Sulfasalazine decreases acute gastrointestinal complications due to pelvic radiotherapy

Chinese clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced rectal injury

Although radiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of cancer, it may have negative effects in some individuals. Rectal injury is a common adverse effect of abdominal and pelvic radiotherapy. This injury is caused by administering radiation to the abdomen. Appropriate treatment techniques can be determined if doctors have a better understanding of the incidence, risk factors, and clinical symptoms of radiation-induced rectal injuries. Studies on the underlying pathophysiology of radiation-induced rectal injury may aid in the development of effective treatment and prevention strategies. The implementation of efficient preventive measures can improve the quality of life of patients with cancer and make it easier for them to complete their treatment. Therefore, comprehensive and accurate assessments are crucial for developing holistic and individualized treatment plans for patients who have already developed symptoms, with early intervention being a priority.

Research progress and treatment of radiation enteritis and gut microbiota

Radiation enteritis is a kind of intestinal radiation injury in patients with pelvic and retroperitoneal malignancies after radiotherapy, and its occurrence and development process are very complicated. At present, studies have confirmed that intestinal microecological imbalance is an important factor in the formation of this disease. Abdominal radiation causes changes in the composition of the flora and a decrease in its diversity, which is mainly manifested by a decrease in beneficial bacterial species such as Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria. Intestinal dysbacteriosis aggravates radiation enteritis, weakens the function of the intestinal epithelial barrier, and promotes the expression of inflammatory factors, thereby aggravating the occurrence of enteritis. Given the role of the microbiome in radiation enteritis, we suggest that the gut microbiota may be a potential biomarker for the disease. Treatment methods such as probiotics, antibiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation are ways to correct the microbiota and may be an effective way to prevent and treat radiation enteritis. Based on a review of the relevant literature, this paper reviews the mechanism and treatment of intestinal microbes in radiation enteritis.

Potential applications of drug delivery technologies against radiation enteritis

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of abdominal tumors, such as colorectal and prostate cancers, continually increases. Radiation therapy is widely applied in the clinical treatment of patients with abdominal/pelvic cancers, but it often unfortunately causes radiation enteritis (RE) involving the intestine, colon, and rectum. However, there is a lack of suitable treatment options for effective prevention and treatment of RE.

AREAS COVERED

Conventional clinical drugs for preventing and treating RE are usually applied by enemas and oral administration. Innovative gut-targeted drug delivery systems including hydrogels, microspheres, and nanoparticles are proposed to improve the prevention and curation of RE.

EXPERT OPINION

The prevention and treatment of RE have not attracted sufficient attention in the clinical practice, especially compared to the treatment of tumors, although RE takes patients great pains. Drug delivery to the pathological sites of RE is a huge challenge. The short retention and weak targeting of conventional drug delivery systems affect the therapeutic efficiency of anti-RE drugs. Novel drug delivery systems including hydrogels, microspheres, and nanoparticles can allow drugs long-term retention in the gut and targeting the inflammation sites to alleviate radiation-induced injury.

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic cancers

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of people survive cancer but a significant proportion have gastrointestinal side effects as a result of radiotherapy (RT), which impairs their quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVES

To determine which prophylactic interventions reduce the incidence, severity or both of adverse gastrointestinal effects among adults receiving radiotherapy to treat primary pelvic cancers.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2016 and updated them on 2 November 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to prevent adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy among adults receiving radiotherapy to treat primary pelvic cancers, including radiotherapy techniques, other aspects of radiotherapy delivery, pharmacological interventions and non-pharmacological interventions. Studies needed a sample size of 20 or more participants and needed to evaluate gastrointestinal toxicity outcomes. We excluded studies that evaluated dosimetric parameters only. We also excluded trials of interventions to treat acute gastrointestinal symptoms, trials of altered fractionation and dose escalation schedules, and trials of pre- versus postoperative radiotherapy regimens, to restrict the vast scope of the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects statistical model for all meta-analyses, and the GRADE system to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 92 RCTs involving more than 10,000 men and women undergoing pelvic radiotherapy. Trials involved 44 different interventions, including radiotherapy techniques (11 trials, 4 interventions/comparisons), other aspects of radiotherapy delivery (14 trials, 10 interventions), pharmacological interventions (38 trials, 16 interventions), and non-pharmacological interventions (29 trials, 13 interventions). Most studies (79/92) had design limitations. Thirteen studies had a low risk of bias, 50 studies had an unclear risk of bias and 29 studies had a high risk of bias. Main findings include the following:Radiotherapy techniques: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus 3D conformal RT (3DCRT) may reduce acute (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.88; participants = 444; studies = 4; I2 = 77%; low-certainty evidence) and late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.65; participants = 332; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Conformal RT (3DCRT or IMRT) versus conventional RT reduces acute GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.82; participants = 307; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence) and probably leads to less late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.09; participants = 517; studies = 3; I2 = 44%; moderate-certainty evidence). When brachytherapy (BT) is used instead of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in early endometrial cancer, evidence indicates that it reduces acute GI toxicity (grade 2+) (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; participants = 423; studies = 1; high-certainty evidence).Other aspects of radiotherapy delivery: There is probably little or no difference in acute GI toxicity grade 2+ with reduced radiation dose volume (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.81; participants = 211; studies = 1; moderate-certainty evidence) and maybe no difference in late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.97; participants = 107; studies = 1; low-certainty evidence). Evening delivery of RT may reduce acute GI toxicity (diarrhoea) grade 2+ during RT compared with morning delivery of RT (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; participants = 294; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in acute (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.62 to 7.93, participants = 110; studies = 1) and late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.65; participants = 81; studies = 1) between a bladder volume preparation of 1080 mls and that of 540 mls (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence on balloon and hydrogel spacers suggests that these interventions for prostate cancer RT may make little or no difference to GI outcomes.Pharmacological interventions: Evidence for any beneficial effects of aminosalicylates, sucralfate, amifostine, corticosteroid enemas, bile acid sequestrants, famotidine and selenium is of a low or very low certainty. However, evidence on certain aminosalicylates (mesalazine, olsalazine), misoprostol suppositories, oral magnesium oxide and octreotide injections suggests that these agents may worsen GI symptoms, such as diarrhoea or rectal bleeding.Non-pharmacological interventions: Low-certainty evidence suggests that protein supplements (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.74; participants = 74; studies = 1), dietary counselling (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.60; participants = 74; studies = 1) and probiotics (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.82; participants = 923; studies = 5; I2 = 91%) may reduce acute RT-related diarrhoea (grade 2+). Dietary counselling may also reduce diarrhoeal symptoms in the long term (at five years, RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.78; participants = 61; studies = 1). Low-certainty evidence from one study (108 participants) suggests that a high-fibre diet may have a beneficial effect on GI symptoms (mean difference (MD) 6.10, 95% CI 1.71 to 10.49) and quality of life (MD 20.50, 95% CI 9.97 to 31.03) at one year. High-certainty evidence indicates that glutamine supplements do not prevent RT-induced diarrhoea. Evidence on various other non-pharmacological interventions, such as green tea tablets, is lacking.Quality of life was rarely and inconsistently reported across included studies, and the available data were seldom adequate for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Conformal radiotherapy techniques are an improvement on older radiotherapy techniques. IMRT may be better than 3DCRT in terms of GI toxicity, but the evidence to support this is uncertain. There is no high-quality evidence to support the use of any other prophylactic intervention evaluated. However, evidence on some potential interventions shows that they probably have no role to play in reducing RT-related GI toxicity. More RCTs are needed for interventions with limited evidence suggesting potential benefits.

N08C9 (Alliance): A Phase 3 Randomized Study of Sulfasalazine Versus Placebo in the Prevention of Acute Diarrhea in Patients Receiving Pelvic Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

To provide confirmatory evidence on the use of sulfasalazine to reduce enteritis during pelvic radiation therapy (RT), following 2 prior single-institution trials suggestive that benefit existed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A multi-institution, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial was designed to assess the efficacy of sulfasalazine versus placebo in the treatment of RT-related enteritis during RT including the posterior pelvis (45.0-53.5 Gy) and conducted through a multicenter national cooperative research alliance. Patients received 1000 mg of sulfasalazine or placebo orally twice daily during and for 4 weeks after RT. The primary endpoint was maximum severity of diarrhea (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0). Toxicity and bowel function were assessed by providers through a self-administered bowel function questionnaire taken weekly during RT and for 6 weeks afterward.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients were enrolled in the trial between April 29, 2011, and May 13, 2013, with evenly distributed baseline factors. At the time of a planned interim toxicity analysis, more patients with grade ≥3 diarrhea received sulfasalazine than received placebo (29% vs 11%, P=.04). A futility analysis showed that trial continuation would be unlikely to yield a positive result, and a research board recommended halting study treatment. Final analysis of the primary endpoint showed no significant difference in maximum diarrhea severity between the sulfasalazine and placebo arms (P=.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Sulfasalazine does not reduce enteritis during pelvic RT and may be associated with a higher risk of adverse events than placebo. This trial illustrates the importance of confirmatory phase 3 trials in the evaluation of symptom-control agents.

Protection against Radiotherapy-Induced Toxicity

Radiation therapy is a highly utilized therapy in the treatment of malignancies with up to 60% of cancer patients receiving radiation therapy as a part of their treatment regimen. Radiation therapy does, however, cause a wide range of adverse effects that can be severe and cause permanent damage to the patient. In an attempt to minimize these effects, a small number of compounds have been identified and are in use clinically for the prevention and treatment of radiation associated toxicities. Furthermore, there are a number of emerging therapies being developed for use as agents that protect against radiation-induced toxicities. The aim of this review was to evaluate and summarise the evidence that exists for both the known radioprotectant agents and the agents that show promise as future radioprotectant agents.

Systematic review of agents for the management of gastrointestinal mucositis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible.

RESULTS

A total of 251 clinical studies across 29 interventions were examined. Panel members were able to make one new evidence-based negative recommendation; two new evidence-based suggestions, and one evidence-based change from previous guidelines. Firstly, the panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis. Secondly, the panel suggests probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp., may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with malignancies of the pelvic region. Thirdly, the panel suggests the use of hyperbaric oxygen as an effective means in treating radiation-induced proctitis. Finally, new evidence has emerged which is in conflict with our previous guideline surrounding the use of systemic glutamine, meaning that the panel is unable to form a guideline. No guideline was possible for any other agent, due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated review of the literature has allowed new recommendations and suggestions for clinical practice to be reached. This highlights the importance of regular updates.

Acute radiation enteritis causing small bowel obstruction

Although much is known about the late intestinal side effects of radiation, comparatively little has been published about its acute complications. We present a case of a small bowel obstruction due to acute radiation enteritis. As radiotherapy continues to expand its role in the management of oncological disease, clinicians should remain alert to the resulting undesired effects.

Acute radiation enteritis causing small bowel obstruction

Although much is known about the late intestinal side effects of radiation, comparatively little has been published about its acute complications. We present a case of a small bowel obstruction due to acute radiation enteritis. As radiotherapy continues to expand its role in the management of oncological disease, clinicians should remain alert to the resulting undesired effects.

The efficacy of the combination therapy with oral and topical mesalazine for patients with the first episode of radiation proctitis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Radiation proctitis is a common complication of pelvic radiation for which an optimal treatment remains undetermined. We assessed the efficacy of oral and topical mesalazine combination therapy for patients with naive radiation proctitis.

METHODS

A total of 23 patients with radiation proctitis were enrolled in the study over a period of 2 years. Three of these patients were excluded due to severe bleeding during the study. Twenty patients (mean age 60.3 years; two males, 18 females) were treated with oral mesalazine (3 × 1 g per day) plus a daily mesalazine suppository (1 g per day at bedtime) for 4 weeks. The efficacy of treatment was assessed according to the Subjective Objective Management Analytic (SOMA) scale for alleviation of clinical symptoms of rectal toxicity and sigmoidoscopic findings.

RESULTS

The mean bleeding score improved significantly from 2.10 to 1.70 (p = 0.002) with mesalazine treatment. However, scores were not improved for pain (0.30-0.20, p = 0.163), tenesmus (0.50-0.45, p = 0.577), or stool frequency (0.35-0.30, p = 0.577). The improvements in the mean telangiectasia score (1.80-1.45, p = 0.005), bleeding point score (1.60-1.05, p < 0.001), and friable mucosa score (1.35-1.00, p = 0.005) were all statistically significant. No side-effects were noted in any of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of oral and topical mesalazine therapy for radiation proctitis may be a safe and effective treatment for naive radiation proctitis, especially for hemorrhagic proctitis. A large, randomized controlled trial is required to confirm the results of this pilot study.

Radioprotective effect of sulfasalazine on mouse bone marrow chromosomes

Sulfasalazine (SAZ), a prescribed drug for inflammatory bowel disease, is a potent scavenger of reactive oxygen species. The present study was undertaken to ascertain its ability to protect against gamma radiation-induced damage. Acute toxicity of the drug was studied taking 24-h, 72-h and 30-day mortality after a single intraperitoneal injection of 400-1200 mg/kg body weight (b.wt.) of the drug. The drug LD(50) for 24- and 72-h/30-day survival were found to be 933 and 676 mg/kg b.wt., respectively. The optimum time of drug administration and drug dose-dependent effect on in vivo radiation protection of bone marrow chromosomes was studied in mice. Injection of 30-180 mg/kg SAZ 30 min before gamma irradiation (RT) with 4 Gy produced a significant dose-dependent reduction in the RT-induced percent aberrant metaphases and in the frequency of micronucleated erythrocytes at 24 h after exposure, with a corresponding decrease in the different types of aberrations. The optimum dose for protection without drug toxicity was 120 mg/kg b.wt. At this dose, SAZ produced >60% reduction in the RT-induced percent aberrant metaphases and micronucleated erythrocytes. SAZ also produced a significant increase in the ratio of polychromatic erythrocytes to normochromatic erythrocytes from that of irradiated control. Injection of 120 mg/kg of the drug 60 or 30 min before or within 15 min after 4 Gy whole-body RT resulted in a significant decrease in the percent of aberrant metaphases and in the frequency of micronucleated erythrocytes at 24 h post-irradiation; the maximum effect was seen when the drug was administered 30 min before irradiation. These results show that SAZ protect mice against RT-induced chromosomal damage and cell cycle progression delay. SAZ also protected plasmid DNA (pGEM-7Zf) against Fenton's reactant-induced breaks, suggesting free radical scavenging as one of the possible mechanism for radiation protection.

Radiation enteritis

The frequent use of radiotherapy for abdominal and pelvic malignancies results in an increased risk of radiation enteritis. An increased understanding of the tissue response and the clinical features of radiation enteritis has led to advances in the prevention and management of this condition. Importantly, improvements in the delivery of radiotherapy, including techniques to reduce the amount of exposed small intestine in the radiation field, represent a critical strategy for prevention. Data indicate that radioprotectant agents have the potential to reduce intestinal mucosal injury and may be beneficial in reducing both acute and chronic side effects of radiotherapy.