Integrated peripheral boost in preoperative radiotherapy for the locally most advanced non-resectable rectal cancer patients

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Proton Beam Therapy Compared to Conventional Radiotherapy in Non-Metastatic Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes

Background and Objectives: Conventional radiotherapies used in the current management of rectal cancer commonly cause iatrogenic radiotoxicity. Proton beam therapy has emerged as an alternative to conventional radiotherapy with the aim of improving tumour control and reducing off-set radiation exposure to surrounding tissue. However, the real-world treatment and oncological outcomes associated with the use of proton beam therapy in rectal cancer remain poorly characterised. This systematic review seeks to evaluate the radiation dosages and safety of proton beam therapy compared to conventional radiotherapy in patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: A computer-assisted search was performed on the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases. Studies that evaluated the adverse effects and oncological outcomes of proton beam therapy and conventional radiotherapy in adult patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer were included. Results: Eight studies were included in this review. There was insufficient evidence to determine the adverse treatment outcomes of proton beam therapy versus conventional radiotherapy. No current studies assessed radiotoxicities nor oncological outcomes. Pooled dosimetric comparisons between proton beam therapy and various conventional radiotherapies were associated with reduced radiation exposure to the pelvis, bowel and bladder. Conclusions: This systematic review demonstrates a significant paucity of evidence in the current literature surrounding adverse effects and oncological outcomes related to proton beam therapy compared to conventional radiotherapy for non-metastatic rectal cancer. Pooled analyses of dosimetric studies highlight greater predicted radiation-sparing effects with proton beam therapy in this setting. This evidence, however, is based on evidence at a moderate risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity. Overall, more robust, prospective clinical trials are required.

Proton Therapy in the Management of Luminal Gastrointestinal Cancers: Esophagus, Stomach, and Anorectum

While the role of proton therapy in gastric cancer is marginal, its role in esophageal and anorectal cancers is expanding. In esophageal cancer, protons are superior in sparing the organs at risk, as shown by multiple dosimetric studies. Literature is conflicting regarding clinical significance, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that protons yield similar or improved oncologic outcomes to photons at a decreased toxicity cost. Similarly, protons have improved sparing of the organs at risk in anorectal cancers, but clinical data is much more limited to date, and toxicity benefits have not yet been shown clinically. Large, randomized trials are currently underway for both disease sites.

Optimization of Field Design in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer with Intensity Modulated Proton Beam Radiation Therapy: How Many Fields Are Needed to Account for Rectal Distension Uncertainty?

Purpose

Preoperative chemoradiation represents the standard of care in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Robustness is often compromised in the setting of proton beam therapy owing to the sensitivity of proton particles to tissue heterogeneity, such as with intestinal gas. The ideal beam arrangement to mitigate the anatomic uncertainty caused by intestinal gas is not well defined.

Methods and Materials

We developed pencil beam scanning plans using (1) 1-beam posteroanterior (PA) plans, (2) 2-beam with right and left posterior oblique (RPO and LPO) plans, (3) 3-beam with PA and opposed lateral plans, and (4) 5-beam with PA, RPO, LPO, and opposed lateral plans. We created 12 plans with robustness optimization and ran a total of 60 plan evaluations for varying degrees of intestinal gas distension to evaluate which plans would maintain clinical goals to the greatest degree.

Results

A single PA beam resulted in considerable loss of target coverage to the clinical target volume prescribed 50 Gy (volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose [V_100%] < 90%) with rectal distension ≥3 cm in diameter in the short axis. In contrast, the other field designs maintained coverage with up to 5 cm of distension. On plans generated based on a 5-cm distended rectum with air medium, the 1-beam, 3-beam, and 5-beam arrangements resulted in loss of target coverage (V_100% < 90%) with rectal contraction ≤3 cm, whereas the 2-beam arrangement maintained coverage to as low as 2 cm. On plans generated based on a 3-cm distension of the rectum, both the 2-beam and 3-beam arrangements maintained V_100% > 90% even with collapsed rectum to as low as 1 cm, simulating a patient treatment scenario without any rectal gas.

Conclusions

A single PA beam should be avoided when using proton beam therapy for rectal cancer. RPO/LPO and PA/opposed lateral arrangements may both be considered; RPO/LPO is favored to reduce integral dose and avoid beams traversing the hips. In patients for whom the plan CT has rectal distension of ≥3 cm, resimulation or strategies to reduce intestinal gas should be strongly considered.

Clinical Implementation of Preoperative Short-Course Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy for Patients With Rectal Cancer

Purpose

For treatment of rectal cancer, pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT) may reduce radiation exposure to normal tissues compared with 3-dimensional conformal photon radiation therapy (3DCRT) or volumetric modulated arc photon radiation therapy (VMAT). The purpose of this study was to report the clinical implementation and dosimetric analysis of preoperative short-course PBS-PT for rectal cancer.

Methods and Materials

Eleven patients with stage IIA-IVB rectal cancer received preoperative short-course (25 Gy in 5 fx) PBS-PT between 2018 and 2019 preceding curative-intent total mesorectal excision. PBS-PT plans were generated using single-field optimization with 2 posterior-oblique fields. Verification computed tomography scans were performed on the first 3 days of treatment. Each patient had a backup 3DCRT and VMAT plan.

Results

Clinical target volume coverage was similar between PBS-PT, 3DCRT, and VMAT. PBS-PT had statistically significant reductions in dose to the small bowel, large bowel, bladder, and femoral heads across multiple dosimetric parameters. All patients completed PBS-PT as planned without need for replanning. All computed tomography verification scans demonstrated good target coverage with clinical target volume V100 > 95%.

Conclusions

Preoperative short-course PBS-PT has been successfully implemented and offers a significant reduction of dose to normal tissues. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate if dosimetric advantages translate into clinical benefit.

Proton beam radiotherapy for anal and rectal cancers

Gastrointestinal cancers are bordered by radiosensitive visceral organs, resulting in a narrow therapeutic window. The search for more efficacious and tolerable therapies raises the possibility that proton beam therapy's (PBT) physical and dosimetric differences from conventional therapy may be better suited to treat both primary and recurrent disease, which carries its own unique challenges. Currently, the maximal efficacy of radiation plans for primary and recurrent anorectal cancer is constrained by delivery techniques and modalities which must consider feasibility challenges and toxicity secondary to exposure of organs at risk (OARs). Studies using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) demonstrate that more precise dose delivery to target volumes improves local control rates and reduces complications. By reducing the low-to-moderate radiation dose-bath to bone marrow, small and large bowel, and skin, PBT may offer an improved side-effect profile. The potential to reduce toxicity, increase patient compliance, minimize treatment breaks, and enable dose escalation or hypofractionation is appealing. In cases where prognosis is favorable, PBT may mitigate long-term morbidity such as secondary malignancies, femoral fractures, and small bowel obstruction.

Magnetic Resonance Guided Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: Expanding Opportunities for Non-Operative Management

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in men and the second most common in women worldwide, and the incidence is increasing among younger patients. 30% of these malignancies arise in the rectum. Patients with rectal cancer have historically been managed with preoperative radiation, followed by radical surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy, with permanent colostomies in up to 20% of patients. Beginning in the early 2000s, non-operative management (NOM) of rectal cancer emerged as a viable alternative to radical surgery in select patients. Efforts have been ongoing to optimize neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, thereby increasing the number of patients potentially eligible to forgo radical surgery. Magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) has recently emerged as a treatment modality capable of intensifying preoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer patients. This technology may also predict which patients will achieve a complete response to preoperative therapy, thereby allowing for more appropriate selection of patients for NOM. The present work seeks to illustrate the potential role MRgRT could play in personalizing rectal cancer treatment thus expanding the role of NOM in rectal cancer.

Comparison of gastric-cancer radiotherapy performed with volumetric modulated arc therapy or single-field uniform-dose proton therapy

BACKGROUND

Proton-beam therapy of large abdominal cancers has been questioned due to the large variations in tissue density in the abdomen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the importance of these variations for the dose distributions produced in adjuvant radiotherapy of gastric cancer (GC), implemented with photon-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or with proton-beam single-field uniform-dose (SFUD) method.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eight GC patients were included in this study. For each patient, a VMAT- and an SFUD-plan were created. The prescription dose was 45 Gy (IsoE) given in 25 fractions. The plans were prepared on the original CT studies and the doses were thereafter recalculated on two modified CT studies (one with extra water filling and the other with expanded abdominal air-cavity volumes).

RESULTS

Compared to the original VMAT plans, the SFUD plans resulted in reduced median values for the V18 of the left kidney (26%), the liver mean dose (14.8 Gy (IsoE)) and the maximum dose given to the spinal cord (26.6 Gy (IsoE)). However, the PTV coverage decreased when the SFUD plans were recalculated on CT sets with extra air- (86%) and water-filling (87%). The added water filling only led to minor dosimetric changes for the OARs, but the extra air caused significant increases of the median values of V18 for the right and left kidneys (10% and 12%, respectively) and of V10 for the liver (12%). The density changes influenced the dose distributions in the VMAT plans to a minor extent.

CONCLUSIONS

SFUD was found to be superior to VMAT for the plans prepared on the original CT sets. However, SFUD was inferior to VMAT for the modified CT sets.

Preoperative radiation dose escalation for rectal cancer using a concomitant boost strategy improves tumor downstaging without increasing toxicity: A matched-pair analysis

Purpose

Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is associated with improved outcomes for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Increased response rates have been reported with higher radiation doses, but these studies often lack long-term outcome and/or toxicity data. We conducted a case-control analysis of patients with LARC who underwent definitive CRT to determine the efficacy and safety of intensified treatment with a concomitant boost (CB) approach.

Methods and materials

From 1995 to 2003, a phase 2 protocol examined CRT with 5-fluorouracil and CB radiation therapy (52.5 Gy in 5 weeks) for patients with LARC. Seventy-six protocol patients were matched (case-control approach) for surgery type, tumor (T) stage, and clinical nodal (N) stage with patients who received standard dose (SD) CRT (5-fluorouracil, 45 Gy). A chart review was performed. McNemar's test and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used for statistical analysis.

Results

The SD and CB groups did not differ in tumor circumferential involvement and length, but the tumors of CB patients were closer to the anal verge (4.7 vs 5.7 cm; P = .02). Although tumor downstaging was higher in the CB cohort (76% vs 51%; P < .01), pathologic complete response rates did not differ (CB, 17.1% vs SD, 15.8%, P = 1.00). The incidence of grade ≥3 radiation-related toxicities was low and similar in both groups (CB, 10% vs SD, 3%, P = .22). Postoperative (anastomotic leak, wound complications/abscess, bleeding) and late (small bowel obstruction, stricture) complication rates did not differ between the groups (P > .05). The median follow-up was 11.9 years. The 5-year local control rates were higher for CB (100.0%) compared with SD (90.0%) patients (P = .01). CB patients had higher rates of 10-year progression-free survival (71.9% vs 57.6%, P < .01) and overall survival (71.6% vs 62.4%, P = .01) compared with SD patients.

Conclusions

CRT dose escalation for patients with LARC is safe and effective. The improved T-downstaging and local control observed in CB patients should encourage further dose escalation studies.

On a prolonged interval between rectal cancer (chemo)radiotherapy and surgery

Preoperative radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is often required before rectal cancer surgery to obtain low local recurrence rates or, in locally advanced tumours, to radically remove the tumour. RT/CRT in tumours responding completely can allow an organ-preserving strategy. The time from the end of the RT/CRT to surgery or to the decision not to operate has been prolonged during recent years. After a brief review of the literature, the relevance of the time interval to surgery is discussed depending upon the indication for RT/CRT. In intermediate rectal cancers, where the aim is to decrease local recurrence rates without any need for down-sizing/-staging, short-course RT with immediate surgery is appropriate. In elderly patients at risk for surgical complications, surgery could be delayed 5-8 weeks. If CRT is used, surgery should be performed when the acute radiation reaction has subsided or after 5-6 weeks. In locally advanced tumours, where CRT is indicated, the optimal delay is 6-8 weeks. In patients not tolerating CRT, short-course RT with a 6-8-week delay is an alternative. If organ preservation is a goal, a first evaluation should preferably be carried out after about 6 weeks, with planned surgery for week 8 if the response is inadequate. In case the response is good, a new evaluation should be carried out after about 12 weeks, with a decision to start a 'watch-and-wait' programme or operate. Chemotherapy in the waiting period is an interesting option, and has been the subject of recent trials with promising results.

Proton Grid Therapy: A Proof-of-Concept Study

In this work, we studied the possibility of merging proton therapy with grid therapy. We hypothesized that patients with larger targets containing solid tumor growth could benefit from being treated with this method, proton grid therapy. We performed treatment planning for 2 patients with abdominal cancer with the suggested proton grid therapy technique. The proton beam arrays were cross-fired over the target volume. Circular or rectangular beam element shapes (building up the beam grids) were evaluated in the planning. An optimization was performed to calculate the fluence from each beam grid element. The optimization objectives were set to create a homogeneous dose inside the target volume with the constraint of maintaining the grid structure of the dose distribution in the surrounding tissue. The proton beam elements constituting the grid remained narrow and parallel down to large depths in the tissue. The calculation results showed that it is possible to produce target doses ranging between 100% and 130% of the prescribed dose by cross-firing beam grids, incident from 4 directions. A sensitivity test showed that a small rotation or translation of one of the used grids, due to setup errors, had only a limited influence on the dose distribution produced in the target, if 4 beam arrays were used for the irradiation. Proton grid therapy is technically feasible at proton therapy centers equipped with spot scanning systems using existing tools. By cross-firing the proton beam grids, a low tissue dose in between the paths of the elemental beams can be maintained down to the vicinity of a deep-seated target. With proton grid therapy, it is possible to produce a dose distribution inside the target volume of similar uniformity as can be created with current clinical methods.

Gastrointestinal cancer: nonliver proton therapy for gastrointestinal cancers

Multimodality therapy for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers carries considerable risk for toxicity; even single-modality radiation therapy in this population carries with it a daunting side effect profile. Supportive care can certainly mitigate some of the morbidity, but there remain numerous associated acute and late complications that can compromise the therapy and ultimately the outcome. Gastrointestinal cancers inherently occur amid visceral organs that are particularly sensitive to radiotherapy, creating a very narrow therapeutic window for aggressive cell kill with minimal normal tissue damage. Radiation therapy is a critical component of locoregional control, but its use has historically been limited by toxicity concerns, both real and perceived. Fundamental to this is the fact that long-term clinical experience with radiation in GI cancers derives almost entirely from 2-dimensional radiation (plain x-ray-based planning) and subsequently 3-dimensional conformal radiation. The recent use of intensity-modulated photon-based techniques is not well represented in most of the landmark chemoradiation trials. Furthermore, the elusive search for efficacious but tolerable local therapy in GI malignancies raises the possibility that proton radiotherapy's physical and dosimetric differences relative to conventional therapy may make it better suited to the challenge. In many sites, local recurrences after chemoradiation pose a particular challenge, and reirradiation in these sites may be done successfully with proton radiotherapy.

Pencil-beam scanning proton therapy for anal cancer: a dosimetric comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy cures most patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma at the cost of significant treatment-related toxicities. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) reduces side effects compared to older techniques, but whether proton beam therapy (PBT) offers additional advantages is unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eight patients treated with PBT for anal cancer were chosen for this study. We conducted detailed plan comparisons between pencil-beam scanning PBT via two posterior oblique fields and seven-field IMRT. Cumulative dose-volume histograms were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and plan delivery robustness was assessed via verification computed tomography (CT) scans obtained during treatment.

RESULTS

Compared to IMRT, PBT reduced low dose radiation (≤ 30 Gy) to the small bowel, total pelvic bone marrow, external genitalia, femoral heads, and bladder (all p < 0.05) without compromising target coverage. For PBT versus IMRT, mean small bowel volume receiving ≥ 15 Gy (V15) was 81 versus 151 cm(3), mean external genitalia V20 was 14 versus 40%, and mean total pelvic bone marrow V15 was 66 versus 83% (all p = 0.008). The lumbosacral bone marrow dose was higher with PBT due to beam geometry. PBT was delivered with ≤ 1.3% interfraction deviation in the dose received by 98% of the clinical target volumes.

CONCLUSION

Pencil-beam scanning PBT is clinically feasible and can be robustly delivered for anal cancer patients. Compared with IMRT, PBT reduces low dose radiation to important organs at risk in this population. While the clinical benefit of these differences remains to be shown, existing data suggest that limiting low dose to the small bowel and pelvic bone marrow may reduce treatment toxicity.

Optimal Time Intervals between Pre-Operative Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery in Rectal Cancer?

BACKGROUND

In rectal cancer therapy, radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (RT/CRT) is extensively used pre-operatively to (i) decrease local recurrence risks, (ii) allow radical surgery in non-resectable tumors, and (iii) increase the chances of sphincter-saving surgery or (iv) organ-preservation. There is a growing interest among clinicians and scientists to prolong the interval from the RT/CRT to surgery to achieve maximal tumor regression and to diminish complications during surgery.

METHODS

The pros and cons of delaying surgery depending upon the aim of the pre-operative RT/CRT are critically evaluated.

RESULTS

Depending upon the clinical situation, the need for a time interval prior to surgery to allow tumor regression varies. In the first and most common situation (i), no regression is needed and any delay beyond what is needed for the acute radiation reaction in surrounding tissues to wash out can potentially only be deleterious. After short-course RT (5Gyx5) with immediate surgery, the ideal time between the last radiation fraction is 2-5 days, since a slightly longer interval appears to increase surgical complications. A delay beyond 4 weeks appears safe; it results in tumor regression including pathologic complete responses, but is not yet fully evaluated concerning oncologic outcome. Surgical complications do not appear to be influenced by the CRT-surgery interval within reasonable limits (about 4-12 weeks), but this has not been sufficiently explored. Maximum tumor regression may not be seen in rectal adenocarcinomas until after several months; thus, a longer than usual delay may be of benefit in well responding tumors if limited or no surgery is planned, as in (iii) or (iv), otherwise not.

CONCLUSION

A longer time interval after CRT is undoubtedly of benefit in some clinical situations but may be counterproductive in most situations. After short-course RT, long-term results from the clinical trials are not yet available to routinely recommend an interval longer than 2-5 days, unless the tumor is non-resectable at diagnosis.

Neo-adjuvant radiotherapy in rectal cancer

In rectal cancer treatment, attention has focused on the local primary tumour and the regional tumour cell deposits to diminish the risk of a loco-regional recurrence. Several large randomized trials have also shown that combinations of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy have markedly reduced the risk of a loco-regional recurrence, but this has not yet had any major influence on overall survival. The best results have been achieved when the radiotherapy has been given preoperatively. Preoperative radiotherapy improves loco-regional control even when surgery has been optimized to improve lateral clearance, i.e., when a total mesorectal excision has been performed. The relative reduction is then 50%-70%. The value of radiotherapy has not been tested in combination with more extensive surgery including lateral lymph node clearance, as practised in some Asian countries. Many details about how the radiotherapy is performed are still open for discussion, and practice varies between countries. A highly fractionated radiation schedule (5 Gy × 5), proven efficacious in many trials, has gained much popularity in some countries, whereas a conventionally fractionated regimen (1.8-2.0 Gy × 25-28), often combined with chemotherapy, is used in other countries. The additional therapy adds morbidity to the morbidity that surgery causes, and should therefore be administered only when the risk of loco-regional recurrence is sufficiently high. The best integration of the weakest modality, to date the drugs (conventional cytotoxics and biologicals) is not known. A new generation of trials exploring the best sequence of treatments is required. Furthermore, there is a great need to develop predictors of response, so that treatment can be further individualized and not solely based upon clinical factors and anatomic imaging.

Short-course radiotherapy followed by neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer--the RAPIDO trial

BACKGROUND

Current standard for most of the locally advanced rectal cancers is preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and, variably per institution, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. Short-course preoperative radiation with delayed surgery has been shown to induce tumour down-staging in both randomized and observational studies. The concept of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy has been proven successful in gastric cancer, hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer and is currently tested in primary colon cancer.

METHODS AND DESIGN

Patients with rectal cancer with high risk features for local or systemic failure on magnetic resonance imaging are randomized to either a standard arm or an experimental arm. The standard arm consists of chemoradiation (1.8 Gy x 25 or 2 Gy x 25 with capecitabine) preoperatively, followed by selective postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. Postoperative chemotherapy is optional and may be omitted by participating institutions. The experimental arm includes short-course radiotherapy (5 Gy x 5) followed by full-dose chemotherapy (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) in 6 cycles before surgery. In the experimental arm, no postoperative chemotherapy is prescribed. Surgery is performed according to TME principles in both study arms. The hypothesis is that short-course radiotherapy with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy increases disease-free and overall survival without compromising local control. Primary end-point is disease-free survival at 3 years. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, local control, toxicity profile, and treatment completion rate, rate of pathological complete response and microscopically radical resection, and quality of life.

DISCUSSION

Following the advances in rectal cancer management, increased focus on survival rather than only on local control is now justified. In an experimental arm, short-course radiotherapy is combined with full-dose chemotherapy preoperatively, an alternative that offers advantages compared to concomitant chemoradiotherapy with or without postoperative chemotherapy. In a multi-centre setting this regimen is compared to current standard with the aim of improving survival for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01558921.