Implementation of volumetric modulated arc therapy for rectal cancer: Pitfalls and challenges

ESTRO/ACROP IORT recommendations for intraoperative radiation therapy in primary locally advanced rectal cancer

Carcinoma of the rectum is a heterogeneous disease. The clinical spectrum identifies a subset of patients with locally advanced tumours that are close to or involve adjoining structures, such as the sacrum, pelvic sidewalls, prostate or bladder. Within this group of patients categorized as "locally advanced", there is also variability in the extent of disease with no uniform definition of resectability. A practice-oriented definition of a locally advanced tumour is a tumour that cannot be resected without leaving microscopic or gross residual disease at the resection site. Since these patients do poorly with surgery alone, irradiation and chemotherapy have been added to improve the outcome. Intraoperative irradiation (IORT) is a component of local treatment intensification with favourable results in this subgroup of patients. International guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines) currently recommend the use of IORT for rectal cancer resectable with very close or positive margins, especially for T4 and recurrent cancers. We report the ESTRO-ACROP (European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology - Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice) recommendations for performing IORT in primary locally advanced rectal cancer.

A critical literature review on the use of bellyboard devices to control small bowel dose for pelvic radiotherapy

Delivering curative radiotherapy doses for rectal and gynaecological tumours has historically been complicated by the dose tolerance of the small bowel. Acute radiation-induced small bowel toxicity includes side effects such as abdominal pain, nausea and diarrhoea. With the advent of new treatment delivery modalities, such as IMRT (Intensity modulated radiotherapy) and VMAT (Volumetric modulated Arc radiotherapy), there has been an expectation that small bowel doses can be better controlled with the use of these technologies. These capabilities enable the creation of treatment plans that can better avoid critical radiosensitive organs. The purpose of this review is to look beyond advances in linear accelerator technology in seeking improvements to small bowel dose and toxicity. This review examines whether an alternative prone patient positioning approach using a bellyboard device in conjunction with IMRT and VMAT treatment delivery can reduce small bowel doses further than using these technologies with the patient in a traditional supine position.

mARC preoperative rectal cancer treatments vs. 3D conformal radiotherapy. A dose distribution comparative study

Purpose

mARC (modulated arc) is the arc therapy technique provided by Siemens. The present study analyses the dose distributions and treatment times corresponding to preoperative rectal cancer mARC treatments. The results are compared to those corresponding to 3D-CRT plans.

Methods

The plans of 30 patients, each having one mARC and one 3D-CRT plan, were evaluated. Every plan was calculated on a sequential two-phase treatment scheme with prescription doses of 45 Gy in the initial phase and 5.4 Gy in the boost phase. Dosimetric parameters and mean DVHs corresponding to the PTVs and OARs were assessed for both techniques.

Results

All mARC plans were considered valid for treatment and yielded a highly significant improvement in the CI over 3D-CRT plans (p <0.001). They also showed statistically significant advantage on the parameters D98%, D95% and D2% of the high dose PTV. Regarding the OARs, mARC plans showed reductions in the mean dose of 3.5 Gy in the bladder and greater than 4 Gy in the femoral heads. Considering the small bowel, the mARC plans resulted in a 2.7 Gy mean reduction in the mean dose and lower irradiated volumes over the entire dose range.

Conclusions

Arc therapy plans with the mARC technique for preoperative rectal cancer treatment in a sequential two-phase treatment scheme provide important advantages in the PTVs and OARs. mARC plans show superior protection of the femoral heads, bladder and small bowel, similar to the results found with other more widespread arc therapy techniques.

The effect of prone and supine treatment positions for the pre-operative treatment of rectal cancer on organ-at-risk sparing and setup reproducibility using volumetric modulated arc therapy

Background and purpose

To compare organ-at-risk doses and setup reproducibility using the prone and supine orientations in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for rectal cancer.

Materials and methods

Seventeen consecutive rectal cancer patients undergoing preoperative radiation were selected and setup in either the prone (N = 8) or supine (N = 9) position. All patients were treated using posteriorly-applied VMAT. Bladder and small bowel dose and cone beam CT (CBCT) reproducibility metrics were retrospectively collected.

Results

Dose metrics for bladder and small bowel did not show significant differences between the prone and supine orientations. The prone data had a trend for smaller irradiated volumes than supine for the small bowel at lower doses—V20 (prone: 135 ± 99 cm³; supine: 201 ± 162 cm³) and V30 (prone: 78 ± 71 cm³; supine: 105 ± 106 cm³). At higher doses, the trend reversed as exemplified by the small bowel V50.4 (prone: 20 ± 28 cm³; supine: 10 ± 14 cm³). CBCT data showed that rotational errors in pitch and roll were significantly larger for the prone vs. supine orientation (pitch: 2.0° ± 1.3° vs. 0.8° ± 1.1° p < 0.001; roll: 1.0° ± 0.9° vs. 0.3° ± 0.5°, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Bladder and small bowel doses were not significantly different when comparing VMAT plans developed for the prone and supine orientations. The supine orientation demonstrated improved setup reproducibility.

Moderate dose escalation with volumetric modulated arc therapy improves outcome in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced rectal cancer is frequently treated with a long course of preoperative chemoradiotherapy. We investigated the effect of moderate dose escalation with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) up to 50 Gy in 25 fractions compared to 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) to 45 Gy in 25 fractions in rectal cancer patients. Dose-volume parameters, acute toxicity, and complete response rates were compared.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For both groups, 65 patients were selected from our database through availability. Dose-volume parameters and acute toxicity data were compared using a Mann-Whitney U-test. Univariate and multivariate analyses correcting for tumor and nodal stage, distance to the mesorectal fascia and interval to surgery were used to compare complete response rates.

RESULTS

Lower mean doses to the small and large bowel were observed in the VMAT group compared to the 3D-CRT group (21 Gy vs. 29 Gy [p < .001] and 26 Gy vs. 30 Gy [p = .002], respectively). Similar beneficial dose-volume parameters were observed for the bladder, sacrum and femoral heads. Furthermore, patients receiving VMAT experienced significantly less diarrhea, flatulence, non-infective cystitis, urinary frequency, dermatitis, and fatigue. In univariate analysis, a significant increase in complete response rate after moderate dose escalation with VMAT was observed (34% vs. 15%, p = .015). However, this did not remain significant when corrected for tumor and nodal stage, distance to the mesorectal fascia, and interval to surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate dose escalation with VMAT resulted in superior dose-volume parameters compared to 3D-CRT, translating into lower acute toxicity. Additionally, improved tumor response after VMAT up to 50 Gy might contribute to a higher percentage of patients achieving a complete response.

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.