Reirradiation of rectal cancer to limited volumes is feasible. When curative resection is possible, the goal is radical resection and long-term survival, and hyperfractionated chemoradiotherapy should be preferred to limit late toxicity. Reirradiation yielded good symptomatic relief in palliative treatment.
Anal cancer is a rare disease with increasing incidence 1,2 and chemoradiotherapy is the recommended curative treatment. 3 State-of-the-art radiotherapy is delivered as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with concomitant mitomycin (MMC) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy. 4,5 Different treatment regimens are used based on tumor and lymph node stage. 3 Complete tumor remission may be achieved in up to 90% of the patients and the 3 year progression-free survival is around 70%. 6 Recurrences are mostly locoregional 7,8 and curatively intended salvage surgery usually involves extensive pelvic surgery. 9 The majority of anal squamous cell carcinomas are HPV positive, and HPV status is both a prognostic factor and predictive of treatment outcome. 10,11 Other clinicopathological features such as gender, tumor and lymph node stage, radiotherapy dose, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes have shown prognostic value, 11-13 but there is currently no
Background and purpose: Palliative pelvic radiotherapy (PPRT) is used to treat locally advanced rectal cancer (RC) although symptomatic effects and toxicities are poorly documented. Aims were to evaluate symptom severity, quality of life (QOL) and toxicity after PPRT. Material and methods: Fifty-one patients with symptomatic primary or recurrent RC prescribed PPRT with fractions of 3 Gy to 30-39 Gy were included. Primary outcome was severity of target symptoms (TS) 12 weeks after PPRT. Pelvic symptom burden, toxicity, and QOL were assessed. Response was defined as patient-reported TS improvement or resolution. Results: Pain (n ¼ 24), rectal dysfunction (n ¼ 16), and hematochezia (n ¼ 9) were the most common TSs. Overall response rate among evaluable patients 12 weeks after PPRT was 28/33 (85%). Eighteen patients did not complete the study follow-up, 16 due to deteriorating health. TS responses were 10/13 (77%) for pain, 9/10 (90%) for rectal dysfunction, and 8/8 for hematochezia. Non-target pelvic symptom severity decreased and median QOL scores remained stable. There was no grade 4 toxicity. Median survival was nine months. Conclusions: In the majority of patients with symptomatic primary or recurrent RC, PPRT with 30-39 Gy contributes to pelvic symptom relief, with little toxicity. Patients prescribed PPRT of RC have limited life expectancy. Future studies should investigate simplification of PPRT.
In the majority of patients with CRPC and a symptomatic pelvic tumor, PPRT with 30-39 Gy contributes to relief of hematuria, pain and other pelvic symptoms, with acceptable toxicity. Future studies should investigate whether PPRT regimens can be simplified.
PurposeTo compare target volume delineation of anal cancer using positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with respect to inter-observer and inter-modality variability.MethodsNineteen patients with anal cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy were prospectively included. Planning computed tomography (CT) images were co-registered with 18F–fluorodexocyglucose (FDG) PET/CT images and T2 and diffusion weighted (DW) MR images. Three oncologists delineated the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) according to national guidelines and the visible tumor tissue (GTVT). MRI and PET based delineations were evaluated by absolute volumes and Dice similarity coefficients.ResultsThe median volume of the GTVs was 27 and 31 cm3 for PET and MRI, respectively, while it was 6 and 11 cm3 for GTVT. Both GTV and GTVT volumes were highly correlated between delineators (r = 0.90 and r = 0.96, respectively). The median Dice similarity coefficient was 0.75 when comparing the GTVs based on PET/CT (GTVPET) with the GTVs based on MRI and CT (GTVMRI). The median Dice coefficient was 0.56 when comparing the visible tumor volume evaluated by PET (GTVT_PET) with the same volume evaluated by MRI (GTVT_MRI). Margins of 1–2 mm in the axial plane and 7–8 mm in superoinferior direction were required for coverage of the individual observer’s GTVs.ConclusionsThe rather good agreement between PET- and MRI-based GTVs indicates that either modality may be used for standard target delineation of anal cancer. However, larger deviations were found for GTVT, which may impact future tumor boost strategies.
Background: There is no clear consensus on the use of re-irradiation (reRT) in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). The aim of the present study was to investigate all reRT administered for rectal cancer at a large referral institution and to evaluate patient outcomes and toxicity. Material and methods: All patients with rectal cancer were identified who had received previous pelvic radiotherapy (RT) and underwent reRT during 2006-2016. Medical records and RT details of the primary tumor treatments and rectal cancer recurrence treatments were registered, including details on reRT, chemotherapy, surgery, adverse events, and long-term outcomes. Results: Of 77 patients who received ReRT, 67 had previously received pelvic RT for rectal cancer and were administered reRT for LRRC. Re-irradiation doses were 30.0-45.0 Gy, most often given as hyperfractionated RT in 1.2-1.5 Gy fractions twice daily with concomitant capecitabine. The median time since initial RT was 29 months (range, 13-174 months). Of 36 patients considered as potentially resectable, 20 underwent surgery for LRRC within 3 months after reRT. Operated patients had better 3-year overall survival (OS) (62%) compared to those who were not operated (16%; HR 0.32, p ¼ .001). The median gross tumor volume (GTV) was 107 cm 3 , and 3-year OS was significantly better in patients with GTV <107 cm 3 (44%) compared to patients with GTV !107 cm 3 (21%; HR 0.52, p ¼ .03). Conclusion: Three-year survival was significantly better for patients who underwent surgery after reRT or who had small tumor volume. Prospective clinical trials are recommended for further improvements in patient selection, outcomes, and toxicity assessment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.