Reumacentrum, Netherlands.

Effectiveness of low-dose radiation therapy on symptoms in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised, double-blinded, sham-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) for benign disorders such as knee osteoarthritis (OA) is widely used in some parts of the world, despite absence of controlled studies. We evaluated the effect of LDRT on symptoms and inflammation in patients with knee OA. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial (RCT), we recruited patients with knee OA (clinical ACR criteria) in the Netherlands, aged ≥50 years, pain score ≥5/10 and non-responding to analgesics and exercise therapy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive LDRT (1 Gray per fraction) or sham intervention six times in 2 weeks, stratified by pain (<8 versus ≥8/10). Primary outcome was the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders, 3 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes included pain, function and inflammatory signs assessed by ultrasound, MRI and serum inflammatory markers. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 55 patients: 27 (49%) to LDRT and 28 (51%) to sham. At 3 months postintervention, 12/27 patients (44%; 95% CI 26% to 63%) in the LDRT vs 12/28 patients (43%; 95% CI 25% to 61%) in the sham group responded; difference 2% (95% CI 25% to 28%), OR adjusted for the stratifying variable was 1.1 (95% CI 0.4 to 3.2). Also, for clinical and any of the inflammatory signs, no differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: We found no substantial beneficial effect on symptoms and inflammatory signs of LDRT in patients knee OA, compared with sham treatment. Therefore, based on this RCT and the absence of other high-quality evidence, we advise against the use of LDRT as treatment for knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4574.