Search

Radiotherapy is associated with short-term and long-term morbidity. This study compared toxicity rates among patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) treated with adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) on a small pelvic field (SmPF) in comparison with a standard pelvic field (StPF) or an extended field (EF).Patients with EC preoperatively diagnosed with high-grade histological disease (grade 3 endometrioid, papillary serous, clear cell, and mixed tumor type) or cervical involvement were treated with total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lymphadenectomy in the University Medical Center Groningen between 1999 and 2008. Patients who received adjuvant EBRT were included in this study. External beam radiation therapy on SmPF (includes only the central pelvis and proximal vagina) was applied in case of negative lymph nodes after adequate lymphadenectomy (≥10 lymph nodes removed at the bilateral obturator and external iliac nodal stations). In case of positive pelvic lymph nodes or inadequate lymphadenectomy, EBRT on StPF was given. External beam radiation therapy on EF was applied in case of common iliac and/or para-aortic lymph node metastases.Retrospectively, using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0, acute toxicity was scored during radiotherapy, whereas late toxicity was scored, from 3 months onward after treatment.Toxicity could be evaluated in 75 patients treated with SmPF (n = 33), StPF (n = 28), and EF EBRT (n = 14). Most patients with late adverse events had also reported toxicity during radiotherapy (71%). The most common late adverse events were gastrointestinal tract related, more frequently present in the StPF group (60.7%) compared to SmPF (33.3%; P = 0.032). In particular, nausea and anorexia were more frequent in the StPF group (32.1%) compared to the SmPF group (3.0%; P = 0.004), as well as ileus (14.3% vs 0%, P = 0.039, respectively).Treatment with adjuvant EBRT on SmPF results in less gastrointestinal late adverse events compared to treatment with EBRT on StPF in patients with surgically staged EC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the long-term health-related quality of life (HRQL) after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) among PORTEC-2 trial patients, evaluate long-term bowel and bladder symptoms, and assess the impact of cancer on these endometrial cancer (EC) survivors. Patients and Methods: In the PORTEC-2 trial, 427 patients with stage I high-intermediate-risk EC were randomly allocated to EBRT or VBT. The 7- and 10-year HRQL questionnaires consisted of EORTC QLQ-C30; subscales for bowel and bladder symptoms; the Impact of Cancer Questionnaire; and 14 questions on comorbidities, walking aids, and incontinence pads. Analysis was done using linear mixed models for subscales and (ordinal) logistic regression with random effects for single items. A two-sided P value <.01 was considered statistically significant. Results: Longitudinal HRQL analysis showed persisting higher rates of bowel symptoms with EBRT, without significant differences in global health or any of the functioning scales. At 7 years, clinically relevant fecal leakage was reported by 10.6% in the EBRT group, versus 1.8% for VBT (P=.03), diarrhea by 8.4% versus 0.9% (P=.04), limitations due to bowel symptoms by 10.5% versus 1.8% (P=.001), and bowel urgency by 23.3% versus 6.6% (P<.001). Urinary urgency was reported by 39.3% of EBRT patients, 25.5% for VBT, P=.05. No difference in sexual activity was seen between treatment arms. Long-term impact of cancer scores was higher among the patients who had an EC recurrence or second cancer. Conclusions: More than 7 years after treatment, EBRT patients reported more bowel symptoms with impact on daily activities, and a trend for more urinary symptoms, without impact on overall quality of life or difference in cancer survivorship issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The PORTEC-2 trial showed efficacy and reduced side-effects of vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) compared with external beam pelvic radiotherapy (EBRT) for patients with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer. The current analysis was done to evaluate long-term health related quality of life (HRQL), and compare HRQL of patients to an age-matched norm population. Methods: Patients were randomly allocated to EBRT (n =214) or VBT (n =213). HRQL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and subscales from PR25 and OV28 (bladder, bowel, sexual symptoms); and compared to norm data. Findings: Median follow-up was 65 months; 348 (81%) patients were evaluable for HRQL (EBRT n =166, VBT n =182). At baseline, patient functioning was at lowest level, increasing during and after radiotherapy to reach a plateau after 12 months, within range of scores of the norm population. VBT patients reported better social functioning (p =0.005) and lower symptom scores for diarrhoea, faecal leakage, need to stay close to a toilet and limitation in daily activities due to bowel symptoms (p ⩽0.001), compared to EBRT. There were no differences in sexual functioning or symptoms between the treatment groups; however, sexual functioning was lower and sexual symptoms more frequent in both treatment groups compared to the norm population. Interpretation: Patients who received EBRT reported clinically relevant higher levels of bowel symptoms and related limitations in daily activities with lower social functioning, 5 years after treatment. VBT provides a better HRQL, which remained similar to that of an age-matched norm population, except for sexual symptoms which were more frequent in both treatment groups. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To update the analysis of the Dutch dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: A total of 669 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive 68 or 78 Gy. The patients were stratified by age, institution, use of neoadjuvant or adjuvant hormonal therapy, and treatment group. The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF), with failure defined as clinical or biochemical failure. Two definitions of biochemical failure were used: the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition (three consecutive increases in prostate-specific antigen level) and the Phoenix definition (nadir plus 2 μg/L). The secondary endpoints were freedom from clinical failure, overall survival, and genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. Results: After a median follow-up of 70 months, the FFF using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition was significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 54% vs. 47%, respectively; p = 0.04). The FFF using the Phoenix definition was also significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 56% vs. 45%, respectively; p = 0.03). However, no differences in freedom from clinical failure or overall survival were observed. The incidence of late Grade 2 or greater genitourinary toxicity was similar in both arms (40% and 41% at 7 years; p = 0.6). However, the cumulative incidence of late Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxicity was increased in the 78-Gy arm compared with the 68-Gy arm (35% vs. 25% at 7 years; p = 0.04). Conclusion: The results of our study have shown a statistically significant improvement in FFF in prostate cancer patients treated with 78 Gy but with a greater rate of late gastrointestinal toxicity. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To identify dosimetric parameters derived from anorectal, rectal, and anal wall dose distributions that correlate with different late gastrointestinal (GI) complications after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: In this analysis, 641 patients from a randomized trial (68 Gy vs. 78 Gy) were included. Toxicity was scored with adapted Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) criteria and five specific complications. The variables derived from dose–volume histogram of anorectal, rectal, and anal wall were as follows: % receiving ≥5–70 Gy (V5–V70), maximum dose (Dmax), and mean dose (Dmean). The anus was defined as the most caudal 3 cm of the anorectum. Statistics were done with multivariate Cox regression models. Median follow-up was 44 months. Results: Anal dosimetric variables were associated with RTOG/EORTC Grade ≥2 (V5–V40, Dmean) and incontinence (V5–V70, Dmean). Bleeding correlated most strongly with anorectal V55–V65, and stool frequency with anorectal V40 and Dmean. Use of steroids was weakly related to anal variables. No volume effect was seen for RTOG/EORTC Grade ≥3 and pain/cramps/tenesmus. Conclusion: Different volume effects were found for various late GI complications. Therefore, to evaluate the risk of late GI toxicity, not only intermediate and high doses to the anorectal wall volume should be taken into account, but also the dose to the anal wall. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To identify dosimetric variables predictive of acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity and to determine whether hormonal therapy (HT) is independently associated with acute GI and GU toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with conformal radiotherapy (RT). Methods and Materials: This analysis was performed on 336 patients participating in a multicenter (four hospitals) randomized trial comparing 68 Gy and 78 Gy. The clinical target volume consisted of the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles, depending on the risk of seminal vesicle involvement. The margin from the clinical target volume to the planning target volume was 1 cm. For these patients, the treatment plan for a total dose of 68 Gy was used, because nearly all toxicity appeared before the onset of the 10-Gy boost. Acute toxicity (<120 days) was scored according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria. The dosimetric parameters were obtained from the relative and absolute dose–volume/surface histograms derived from the rectal wall (rectal wall volume receiving ≥5–65 Gy) and the bladder surface (bladder surface receiving ≥5–65 Gy). Additionally, relative and absolute dose–length histograms of the rectum were created, and the lengths of rectum receiving more than a certain dose over the whole circumference (rectal length receiving ≥5–65 Gy) were computed. The clinical variables taken into account for GI toxicity were neoadjuvant HT, hospital, and dose–volume group; for GU toxicity, the variables pretreatment GU symptoms, neoadjuvant HT, and transurethral resection of the prostate were analyzed. The variable neoadjuvant HT was divided into three categories: no HT, short-term neoadjuvant HT (started ≤3 months before RT), and long-term neoadjuvant HT (started >3 months before RT). Results: Acute GI toxicity Grade 2 or worse was seen in 46% of the patients. Patients with long-term neoadjuvant HT experienced less Grade 2 or worse toxicity (27%) compared with those receiving short-term neoadjuvant HT (50%) and no HT (50%). The volumes of the prostate and seminal vesicles were significantly smaller in both groups receiving neoadjuvant HT compared with those receiving no HT. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, including the two statistically significant clinical variables neoadjuvant HT and hospital, a volume effect was found for the relative, as well as absolute, rectal wall volumes exposed to intermediate and high doses. Of all the length parameters, the relative rectal length irradiated to doses of ≥5 Gy and ≥30 Gy and absolute lengths receiving ≥5–15 and 30 Gy were significant. Acute GU toxicity Grade 2 or worse was reported in 56% of cases. For patients with pretreatment GU symptoms, the rate was 93%. The use of short-term and long-term neoadjuvant HT resulted in more GU toxicity (73% and 71%) compared with no HT (50%). In multivariate analysis, containing the variables pretreatment symptoms and neoadjuvant HT, only the absolute dose–surface histogram parameters (absolute surface irradiated to ≥40, 45, and 65 Gy) were significantly associated with acute GU toxicity. Conclusion: A volume effect was found for acute GI toxicity for relative, as well as absolute, volumes. With regard to acute GU toxicity, an area effect was found, but only for absolute dose–surface histogram parameters. Neoadjuvant HT appeared to be an independent prognostic factor for acute toxicity, resulting in less acute GI toxicity, but more acute GU toxicity. The presence of pretreatment GU symptoms was the most important prognostic factor for GU symptoms during RT. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To compare acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects in prostate cancer patients randomized to receive 68 Gy or 78 Gy. Methods and materials: Between June 1997 and February 2003, 669 prostate cancer patients were randomized between radiotherapy with a dose of 68 Gy and 78 Gy, in 2 Gy per fraction and using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. All T stages with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <60 ng/mL were included, except any T1a and well-differentiated T1b-c tumors with PSA ≤4 ng/mL. Stratification was done for four dose–volume groups (according to the risk of seminal vesicles [SV] involvement), age, hormonal treatment (HT), and hospital. The clinical target volume (CTV) consisted of the prostate with or without the SV, depending on the estimated risk of SV invasion. The CTV–planning target volume (PTV) margin was 1 cm for the first 68 Gy and was reduced to 0.5 cm (0 cm toward the rectum) for the last 10 Gy in the 78 Gy arm. Four Dutch hospitals participated in this Phase III trial. Evaluation of acute and late toxicity was based on 658 and 643 patients, respectively. For acute toxicity (<120 days), the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scoring system was used and the maximum score was reported. Late toxicity (>120 days) was scored according to the slightly adapted RTOG/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. Results: The median follow-up time was 31 months. For acute toxicity no significant differences were seen between the two randomization arms. GI toxicity Grade 2 and 3 was reported as the maximum acute toxicity in 44% and 5% of the patients, respectively. For acute GU toxicity, these figures were 41% and 13%. No significant differences between both randomization arms were seen for late GI and GU toxicity, except for rectal bleeding requiring laser treatment or transfusion (p = 0.007) and nocturia (p = 0.05). The 3-year cumulative risk of late RTOG/EORTC GI toxicity grade ≥2 was 23.2% for 68 Gy, and 26.5% for 78 Gy (p = 0.3). The 3-year risks of late RTOG/EORTC GU toxicity grade ≥2 were 28.5% and 30.2% for 68 Gy and 78 Gy, respectively (p = 0.3). Factors related to acute GI toxicity were HT (p < 0.001), a higher dose–volume group (p = 0.01), and pretreatment GI symptoms (p = 0.04). For acute GU toxicity, prognostic factors were: pretreatment GU symptoms (p < 0.001), HT (p = 0.003), and prior transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (p = 0.02). A history of abdominal surgery (p < 0.001) and pretreatment GI symptoms (p = 0.001) were associated with a higher incidence of late GI grade ≥2 toxicity, whereas HT (p < 0.001), pretreatment GU symptoms (p < 0.001), and prior TURP (p = 0.006) were prognostic factors for late GU grade ≥2. Conclusions: Raising the dose to the prostate from 68 Gy to 78 Gy resulted in higher incidences of acute and late GI and GU toxicity, but these differences were not significant, except for late rectal bleeding requiring treatment and late nocturia. Other factors than the studied dose levels appeared to be important in predicting toxicity after radiotherapy, especially previous surgical interventions (abdominal surgery or TURP), hormonal therapy, and the presence of pretreatment symptoms. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]