RTOG 0529: Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and Anal Cancer, a Step in the Right Direction?

Toxicity and survival of anal cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy

INTRODUCTION

The definitive treatment of anal cancer with chemoradiotherapy spares abdominoperineal resection for salvage treatment but carries a high burden of toxicity. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy has been implemented to reduce toxicity, reduce treatment breaks and improve survival. However, large and long-term studies are lacking. We aimed to investigate the toxicities and long-term survival of anal cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy at James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients with squamous cell anal cancer treated at James Cook University Hospital between July 2010 and April 2017. All patients were uniformly treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy-based chemoradiation with curative intent. A subset of these patients was followed-up prospectively by an oncologist for acute and late toxicity. We calculated Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival statistics and compared our results with those of previous trials which used conventional radiotherapy.

RESULTS

We studied 132 patients, including a toxicity subset of 64, for a median follow-up time of 43 months (range 3-84 months). Eleven patients (8.3%) underwent salvage abdominoperineal resection. Grade 3+ acute non-haematological, gastrointestinal, genitourinary and dermatological toxicity were found in 56.2%, 12.3%, 0% and 50.7% of the toxicity subset (n = 64). Median treatment duration was 37 days. Overall and colostomy-free survival at five years were 68.3% and 85.3%, respectively. Tumour size (P = 0.006) and age (P = 0.002) predicted shorter overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy probably reduces acute gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity compared with conventional radiotherapy, while resulting in similar overall and colostomy-free survival. We suggest that further dose escalation may improve survival in patients with T3/T4 tumours.

Modern intensity-modulated radiotherapy with image guidance allows low toxicity rates and good local control in chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer patients

PURPOSE

To report outcomes of a population of anal cancer patients treated with modern intensity-modulated radiotherapy and daily image-guided radiotherapy techniques.

METHODS

We analyzed data of 155 patients consecutively treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy in three radiotherapy departments. One hundred twenty-two patients presented a stage II-IIIA disease. Chemotherapy was administered in 138 patients, mainly using mitomycin C and 5-fluorouracil (n = 81). All patients received 36 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction) on the pelvic and inguinal nodes, on the rectum, on the mesorectum and on the anal canal, and a sequential boost up to a total dose of 59.4 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction) on the anal canal and on the nodal gross tumor volumes.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 38 months (interquartile range 12-51). Toxicity data were available for 143 patients: 22% of them presented a G3+ acute toxicity, mainly as moist desquamation (n = 25 patients) or diarrhea (n = 10). Three patients presented a late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity (anal incontinence). No grade 4 acute or late toxicity was recorded. Patients treated with fixed-gantry IMRT delivered with a sliding window technique presented a significantly higher risk of acute grade 3 (or more) toxicity compared to those treated with VMAT or helical tomotherapy (38.5 vs 15.3%, p = 0.049). Actuarial 4-year local control rate was 82% (95% CI 76-91%).

CONCLUSIONS

Modern intensity-modulated radiotherapy with daily image-guided radiotherapy is effective and safe in treating anal cancer patients and should be considered the standard of care in this clinical setting.

Variation in the Use of Chemoradiotherapy for Stage II and III Anal Cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base

BACKGROUND

Treatment for anal canal cancer has evolved from radical operations to definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT), which allows for sphincter preservation in most patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the use of CRT for patients with stage II and III anal cancer, among different patient demographics, geographic regions, and facility types.

METHODS

Utilizing the National Cancer Data Base, we examined patients with stage II and III anal canal squamous cell carcinoma from 2003 to 2010. Via univariate analysis, we examined patterns of treatment by patient demographics, tumor characteristics, geographic region, and facility type (academic vs. community). A multivariable logistic regression model was built to evaluate differences in treatment patterns when adjusting by age, sex, race, comorbidities, and stage.

RESULTS

A total of 12,801 patients were analyzed, of which 11,312 (88 %) received CRT. After adjusting for confounders, CRT was less likely to be administered to males [odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.69], Black patients (OR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.59-0.83), and those with multiple comorbidities (OR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.51-0.72). CRT was not as widely utilized in the West (OR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.59-0.93), and patients treated in academic-based centers were less likely to receive CRT (OR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.72-0.92). Improved median overall survival was observed when CRT was utilized (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

When controlling for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and stage, discrepancies in the use of CRT for anal cancer treatment exist between demographic subtypes, geographical regions, and facility types.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost combined with concurrent chemotherapy for the treatment of anal cancer patients: 4-year results of a consecutive case series

PURPOSE

To report the 4-year outcomes of a consecutive series of anal cancer patients treated with concurrent chemo-radiation delivered with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), employing a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) approach.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 54 patients was enrolled between 2007 and 2013. Treatment schedule consisted of 50.4 Gy/28 fractions (1.8 Gy daily) to the gross tumor volume, while the elective nodal volumes were prescribed 42 Gy/28 fractions (1.5 Gy/daily) for patients having a cT2N0 disease. Patients with cT3-T4/N0-N3 tumors were prescribed 54 (T3) or 60 (T4) Gy/30 fractions (1.8-2 Gy daily) to the gross tumor volume; gross nodal volumes were prescribed 50.4 Gy/30 fr (1.68 Gy daily) if sized ≤ 3 cm or 54 Gy/30 fr (1.8 Gy daily) if > 3 cm; elective nodal regions were given 45 Gy/30 fractions (1.5 Gy daily). Chemotherapy was administered concurrently according to the Nigro's regimen. Primary endpoint was colostomy-free survival (CFS). Secondary endpoints were local control (LC), disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity profile.

RESULTS

Median follow up was 32.6 months (range 12-84). The actuarial probability of being alive at 4 years without a colostomy (CFS) was 68.9% (95% CI: 50.3%-84.7%). Actuarial 4-year OS, CSS, DFS, and LC were 77.7% (95% CI: 60.7-88.1%), 81.5% (95% CI: 64%-91%), 65.5% (95% CI: 47.7%-78.5%), and 84.6% (95% CI: 71.6%-92%). Actuarial 4-year metastasis-free survival was 74.4% (95% CI: 55.5%-86.2%). Maximum detected acute toxicities were as follows: dermatologic -G3: 13%; GI-G3: 8%; GU-G3: 2%; anemia-G3: 2%; neutropenia-G3:11%; G4: 2%; thrombocytopenia- G3:2%. Four-year G2 chronic toxicity rates were 2.5% (95% CI: 3.6-16.4) for GU, 14.4% (95% CI: 7.1-28) for GI, 3.9% (95% CI: 1%-14.5%) for skin, and 4.2% (95% CI: 1.1-15.9) for genitalia.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows the feasibility of IMRT in the combined modality treatment of anal cancer, with comparable results to the literature with respect to LC, sphincter preservation and survival. Acute toxicity is lower if compared to series employing standard techniques. Our results support the use of IMRT on a routine basis for the treatment of anal cancer.

Helical Tomotherapy for the Treatment of Anal Canal Cancer: A Dosimetric Comparison with 3D Conformal Radiotherapy

Aims and Background

The standard treatment of anal canal cancer (ACC) is combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy (RT), which is complex because of the shape of the target volumes and the need to minimize the irradiation of normal pelvic structures. In this study we compared the dosimetric results of helical tomotherapy (HT) plans with traditional 3D conformal RT (3DRT) plans for the treatment of ACC.

Methods and Study Design

Twelve patients (median age 57 years, range 38–83; F/M 8/4) treated with HT and concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced ACC were selected. All had histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma. A clinical target volume including the tumor and pelvic and inguinal lymph nodes was treated with HT to a total dose of 36 Gy in 1.8-Gy daily fractions. Then a sequential boost of 23.4 Gy in 1.8-Gy daily fractions (total dose 59.4 Gy) was delivered to the tumor and involved nodes. For all 12 patients, 3DRT plans were generated for comparison. Treatment plans were evaluated by means of standard dose-volume histograms. Dose coverage of the planning target volumes (PTVs), homogeneity index (HI), and mean doses to organs at risk (OARs) were compared.

Results

The coverage of PTV was comparable between the two treatment plans. HI was better in the HT vs. 3DRT plans (1.25 and 3.57, respectively; p<0.0001). HT plans resulted in better sparing of OARs (p<0.0001).

Conclusions

HT showed superior target dose conformality and significant sparing of pelvic structures compared with 3DRT. Further investigation should determine if these dosimetric improvements will improve clinical outcomes regarding locoregional control, survival, and treatment-related acute and late morbidity.

Anal cancer: current standards in care and recent changes in practice

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The management of squamous cell carcinomas of the anal canal has evolved from surgery as first-line treatment to curative chemoradiation, with surgery reserved for salvage. Significant progress has been made in understanding how to most effectively deliver chemotherapy and reduce toxicity through advancements in radiation delivery. The purpose of this article is to review the multimodality approach to the diagnosis and management of anal cancer based on a review of the published data and in light of available guidelines.

Survey of advanced radiation technologies used at designated cancer care hospitals in Japan

OBJECTIVE

Our survey assessed the use of advanced radiotherapy technologies at the designated cancer care hospitals in Japan, and we identified several issues to be addressed.

METHODS

We collected the data of 397 designated cancer care hospitals, including information on staffing in the department of radiation oncology (e.g. radiation oncologists, medical physicists and radiation therapists), the number of linear accelerators and the implementation of advanced radiotherapy technologies from the Center for Cancer Control and Information Services of the National Cancer Center, Japan.

RESULTS

Only 53% prefectural designated cancer care hospitals and 16% regional designated cancer care hospitals have implemented intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancers, and 62% prefectural designated cancer care hospitals and 23% regional designated cancer care hospitals use intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Seventy-four percent prefectural designated cancer care hospitals and 40% regional designated cancer care hospitals employ stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer. Our multivariate analysis of prefectural designated cancer care hospitals which satisfy the institute's qualifications for advanced technologies revealed the number of radiation oncologists (P = 0.01) and that of radiation therapists (P = 0.003) were significantly correlated with the implementation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and the number of radiation oncologists (P = 0.02) was correlated with the implementation of stereotactic body radiotherapy. There was a trend to correlate the number of medical physicists with the implementation of stereotactic body radiotherapy (P = 0.07). Only 175 (51%) regional designated cancer care hospitals satisfy the institute's qualification of stereotactic body radiotherapy and 76 (22%) satisfy that of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Seventeen percent prefectural designated cancer care hospitals and 13% regional designated cancer care hospitals had a quality assurance committee.

CONCLUSIONS

The numbers of radiation oncologists and other operating staff might be essential factors in the implementation of advanced radiotherapy technologies. Small proportions of regional designated cancer care hospitals satisfy the institute's qualifications of advanced technologies.