Improved treatment outcome and lower skin toxicity with intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. 3D conventional radiotherapy in anal cancer.

PURPOSE: Radiochemotherapy is the standard treatment for anal carcinoma (ACa). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has been introduced, allowing focused irradiation of the tumor area. Whether physical benefits of IMRT translate to clinical benefits has not been sufficiently demonstrated. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from 82 patients with newly diagnosed ACa. Patients treated with IMRT were compared with previous patients treated with conventional three-dimensional computational radiotherapy (3D-CRT). The influence of IMRT on complete remission and acute and chronic side effects was analyzed in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: 39/40 patients treated with IMRT were in complete remission after 1 year compared to 31/39 patients treated with 3D-CRT (p = 0.014). Multivariate analysis confirmed tumor T stage as well as lack of IMRT treatment as risk factors for persistent tumor at 6 months. No significant benefits of IMRT were apparent at later timepoints (median follow up 52 months, IQR: 31.5-71.8 months). Patients treated with IMRT had a significantly lower degree of skin toxicity (median 2 vs. 3 in a scale ranging from 0 to 3, p = 0.00092). Rates of hematological toxicity/proctitis were not reduced and rates of acute diarrhea increased (p = 0.034). Median length of hospitalization tended to be shorter in patients treated with IMRT (n. s.). CONCLUSION: We present a real-world experience of shifting radiation technique from conventional 3D-CRT to IMRT. IMRT patients had better tumor control at 1 year and lower degrees of skin toxicity. Our data indicate that IMRT can enable therapies with lower side effects with equal or better oncological results for patients with ACa.

Surveillance of anal carcinoma after radiochemotherapy : A retrospective analysis of 80 patients.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance after radiochemotherapy of anal carcinoma (ACa) with curative intent is recommended in guidelines, but data regarding the effectiveness of follow-up are lacking. We aimed to assess the performance of an ACa surveillance program in a real-life setting. METHODS: We retrospectively summarized clinical history, physical findings, and follow-up investigations (endoanal ultrasound, endoscopy, CT scan) obtained during 42 months (±27 months) from 80 patients after radiochemotherapy of ACa. RESULTS: In 7/80 cases (8.8%) an incomplete response to therapy was identified at or before the 6­month time point after the end of treatment; 4 of the 7 cases were identified during scheduled follow-up. In 6 cases (7.5%), recurrent disease was found after the 6­month time point. Recurrence was systemic in 5 cases and local/inguinal in 1 case. In 3 of the 6 cases (50%), recurrence was identified during scheduled follow-up. In one asymptomatic patient, a single liver metastasis was detected during scheduled follow-up and the patient remains free of disease 19 months after surgery. Surveillance resulted in a high rate of false-positive findings (70 findings in 604 investigations), of which only 14 could be confirmed. CONCLUSION: Scheduled follow-up after treatment of ACa detected recurrent disease at systemic sites, enabling potentially curative treatment in a single case. Effectiveness of abdominal imaging during follow-up after ACa treatment should be tested in a prospective trial.

Presenting symptoms predict local staging of anal cancer: a retrospective analysis of 86 patients.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of anal carcinoma (AC) is increasing and timely diagnosis is critical for efficient therapy. However, there is a paucity of recent studies addressing clinical symptoms and physical findings of anal carcinoma. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study reviewing history, symptoms and physical findings from 86 patients with newly diagnosed AC. We analyzed frequency of symptoms and physical findings according to T and TNM stage and their predictive value regarding tumor stage. RESULTS: Most patients presented with T2 (37 %) or T3 (29 %) cancer. 85 of 86 patients were symptomatic with anal bleeding (78 %), anal/perianal pain (63 %), weight loss (31 %) and foreign body sensation (22 %). 95 % of patients had ≥1 finding on physical examination including a visible tumor, palpable resistance and pain/blood during digital rectal examination. Patients with locally advanced disease (T3/T4) presented with more symptoms (p < 0.01) and more physical findings (p = 0.04) than patients with T1/T2 disease. On multivariate regression analysis perianal pain, painful defecation and weight loss were significantly associated with T3/T4 disease. CONCLUSION: Clinical symptoms and physical findings are present in nearly all AC patients. Pain referred to the perianal region, painful defecation and weight loss have predictive value for locally advanced disease.