1
|
Lee G, Nelson B, Koenig J, Plastaras JP, Metz JM, Yeap BY, Zhang Y, Drapek LC, Baglini C, Ryan DP, Parikh AR, Allen JN, Clark JW, Blaszkowsky LS, Ben-Josef E, Hong TS, Kharofa JR, Wo JY. Long-term Outcomes of Definitive Chemoradiation With Proton Therapy for Treatment of Carcinoma of the Anal Canal: Combined Analysis of Two Prospective Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2025; 122:52-62. [PMID: 39800328 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.12.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2024] [Revised: 11/22/2024] [Accepted: 12/25/2024] [Indexed: 01/18/2025]
Abstract
PURPOSE Although definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and mitomycin-C (MMC) (5-FU/MMC) remains the standard of care for localized anal cancer, treatment is associated with significant acute and late toxicity. Proton radiation therapy (RT) may potentially reduce such toxicity. Here, we assess the long-term outcomes of patients with anal cancer treated with CRT using proton RT in 2 prospective pilot studies. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with stage I to III anal cancer treated with proton RT (pencil beam scanning or intensity modulated proton therapy) per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0529 dose schema with concurrent 5-FU/MMC (2 cycles) in 2 prospective, single-arm trials were followed. Locoregional failure, distant metastases, colostomy-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival were assessed. Physician-graded late toxicity (>90 days from CRT) was assessed per National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. Late toxicities were compared with RTOG 0529 via Fisher exact test. Patient-reported outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS Between 2013 and 2020, 39 patients were treated; 37 (95%) patients completed treatment per protocol. The median follow-up was 63 months. The 5-year locoregional failure, distant metastases, colostomy-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival were 21%, 19%, 72%, 69%, and 75%, respectively. The worst late treatment toxicities were grade 1 in 38%, grade 2 in 24%, grade 3 in 19%, grade 4 in 3%, and no grade 5. Compared to RTOG 0529, rates of overall grade 2+ late toxicities were significantly lower (46% vs 75%, P = .01), attributed to lower dermatologic toxicities (0% vs 25%, P < .01), but there was no significant difference in overall grade 3+ toxicities (22% vs 20%, P = 1.00). No statistically significant correlations between organ-at-risk dosimetry and late toxicities were noted. Available patient-reported outcomes demonstrated that significant proportion of patients had persistent gastrointestinal symptoms at long term. CONCLUSIONS Definitive CRT with proton RT with concurrent 5-FU/MMC for the treatment of anal cancer resulted in comparable long-term disease control and grade 3+ late toxicities compared to RTOG 0529. Future studies should evaluate additional measures to minimize treatment toxicity and subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit from proton RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grace Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Bailey Nelson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Julie Koenig
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - John P Plastaras
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - James M Metz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Beow Y Yeap
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Yongbin Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Lorraine C Drapek
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Christian Baglini
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - David P Ryan
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Aparna R Parikh
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jill N Allen
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jeffrey W Clark
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Lawrence S Blaszkowsky
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Edgar Ben-Josef
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Theodore S Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jordan R Kharofa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
| | - Jennifer Y Wo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Isabelle Choi J, Wojcieszynski A, Amos RA, Giap H, Apisarnthanarax S, Ashman JB, Anand A, Perles LA, Williamson T, Ramkumar S, Molitoris J, Simone CB, Chuong MD. PTCOG Gastrointestinal Subcommittee Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Malignancies Consensus Statement. Int J Part Ther 2024; 11:100019. [PMID: 38757077 PMCID: PMC11095104 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpt.2024.100019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2023] [Accepted: 01/02/2024] [Indexed: 05/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose Radiotherapy delivery in the definitive management of lower gastrointestinal (LGI) tract malignancies is associated with substantial risk of acute and late gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary, dermatologic, and hematologic toxicities. Advanced radiation therapy techniques such as proton beam therapy (PBT) offer optimal dosimetric sparing of critical organs at risk, achieving a more favorable therapeutic ratio compared with photon therapy. Materials and Methods The international Particle Therapy Cooperative Group GI Subcommittee conducted a systematic literature review, from which consensus recommendations were developed on the application of PBT for LGI malignancies. Results Eleven recommendations on clinical indications for which PBT should be considered are presented with supporting literature, and each recommendation was assessed for level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Detailed technical guidelines pertaining to simulation, treatment planning and delivery, and image guidance are also provided. Conclusion PBT may be of significant value in select patients with LGI malignancies. Additional clinical data are needed to further elucidate the potential benefits of PBT for patients with anal cancer and rectal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- New York Proton Center, New York, New York, USA
| | | | - Richard A. Amos
- Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Huan Giap
- Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
| | - Smith Apisarnthanarax
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | | | - Aman Anand
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
| | - Luis A. Perles
- Department of Radiation Physics, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tyler Williamson
- Department of Radiation Physics, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Jason Molitoris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Charles B. Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- New York Proton Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Michael D. Chuong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Nelson B, Meier T, Zhang Y, Wang K, Mascia AE, Paquette I, Thompson E, Rafferty J, Snyder J, Olowokure O, Sohal D, Kharofa J. Feasibility Trial of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy to Reduce Toxicity in Anal Cancer Patients. Am J Clin Oncol 2023; 46:293-299. [PMID: 37088904 DOI: 10.1097/coc.0000000000001007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/25/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this trial was to assess the patient and physician-reported toxicity in anal cancer patients undergoing definitive chemoradiation with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS Patients with stage II and III anal cancer were treated with IMPT. All patients received 2 cycles of 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin concurrently with radiation. Toxicity was assessed at baseline, weekly during chemoradiation, and in follow-up using physician-graded common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) v 4.0 and PRO-CTCAE. The primary endpoint was to define point estimates and 95% CI for acute ≥ grade 2/3 gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), dermatologic, and hematologic toxicity. The proportion of PRO-CTCAE questions scored ≥3 for each domain was compared with the baselinse. The proportion of ≥ grade 2 and ≥ grade 3 toxicities were compared with historic intensity-modulated radiotherapy patients treated on RTOG 0529. RESULTS Fourteen patients were enrolled from 2017 to 2020. Rates of physician-reported GI, GU, dermatologic, and hematologic toxicity were not significantly different between patients treated with IMPT compared with patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Rates of patient-reported dermatologic and GU toxicity were low at baseline with a peak at week 6 (91% and 58% PRO-CTCAE items ≥ grade 3, respectively) and normalization to baseline 3 months after IMPT. In contrast, the proportion of high-grade PRO-CTCAE GI scores was 40% at baseline, which persisted through 1-year posttreatment. CONCLUSIONS Clinician-reported toxicity was not improved with IMPT in the context of this underpowered trial. High-grade GI symptoms persisted for 12 months and were similar to baseline. Additional measures are needed to minimize acute and chronic toxicity related to chemoradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Yin Zhang
- Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Davendra Sohal
- Department of Hematology Oncology, University of Cincinnati
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hunte SO, Clark CH, Zyuzikov N, Nisbet A. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT): a review of clinical outcomes—what is the clinical evidence for the most effective implementation? Br J Radiol 2022; 95:20201289. [PMID: 35616646 PMCID: PMC10162061 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20201289] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Modern conformal radiation therapy using techniques such as modulation, image guidance and motion management have changed the face of radiotherapy today offering superior conformity, efficiency, and reproducibility to clinics worldwide. This review assesses the impact of these advanced radiotherapy techniques on patient toxicity and survival rates reported from January 2017 to September 2020. The main aims are to establish if dosimetric and efficiency gains correlate with improved survival and reduced toxicities and to answer the question ‘What is the clinical evidence for the most effective implementation of VMAT?’. Compared with 3DCRT, improvements have been reported with VMAT in prostate, locally advanced cervical carcinoma and various head and neck applications, leading to the shift in technology to VMAT. Other sites such as thoracic neoplasms and nasopharyngeal carcinomas have observed some improvement with VMAT although not in line with improved dosimetric measures, and the burden of toxicity and the incidence of cancer related deaths remain high, signaling the need to further mitigate toxicity and increase survival. As technological advancement continues, large randomised long-term clinical trials are required to determine the way-forward and offer site-specific recommendations. These studies are usually expensive and time consuming, therefore utilising pooled real-world data in a prospective nature can be an alternative solution to comprehensively assess the efficacy of modern radiotherapy techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sherisse Ornella Hunte
- Radiotherapy Department, Cancer Centre of Trinidad and Tobago, St James, Trinidad and Tobago
- University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago
| | - Catharine H Clark
- Radiotherapy Physics, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Metrology for Medical Physics National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK
- Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Andrew Nisbet
- Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kobeissi JM, Simone CB, Hilal L, Wu AJ, Lin H, Crane CH, Hajj C. Proton Therapy in the Management of Luminal Gastrointestinal Cancers: Esophagus, Stomach, and Anorectum. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:2877. [PMID: 35740544 PMCID: PMC9221464 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14122877] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2022] [Revised: 05/28/2022] [Accepted: 06/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jana M. Kobeissi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1007, Lebanon; (J.M.K.); (L.H.)
| | - Charles B. Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (C.B.S.II); (H.L.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10027, USA; (A.J.W.); (C.H.C.)
| | - Lara Hilal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1007, Lebanon; (J.M.K.); (L.H.)
| | - Abraham J. Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10027, USA; (A.J.W.); (C.H.C.)
| | - Haibo Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (C.B.S.II); (H.L.)
| | - Christopher H. Crane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10027, USA; (A.J.W.); (C.H.C.)
| | - Carla Hajj
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10027, USA; (A.J.W.); (C.H.C.)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Eng C, Ciombor KK, Cho M, Dorth JA, Rajdev LN, Horowitz DP, Gollub MJ, Jácome AA, Lockney NA, Muldoon RL, Washington MK, O'Brian BA, Benny A, Lebeck Lee CM, Benson AB, Goodman KA, Morris VK. Anal Cancer: Emerging Standards in a Rare Rare Disease. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:2774-2788. [PMID: 35649196 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.02566] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
The social stigma surrounding an anal cancer diagnosis has traditionally prevented open discussions about this disease. However, as recent treatment options and an increasing rate of diagnoses are made worldwide, awareness is growing. In the United States alone, 9,090 individuals were expected to be diagnosed with anal cancer in 2021. The US annual incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus continues to increase by 2.7% yearly, whereas the mortality rate increases by 3.1%. The main risk factor for anal cancer is a human papillomavirus infection; those with chronic immunosuppression are also at risk. Patients with HIV are 19 times more likely to develop anal cancer compared with the general population. In this review, we have provided an overview of the carcinoma of the anal canal, the role of screening, advancements in radiation therapy, and current trials investigating acute and chronic treatment-related toxicities. This article is a comprehensive approach to presenting the existing data in an effort to encourage continuous international interest in anal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cathy Eng
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center/Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Kristen K Ciombor
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center/Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - May Cho
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California- Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA
| | - Jennifer A Dorth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH
| | - Lakshmi N Rajdev
- Division for Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Northwell Health/Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY
| | - David P Horowitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Marc J Gollub
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Alexandre A Jácome
- OncoBio Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Nova Lima, Brazil
| | - Natalie A Lockney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Roberta L Muldoon
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Mary Kay Washington
- Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Brittany A O'Brian
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center/Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Amala Benny
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center/Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Cody M Lebeck Lee
- VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Department of Internal Medicine, Nashville, TN
| | - Al B Benson
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine and Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL
| | - Karyn A Goodman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
| | - Van Karlyle Morris
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Martinez-Cannon BA, Perez ACT, Hincapie-Echeverri J, Roy M, Marinho J, Buerba GA, Akagunduz B, Li D, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E. Anal cancer in older adults: A Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology review paper. J Geriatr Oncol 2022; 13:914-923. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2022.04.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2022] [Revised: 04/06/2022] [Accepted: 04/06/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
|
8
|
Vítek P, Kubeš J, Vondráček V, Andrlik M, Navrátíl M, Zapletal R, Haas A, Dědečková K, Ondrová B, Grebenyuk A, Rosina J. Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) Chemoradiotherapy for Anal Canal Cancer-Single Institution Experience. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 14:cancers14010185. [PMID: 35008349 PMCID: PMC8750423 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010185] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2021] [Revised: 12/17/2021] [Accepted: 12/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Eligible patients received PBS IMPT at a single institution. Treatment was administered in two volumes: 1—tumour with margins plus involved lymph nodes; 2—regional lymph node groups: perirectal (mesorectal), obturatory, inguinal, internal, external, and common iliac. The total doses of 57.5 GyE and 45 GyE, respectively, were administered in volumes 1 and 2 in 25 fractions, 5 fractions per week, respectively (a simultaneous integrated boost). Concomitant chemotherapy cisplatinum (CDDP) plus 5-FU or CDDP plus capecitabine was administered as per protocol. This single-institution study showed the high efficacy of PBS IMPT, achieving a high rate of complete regression. The 2-year overall survival, relapse-free survival and colostomy-free survival were 94.2, 93.8 and 91.0%, respectively. The haematological acute toxicity of grade 3–4 remained low. The acute toxicity completely resolved in all patients and had no lethal outcomes. Abstract Background: A favourable dose distribution has been described for proton beam therapy (PBT) of anal cancer in dosimetric studies. The relationship between dosimetric parameters in bone marrow and haematologic toxicity, treatment interruptions, and treatment efficacy has also been documented. There are only few references on clinical results of PBT for anal cancer. The primary objective of the retrospective study was to assess the efficacy of pencil beam scanning intensity-modulated proton therapy (PBS IMPT) in the definitive chemoradiotherapy of anal cancer. Secondary objectives were established to identify the risks of acute chronic toxicity risks and to assess colostomy rates. Materials and methods: Patients were treated for biopsy-proven squamous cell cancer (SCC) of the anus at initial or advanced stages. Eligible patients received PBS IMPT at a single institution. Treatment was administered in two volumes: 1—tumour with margins plus involved lymph nodes; 2—regional lymph node groups: perirectal (mesorectal), obturatory, inguinal, internal, external, and common iliac. The total doses of 57.5 GyE and 45 GyE, respectively, were administered in volumes 1 and 2 in 25 fractions, 5 fractions per week, respectively (a simultaneous integrated boost). Concomitant chemotherapy cisplatinum (CDDP) plus 5-FU or CDDP plus capecitabine was administered as per protocol. The treatment effect was assessed using DRE (digital rectal examination) and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) within the follow-up period. Toxicity was scaled using CTCAE version 4.0 criteria. Results: 39 of 41 patients treated during the period of February 2014–August 2021 were eligible for analysis. All patients completed treatment, 76.9% without interruption. The median treatment time was 35 days (32–35). The median follow-up period was 30 months, 34 patients are alive to-date, 5 patients died prior to the date of analysis, and 2 deaths were unrelated to the primary disease. The 2-year overall survival, relapse-free survival, and colostomy-free survival were 94.2%, 93.8%, and 91.0%, respectively. Complete regression was achieved in 36 patients (92.3%), partial regression was achieved in 2 (5.1%), and immediate progression at end of treatment occurred in 1 patient (2.6%). Salvage resection was indicated for two patients in partial regression and due to severe chronic dermatologic toxicity. The grade 3 and 4 haematological toxicity rates were 7.7% and 5.1%, respectively. The most frequent non-haematological acute toxicities of grade 3–4 observed were dermatitis (23.1%), diarrhoea (7.7%), and dehydration (7.7%). Chronic toxicity emerged predominantly as skin atrophy/ulceration grade 2 (26.5%) and grade 3–4 (5.8%), and radiation proctitis grade 2 (38.2%) and grade 3 (2.9%). Discussion, conclusions: This single-institution study showed the high efficacy of PBS IMPT, achieving a high rate of complete regression. The haematological acute toxicity of grade 3–4 remained low; however, the impact of altered chemotherapy (CDDP instead of mitomycin C) remains unclear. The incidence of other acute toxicities shares similarity with photon therapy investigated in large studies. The acute toxicity completely resolved in all patients, had no lethal outcomes, and never resulted in the necessity for colostomy. By contrast, it was chronic toxicity, skin ulceration, perirectal fistulation, and fibrosis that resulted in salvage surgery and/or the need for a colostomy. A challenging question remains: to what extent can PBT prevent chronic toxicity? Longer follow-up remains necessary.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pavel Vítek
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, 180 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (P.V.); (J.K.); (V.V.); (M.N.); (R.Z.); (A.H.); (K.D.); (B.O.)
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague and Motol University Hospital, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Jiří Kubeš
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, 180 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (P.V.); (J.K.); (V.V.); (M.N.); (R.Z.); (A.H.); (K.D.); (B.O.)
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague and Motol University Hospital, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic
- Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University Prague, Sítná Square 3105, 272 01 Kladno, Czech Republic;
| | - Vladimír Vondráček
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, 180 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (P.V.); (J.K.); (V.V.); (M.N.); (R.Z.); (A.H.); (K.D.); (B.O.)
- Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University Prague, Sítná Square 3105, 272 01 Kladno, Czech Republic;
| | - Michal Andrlik
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, 180 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (P.V.); (J.K.); (V.V.); (M.N.); (R.Z.); (A.H.); (K.D.); (B.O.)
- Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University Prague, Sítná Square 3105, 272 01 Kladno, Czech Republic;
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +42-060-783-6338
| | - Matěj Navrátíl
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, 180 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (P.V.); (J.K.); (V.V.); (M.N.); (R.Z.); (A.H.); (K.D.); (B.O.)
- Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University Prague, Sítná Square 3105, 272 01 Kladno, Czech Republic;
| | - Radek Zapletal
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, 180 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (P.V.); (J.K.); (V.V.); (M.N.); (R.Z.); (A.H.); (K.D.); (B.O.)
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague and Motol University Hospital, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Alexandra Haas
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, 180 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (P.V.); (J.K.); (V.V.); (M.N.); (R.Z.); (A.H.); (K.D.); (B.O.)
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague and Motol University Hospital, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Kateřina Dědečková
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, 180 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (P.V.); (J.K.); (V.V.); (M.N.); (R.Z.); (A.H.); (K.D.); (B.O.)
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague and Motol University Hospital, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Barbora Ondrová
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, 180 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (P.V.); (J.K.); (V.V.); (M.N.); (R.Z.); (A.H.); (K.D.); (B.O.)
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague and Motol University Hospital, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Alexander Grebenyuk
- Department of Health Protection and Disaster Medicine, Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Lva Tolstogo 6-8, 197020 Saint Petersburg, Russia;
| | - Jozef Rosina
- Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University Prague, Sítná Square 3105, 272 01 Kladno, Czech Republic;
- Department of Medical Biophysics and Informatics, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruská 87, 116 36 Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Multi-institutional Comparison of Intensity Modulated Photon Versus Proton Radiation Therapy in the Management of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Anus. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6:100744. [PMID: 34646965 PMCID: PMC8498697 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2021] [Revised: 05/05/2021] [Accepted: 06/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Concurrent chemoradiation therapy is a curative treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, but patients can suffer from significant treatment-related toxicities. This study was undertaken to determine whether intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is associated with less acute toxicity than intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using photons. Materials and Methods We performed a multi-institutional retrospective study comparing toxicity and oncologic outcomes of IMRT versus IMPT. Patients with stage I-IV (for positive infrarenal para-aortic or common iliac nodes only) squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer's AJCC Staging Manual, eighth edition, were included. Patients with nonsquamous histology or mixed IMPT and IMRT treatment courses were excluded. Acute nonhematologic toxicities, per the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4, were recorded prospectively at all sites. Acute and late toxicities, dose metrics, and oncologic outcomes were compared between IMRT and IMPT using univariable and multivariable statistical methods. To improve the robustness of our analysis, we also analyzed the data using propensity score weighting methods. Results A total of 208 patients were treated with either IMPT (58 patients) or IMRT (150 patients). Of the 208 total patients, 13% had stage I disease, 36% stage II, 50% stage III, and 1% stage IV. IMPT reduced the volume of normal tissue receiving low-dose radiation but not high-dose radiation to bladder and bowel. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in overall grade 3 or greater acute toxicity (IMRT, 68%; IMPT, 67%; P = .96) or 2-year overall grade 3 or greater late toxicity (IMRT, 3.5%; IMPT, 1.8%; P = .88). There was no significant difference in 2-year progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.0). Conclusions Despite reducing the volume of normal tissue receiving low-dose radiation, IMPT was not associated with decreased grade 3 or greater acute toxicity as measured by CTCAE. Additional follow-up is needed to assess whether important differences arise in late toxicities and if further prospective evaluation is warranted.
Collapse
|
10
|
Fok M, Toh S, Easow J, Fowler H, Clifford R, Parsons J, Vimalachandran D. Proton beam therapy in rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 2021; 38:101638. [PMID: 34340196 DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101638] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Revised: 07/09/2021] [Accepted: 07/24/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Locally advanced rectal cancer is often treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Radiotherapy carries significant risk of toxicity to organs at risk (OAR). Proton beam therapy (PBT) has demonstrated to be effective in other cancers, delivering equivalent dosimetric radiation but with the benefit of improved sparing of OAR. This review compares dosimetric irradiation of OAR and oncological outcomes for PBT versus conventional photon-based radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS An electronic literature search was performed for studies with comparative cohorts receiving proton beam therapy and photon-based radiotherapy for rectal cancer. RESULTS Eight articles with a total of 127 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was significantly less irradiated small bowel with PBT compared to three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (MD -17.01, CI [-24.06, -9.96], p < 0.00001 and MD -6.96, CI [-12.99, -0.94], p = 0.02, respectively). Similar dosimetric results were observed for bladder and pelvic bone marrow. Three studies reported clinical and oncological results for PBT in recurrent rectal cancer with overall survival reported as 43 %, 68 % and 77.2 %, and one study in primary rectal cancer with 100 % disease free survival. CONCLUSION PBT treatment plans revealed significantly less irradiation of OAR for rectal cancer compared to conventional photon-based radiotherapy. Trials for recurrent rectal cancer and PBT have shown promising results. There are currently no ongoing clinical trials for primary rectal cancer and PBT. More research is required to validate its potential role in dose escalation, higher complete response rate and organ preservation without increasing toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Fok
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, UK; Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, 200 London Road, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK
| | - Steven Toh
- School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK
| | - Jeremy Easow
- School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK
| | - Hayley Fowler
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, UK; Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, 200 London Road, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK
| | - Rachael Clifford
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, UK; Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, 200 London Road, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK
| | - Jason Parsons
- Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, 200 London Road, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK; Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Clatterbridge Road, Bebington, CH63 4JY, UK
| | - Dale Vimalachandran
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, UK; Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, 200 London Road, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Dee EC, Byrne JD, Wo JY. Evolution of the Role of Radiotherapy for Anal Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:1208. [PMID: 33801992 PMCID: PMC8001637 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13061208] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2020] [Revised: 03/05/2021] [Accepted: 03/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Prior to the 1980s, the primary management of localized anal cancer was surgical resection. Dr. Norman Nigro and colleagues introduced neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy prior to abdominoperineal resection. Chemoradiotherapy 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin C afforded patients complete pathologic response and obviated the need for upfront surgery. More recent studies have attempted to alter or exclude chemotherapy used in the Nigro regimen to mitigate toxicity, often with worse outcomes. Reductions in acute adverse effects have been associated with marked advancements in radiotherapy delivery using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and image-guidance radiation delivery, resulting in increased tolerance to greater radiation doses. Ongoing trials are attempting to improve IMRT-based treatment of locally advanced disease with efforts to increase personalized treatment. Studies are also examining the role of newer treatment modalities such as proton therapy in treating anal cancer. Here we review the evolution of radiotherapy for anal cancer and describe recent advances. We also elaborate on radiotherapy's role in locally persistent or recurrent anal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - James D. Byrne
- Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA;
| | - Jennifer Y. Wo
- Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck St., Boston, MA 02115, USA;
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 100 Blossom St., Boston, MA 02114, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jennifer Y Wo
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Agarwal MS, Hitchcock KE, Morris CG, George TJ, Mendenhall WM, Zlotecki RA. Outcomes after intensity-modulated compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 26:e515-e521. [PMID: 31548820 DOI: 10.3747/co.26.4311] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Purpose We report our institution's treatment techniques, disease outcomes, and complication rates after radiotherapy for the management of anal canal carcinoma with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (imrt) and concurrent chemotherapy relative to prior cases managed with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-crt). Methods In a retrospective review of the medical records of 21 patients diagnosed with biopsy-proven stage i (23%), stage ii (27%), or stage iii (50%) squamous-cell carcinoma of the anal canal treated with curative chemotherapy and imrt between July 2009 and December 2014, patient outcomes were determined. Results for patients treated with 3D-crt by the same group were previously reported. The median initial radiation dose to the pelvic and inguinal nodes at risk was 45 Gy (range: 36-50.4 Gy), and the median total dose, including local anal canal primary tumour boost, was 59.4 Gy (range: 41.4-61.2 Gy). Patients received those doses over a median of 32 fractions (range: 23-34 fractions). Chemotherapy consisted of 2 cycles of concurrent fluorouracil-cisplatin (45%) or fluorouracil-mitomycin C (55%). Results Median follow-up was 3.1 years (range: 0.38-6.4 years). The mean includes a patient who died of septic shock at 38 days. The 3-year rates of overall survival, metastasis-free survival, locoregional control, and colostomy-free survival were 95%, 100%, 100%, and 100% respectively. No patients underwent abdominoperitoneal resection after chemoradiotherapy or required diverting colostomy during or after treatment. Those outcomes compare favourably with the previously published series that used 3D-crt with or without brachytherapy in treating anal canal cancers. Of the 21 patients in the present series, 10 (48%) experienced acute grade 3, 4, or 5 toxicities related to treatment. Conclusions The recommended use of imrt with concurrent chemotherapy as an improvement over 3D-crt for management of anal canal carcinoma achieves a high probability of local control and colostomy-free survival without excessive risk for acute or late treatment-related toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M S Agarwal
- Department of Radiat ion Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A
| | - K E Hitchcock
- Department of Radiat ion Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A
| | - C G Morris
- Department of Radiat ion Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A
| | - T J George
- Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A
| | - W M Mendenhall
- Department of Radiat ion Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A
| | - R A Zlotecki
- Department of Radiat ion Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Wo JY, Plastaras JP, Metz JM, Jiang W, Yeap BY, Drapek LC, Adams J, Baglini C, Ryan DP, Murphy JE, Parikh AR, Allen JN, Clark JW, Blaszkowsky LS, DeLaney TF, Ben-Josef E, Hong TS. Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Beam Chemoradiation Therapy With 5-Fluorouracil and Mitomycin-C for Definitive Treatment of Carcinoma of the Anal Canal: A Multi-institutional Pilot Feasibility Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105:90-95. [PMID: 31128146 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.04.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2018] [Revised: 04/19/2019] [Accepted: 04/26/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Definitive chemoradiation with concurrent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/mitomycin C (MMC) is an effective treatment for localized anal cancer, but it is associated with significant acute long-term treatment-related toxicity. Pencil beam scanning proton beam (PBS-PT) radiation therapy may potentially reduce this toxicity. This is a multi-institutional pilot study evaluating the feasibility of definitive concurrent chemoradiation with PBS-PT in combination with 5-FU and MMC for carcinoma of the anal canal. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients were enrolled on a National Cancer Institute-sponsored, prospective, multi-institutional, single-arm pilot study (NCT01858025). Key eligibility criteria included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0 to 2, age ≥18 years, histologically confirmed invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal, and clinically staged T1-4, N0-3 disease. Patients were treated with PBS-PT per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0529 dose schema and concurrent 5-FU/MMC on day 1 and 29. The primary objective of this study was to determine feasibility of PBS-PT with concurrent 5-FU/MMC, defined as grade 3+ dermatologic toxicity less than 48% (reported grade 3+ dermatologic toxicity from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 98-11). Secondary objectives were to determine the rates of overall grade 3+ toxicities, clinical complete response rate, and disease outcomes. RESULTS Between February 2014 and April 2017, we enrolled 25 patients into our study, all of whom were analyzed. Twenty-three patients (92%) completed treatment per protocol, and 2 patients died on treatment. Median time to completion of treatment was 42 days (range, 38-49). The grade 3+ radiation dermatitis rate was 24%. Median follow-up is 27 months (range, 21-50) among the 21 patients still alive. The overall rate of clinical complete response was 88%. The 2-year local failure, colostomy-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival are 12%, 72%, 80%, and 84%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In our prospective, multi-institutional pilot study of PBS-PT with concurrent 5-FU/MMC, PBS-PT was found to be feasible. A phase 2 study of proton beam radiation therapy is currently underway.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Y Wo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
| | - John P Plastaras
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - James M Metz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Wenqing Jiang
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Beow Y Yeap
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Lorraine C Drapek
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Judith Adams
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Christian Baglini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - David P Ryan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Janet E Murphy
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Aparna R Parikh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jill N Allen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jeffrey W Clark
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Lawrence S Blaszkowsky
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Thomas F DeLaney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Edgar Ben-Josef
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Theodore S Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Gleeson I, Rose C, Spurrell J. Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and VMAT for anal cancer: A single institutional experience. Med Dosim 2019; 44:e32-e38. [PMID: 30639142 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2018.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2018] [Revised: 12/14/2018] [Accepted: 12/18/2018] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
To compare the dosimetric results of helical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) in the treatment of anal cancer. Plans were created for 20 (n = 20) patients treated for anal cancer using HT and 2 arc VMAT. Dosimetric comparison was assessed for doses to targets and organs at risk (small bowel, bladder, external genitalia, and femoral heads). Delivery time and dosimetric verification results were also compared. HT showed a higher V95% for both primary and nodal targets (V95% increase by 0.5% to 1.3%; p = ≤0.05). No differences were seen in V105%, V107%, or V110 % between techniques. HT provided better sparing of the small bowel for dose levels V30, V35, and V40 (p = 0.005, 0.001, and 0.030), but was similar at higher doses. Similarly HT provided better bladder dose at V35 only (p = 0.020). Doses to femoral heads and genitalia were similar. Delivery time was higher for the HT plans (4.58 ± 1.1 min) than VMAT (3.13 ± 0.2 minutes) (p = 0.011). Dose verification results were 99.5 ± 0.9% and 100 ± 0% (HT, n = 6) vs 95.0 ± 3.1% and 99.2 ± 0.8% (VMAT, n = 20) for global gamma criteria 3%/3 mm and 4%/4 mm, respectively. Both HT and VMAT produced high quality plans that frequently met most of the dose objectives apart from genitalia V20, V40, bladder V35, and V50. Although absolute dose differences were small, the PTV V95%, small bowel V30, V35, and V40 and bladder V35 were statistically better in the HT plans. VMAT provided a shorter delivery time by 1.45 minutes; however, our HT plans were more likely to pass tighter plan dose verification criteria than VMAT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian Gleeson
- Department of Medical Physics, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, CB20QQ, UK.
| | - Christopher Rose
- Department of Medical Physics, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, CB20QQ, UK.
| | - Joshua Spurrell
- Department of Medical Physics, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, CB20QQ, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Willmann J, Rimner A. The expanding role of radiation therapy for thymic malignancies. J Thorac Dis 2018; 10:S2555-S2564. [PMID: 30206499 PMCID: PMC6123186 DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2017] [Accepted: 01/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
The role of radiation therapy (RT) in thymic malignancies has long been subject to considerable controversy. The main role for RT is in the setting of adjuvant therapy after surgical tumor resection, especially in advanced or incompletely resected cases. However, recent studies with larger patient numbers and cleaner study populations than previous studies have indicated a potentially clearer than previously assumed benefit after post-operative RT (PORT) even for completely resected patients with earlier stages of thymoma. In marginally resectable patients RT may be used in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy to shrink tumors and thereby potentially enable resection. In unresectable patients concurrent or sequential chemotherapy and RT can be employed as the definitive nonsurgical approach. The tendency of thymic tumors to recur in the pleural space highlights the necessity for more effective approaches to identify and treat high risk patients. Experiences in other pleural malignancies may pave the way to novel treatment modalities, for example pleural IMRT. The role of these techniques in thymic malignancies has yet to be determined and is not advisable at the current time outside of a clinical study. As the disease often takes an indolent course with excellent long-term local control (LC) and survival, late toxicities related to radiation of the mediastinum and adjacent organs at risk (OARs) have to be taken into consideration and may jeopardize the benefit patients experience from RT, especially in younger patients with a long-anticipated life expectancy. Radiation techniques, such as intensity modulated RT (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT), have substantially reduced the exposure of OARs to ionizing radiation which is expected to translate into reduced long-term toxicities. Hence, the risk-benefit ratio of RT in early stage thymoma patients may be shifted favorably.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonas Willmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andreas Rimner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Kronborg C, Serup-Hansen E, Lefevre A, Wilken EE, Petersen JB, Hansen J, Schouboe A, Nyvang L, Spindler KLG. Prospective evaluation of acute toxicity and patient reported outcomes in anal cancer and plan optimization. Radiother Oncol 2018; 128:375-379. [PMID: 29929860 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.06.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2018] [Revised: 05/16/2018] [Accepted: 06/04/2018] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard therapy for localized anal cancer (AC), but this treatment is associated with substantial toxicity. However, there is a lack of prospectively collected toxicity and patient reported outcome (PRO) data from larger cohorts. The purpose was to prospectively collect and determine agreement between physician assessed toxicity (CTCAE) and PRO during and after CRT and to compare IMRT, VMAT and proton-based planning in a subgroup of patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients, treated with CRT for AC, were included between 2015 and 2017. NCI-CTCAE v.4.0, EORTC QLQ-C30 and CR29 data were collected baseline, mid-therapy, end-of therapy and 2-4 weeks posttherapy. Treatment planning with 5- or 6-fixed field IMRT, 2 and 3 arc VMAT, and 3- and 4-field proton plans were compared. RESULTS One-hundred patients were included. Both CTCAE and PROs related to acute toxicity reached a maximum at end of therapy. Incidences of PROs were markedly higher with only slight to fair agreement to CTCAE, (κ 13-37). Comparative planning revealed dosimetric equality of IMRT and VMAT plans, but superiority of proton plans. CONCLUSIONS The high incidence of PRO scores and weak agreement to CTCAE suggest that PROs are important tools complementary to CTCAE in evaluating patient symptoms during and after CRT. Proton therapy has the potential to lower radiation doses to most organs at risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Anna Lefevre
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Eva E Wilken
- Department of Medical Physics, Herlev Hospital, Denmark
| | | | - Jolanta Hansen
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | | | - Lars Nyvang
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Karen-Lise G Spindler
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Ludmir EB, Kachnic LA, Czito BG. Evolution and Management of Treatment-Related Toxicity in Anal Cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2018; 26:91-113. [PMID: 27889040 DOI: 10.1016/j.soc.2016.07.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Over the past several decades, clinical trials have demonstrated improved disease-related outcomes in the definitive treatment of anal cancer. Although treatment with radiation and concurrent chemotherapy results in high rates of cure, significant acute and late toxicities are seen. This review focuses on the evolution of treatment-related toxicity for anal cancer. Management of these adverse effects is reviewed, as are future directions in anal cancer treatment and their impact on toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St, Unit 1422, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Lisa A Kachnic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2220 Pierce Avenue, Suite B1034, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
| | - Brian G Czito
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3085, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Nielsen S, Bassler N, Grzanka L, Swakon J, Olko P, Andreassen CN, Overgaard J, Alsner J, Sørensen BS. Differential gene expression in primary fibroblasts induced by proton and cobalt-60 beam irradiation. Acta Oncol 2017; 56:1406-1412. [PMID: 28885067 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2017.1351623] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Proton beam therapy delivers a more conformal dose distribution than conventional radiotherapy, thus improving normal tissue sparring. Increasing linear energy transfer (LET) along the proton track increases the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) near the distal edge of the Spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP). The severity of normal tissue side effects following photon beam radiotherapy vary considerably between patients. AIM The dual study aim was to identify gene expression patterns specific to radiation type and proton beam position, and to assess whether individual radiation sensitivity influences gene expression levels in fibroblast cultures irradiated in vitro. METHODS The study includes 30 primary fibroblast cell cultures from patients previously classified as either radiosensitive or radioresistant. Cells were irradiated at three different positions in the proton beam profile: entrance, mid-SOBP and at the SOBP distal edge. Dose was delivered in three fractions × 3.5 Gy(RBE) (RBE 1.1). Cobalt-60 (Co-60) irradiation was used as reference. Real-time qPCR was performed to determine gene expression levels for 17 genes associated with inflammation response, fibrosis and angiogenesis. RESULTS Differences in median gene expression levels were observed for multiple genes such as IL6, IL8 and CXCL12. Median IL6 expression was 30%, 24% and 47% lower in entrance, mid-SOBP and SOBP distal edge groups than in Co-60 irradiated cells. No genes were found to be oppositely regulated by different radiation qualities. Radiosensitive patient samples had the strongest regulation of gene expression; irrespective of radiation type. CONCLUSIONS Our findings indicate that the increased LET at the SOBP distal edge position did not generally lead to increased transcriptive response in primary fibroblast cultures. Inflammatory factors were generally less extensively upregulated by proton irradiation compared with Co-60 photon irradiation. These effects may possibly influence the development of normal tissue damage in patients treated with proton beam therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steffen Nielsen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Niels Bassler
- Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Leszek Grzanka
- Proton Radiotherapy Group, Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - Jan Swakon
- Proton Radiotherapy Group, Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - Pawel Olko
- Proton Radiotherapy Group, Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | | | - Jens Overgaard
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Jan Alsner
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Brita Singers Sørensen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Rose B, Mitra D, Hong TS, Jee KW, Niemierko A, Drapek LN, Blaszkowsky LS, Allen JN, Murphy JE, Clark JW, Ryan DP, Wo JY. Irradiation of anatomically defined pelvic subsites and acute hematologic toxicity in anal cancer patients undergoing chemoradiation. Pract Radiat Oncol 2017; 7:e291-e297. [PMID: 28462895 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2017.03.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2016] [Revised: 02/03/2017] [Accepted: 03/03/2017] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Chemoradiation for the treatment of anal cancer is known to cause significant hematologic toxicity (HT). We sought to investigate if radiation dose to specific pelvic subsites is associated with increased HT risk. METHODS AND MATERIALS Forty-five patients with nonmetastatic anal cancer who received definitive chemoradiation with intensity modulated radiation therapy and concurrent mitomycin-C and 5-fluorouracil were studied. Total pelvic bone marrow (TBM) was divided into 3 subsites: lumbosacral bone marrow (LSBM), including the entire sacrum and L5 vertebral body; iliac bone marrow (IBM) extending from the iliac crests to the superior border of the femoral head; and lower pelvic bone marrow, including the pubic bones, ischia, acetabula, and proximal femurs. The primary endpoint was absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir during or within 2 weeks of treatment completion. Generalized linear modeling was used to analyze the correlation between the equivalent uniform dose (with an "a" value of 0.5) to the individual pelvic subsites and the various hematologic endpoints. Age, body mass index, sex, baseline blood counts, and immunosuppression were analyzed as potential covariates. RESULTS Mean ± standard deviation ANC nadir was 0.77 × 109/L (±0.66 × 109/L). Grades 3+ and 4+ neutropenia occurred in 71.1% and 44.4% of patients, respectively. In addition to radiation dose to pelvic bone marrow, baseline ANC was the only significant predictor of hematologic toxicity on multivariable analysis and was included in all models. The equivalent uniform doses of TBM, LSBM, and IBM were each significantly associated with neutropenia. The model performance of TBM (adjusted R2 = 0.226) was similar to both LSBM (adjusted R2 = 0.206) and IBM (adjusted R2 = 0.249). CONCLUSIONS Radiation doses to TBM, LSBM, and IBM were individually associated with HT, suggesting that sparing just a portion of pelvic bone marrow is insufficient to decrease rates of clinically significant bone marrow suppression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brent Rose
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California
| | - Devarati Mitra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Theodore S Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kyung-Wook Jee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Andrzej Niemierko
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Lorraine N Drapek
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - Jill N Allen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Janet E Murphy
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jeffrey W Clark
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - David P Ryan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jennifer Y Wo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Dale JE, Sebjørnsen S, Leh S, Rösler C, Aaserud S, Møller B, Fluge Ø, Erichsen C, Nadipour S, Kørner H, Pfeffer F, Dahl O. Multimodal therapy is feasible in elderly anal cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2017; 56:81-87. [PMID: 27808666 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2016.1244356] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many patients are diagnosed with an anal cancer in high ages. We here present the outcome after oncological therapy for patients above 80 years compared with younger patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS A series of 213 consecutive patients was diagnosed and treated at a single institution from 1984 to 2009. The patients received similar radiation doses but with different techniques, thus progressively sparing more normal tissues. The majority of patients also had simultaneous [5-fluorouracil (5FU) and mitomycin C] or induction chemotherapy (cisplatin and 5FU). The patients were stratified by age above or below 80 years. Despite that the goal was to offer standard chemoradiation treatment to all, the octo- and nonagenarians could not always be given chemotherapy. RESULTS In our series 35 of 213 anal cancer patients were above 80 years. After initial therapy similar complete response was observed, 80% above and 87% below 80 years. Local recurrence rate was also similar in both groups, 21% versus 26% (p = .187). Cancer-specific survival and relative survival were significantly lower in patients above 80 years, 60% and 50% versus 83% and 80%, (p = .015 and p = .027), respectively. CONCLUSION Patients older than 80 years develop anal cancer, but more often marginal tumors. Even in the oldest age group half of the patients can tolerate standard treatment by a combination of radiation and chemotherapy, and obtain a relative survival of 50% after five years. Fragile patients not considered candidates for chemoradiation may be offered radiation or resection to control local disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jon Espen Dale
- Department of Oncology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Sigrun Sebjørnsen
- Department of Oncology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Sabine Leh
- Gades Institute, Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Cornelia Rösler
- Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Stein Aaserud
- Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population Based Cancer Research, Oslo, Norway
| | - Bjørn Møller
- Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population Based Cancer Research, Oslo, Norway
| | - Øystein Fluge
- Department of Oncology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Christian Erichsen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Saied Nadipour
- Department of Surgery, Haugesund Hospital, Haugesund, Norway
| | - Hartwig Kørner
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Odontology, University of Bergen, Norway
| | - Frank Pfeffer
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Odontology, University of Bergen, Norway
| | - Olav Dahl
- Department of Oncology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Science, Faculty of Medicine and Odontology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Verma V, Lin SH, Simone CB, Mehta MP. Clinical outcomes and toxicities of proton radiotherapy for gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Oncol 2016; 7:644-64. [PMID: 27563457 DOI: 10.21037/jgo.2016.05.06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) is frequently shown to be dosimetrically superior to photon radiotherapy (RT), though supporting data for clinical benefit are severely limited. Because of the potential for toxicity reduction in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, we systematically reviewed the literature on clinical outcomes (survival/toxicity) of PBT. METHODS A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, abstracts from meetings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group, and American Society of Clinical Oncology was conducted for publications from 2000-2015. Thirty-eight original investigations were analyzed. RESULTS Although results of PBT are not directly comparable to historical data, outcomes roughly mirror previous data, generally with reduced toxicities for PBT in some neoplasms. For esophageal cancer, PBT is associated with reduced toxicities, postoperative complications, and hospital stay as compared to photon radiation, while achieving comparable local control (LC) and overall survival (OS). In pancreatic cancer, numerical survival for resected/unresected cases is also similar to existing photon data, whereas grade ≥3 nausea/emesis and post-operative complications are numerically lower than those reported with photon RT. The strongest data in support of PBT for HCC comes from phase II trials demonstrating very low toxicities, and a phase III trial of PBT versus transarterial chemoembolization demonstrating trends towards improved LC and progression-free survival (PFS) with PBT, along with fewer post-treatment hospitalizations. Survival and toxicity data for cholangiocarcinoma, liver metastases, and retroperitoneal sarcoma are also roughly equivalent to historical photon controls. There are two small reports for gastric cancer and three for anorectal cancer; these are not addressed further. CONCLUSIONS Limited quality (and quantity) of data hamper direct comparisons and conclusions. However, the available data, despite the inherent caveats and limitations, suggest that PBT offers the potential to achieve significant reduction in treatment-related toxicities without compromising survival or LC for multiple GI malignancies. Several randomized comparative trials are underway that will provide more definitive answers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek Verma
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA ; 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA ; 4 Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Coral Gables, FL, USA
| | - Steven H Lin
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA ; 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA ; 4 Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Coral Gables, FL, USA
| | - Charles B Simone
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA ; 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA ; 4 Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Coral Gables, FL, USA
| | - Minesh P Mehta
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA ; 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA ; 4 Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Coral Gables, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Blanco Kiely JP, White BM. RETRACTED: Robust Proton Pencil Beam Scanning Treatment Planning for Rectal Cancer Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95:208-215. [PMID: 27084642 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2015] [Revised: 01/29/2016] [Accepted: 02/09/2016] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). This article has been retracted for failure to comply with the University of Pennsylvania's standards for publishing team-based research following a formal investigation by that institution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Benjamin M White
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Vogel J, Berman AT, Lin L, Pechet TT, Levin WP, Gabriel P, Khella SL, Singhal S, Kucharczuk JK, Simone CB. Prospective study of proton beam radiation therapy for adjuvant and definitive treatment of thymoma and thymic carcinoma: Early response and toxicity assessment. Radiother Oncol 2016; 118:504-9. [PMID: 26895711 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2015] [Revised: 02/02/2016] [Accepted: 02/04/2016] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Radiation is an important modality in treatment of thymic tumors. However, toxicity may reduce its overall benefit. We hypothesized that double-scattering proton beam therapy (DS-PT) can achieve excellent local control with limited toxicity in patients with thymic malignancies. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with thymoma or thymic carcinoma treated with DS-PT between 2011 and 2015 were prospectively analyzed for toxicity and patterns of failure on an IRB-approved study. RESULTS Twenty-seven consecutive patients were evaluated. Patients were a median of 56 years and had thymoma (85%). They were treated with definitive (22%), salvage (15%) or adjuvant (63%) DS-PT to a median of 61.2/1.8 Gy [CGE]. No patient experienced grade ⩾3 toxicity. Acute grade 2 toxicities included dermatitis (37%), fatigue (11%), esophagitis (7%), and pneumonitis (4%). Late grade 2 toxicity was limited to a single patient with chronic dyspnea. At a median follow-up of 2 years, 100% local control was achieved. Three-year regional control, distant control, and overall survival rates were 96% (95% CI 76-99%), 74% (95% CI 41-90%), and 94% (95% CI 63-99%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS This is the first cohort and prospective series of proton therapy to treat thymic tumors, demonstrating low rates of early toxicity and excellent initial outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Vogel
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, United States.
| | - Abigail T Berman
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, United States
| | - Liyong Lin
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, United States
| | - Taine T Pechet
- Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Philadelphia, United States
| | - William P Levin
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, United States
| | - Peter Gabriel
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, United States
| | - Sami L Khella
- Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Philadelphia, United States
| | - Sunil Singhal
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Philadelphia, United States
| | - John K Kucharczuk
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Philadelphia, United States
| | - Charles B Simone
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, United States
| |
Collapse
|