Dataset Information

Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without intensity-modulated radiotherapy for patients with rectal cancer.

ABSTRACT: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision and adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard regimen for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, whether and to which extent neoadjuvant radiotherapy could be removed from nCRT for patients with LARC is still unclear. This was a multicenter, retrospectively recruited, prospectively maintained cohort study. A propensity score matching model was employed to minimize potential confounding factors between subgroup patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or nCRT. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were assessed between subgroup patients by Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank test, and Cox regression model. In total, 3233 consecutive patients, consist of 571 nCT and 2662 nCRT-treated cases, were included. After propensity score matching (1:4), 565 nCT-treated patients were matched to 1852 nCRT-treated patients. Compared with nCT, nCRT treatment indeed decreased 3-y local recurrence (10.0% vs 6.6%, P = .026), but had no impact on OS, DFS and DMFS (all P > .05) for LARC. Stratified analysis further confirmed that nCRT treatment was associated with higher 3-y LRFS and 3-y DFS than nCT treatment for baseline high-risk subgroup (cT4, cN+, and cIII stage) patients (all P < .05). Conversely, for the baseline low-risk subgroup patients (cT3, cN0, and cII stage), nCRT and nCT treatment had similar 3-y OS, LRFS, DFS, and DMFS (all P > .05). The administration of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for LARC patients might be determined by baseline risk classification, the high-risk individuals could be delivered while low-risk patients might be omitted.

SUBMITTER: He F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7648035 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without intensity-modulated radiotherapy for patients with rectal cancer.

He Fang F Yu Li L Ding Yi Y Li Zhen-Hui ZH Wang Jian J Zheng Jian J Chen Hai-Yang HY Liu Shuai S Pang Xiao-Lin XL Ajani Jaffer A JA Wan Xiang-Bo XB

Cancer science 20200915 11

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision and adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard regimen for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, whether and to which extent neoadjuvant radiotherapy could be removed from nCRT for patients with LARC is still unclear. This was a multicenter, retrospectively recruited, prospectively maintained cohort study. A propensity score matching model was employed to minimize potential confounding factors between s ...[more]

PMID: 32860448

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to ascertain if the incorporation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with chemotherapy (CTx) offered any advantages for patients diagnosed with stage pT3N0 rectal cancer located in the proximal (upper) region following a complete total mesorectum excision (TME).MethodsWe retrospectively examined medical records of stage II/III rectal cancer patients who had undergone CTx or concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) with IMRT after a successful TME. We juxtaposed a variety of survival outcomes across two patient cohorts. Each outcome was further classified according to Gunderson's risk stratification between proximal and distal (middle and low) rectal cancer patients, and we evaluated the factors associated with each outcome.ResultsThe median follow-up duration was 4.9 years. Our research comprised 236 rectal adenocarcinoma patients treated at our institution between 2007 and 2019. They received either the CTx (n = 135) or the CCRT (n = 101) with 10-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) of 90.1% and 96.1%, respectively (p = 0.163). However, after performing multivariate adjustments, a pattern emerged hinting at a better LRRFS for the CCRT group (p = 0.052). Perforation had a strong correlation with locoregional recurrence. No significant differences were observed in other survival between the two treatment arms and their respective subgroups. The CCRT group witnessed significantly higher immediate and chronic complications with p = 0.007 and 0.009, respectively. The CCRT group had two secondary cancer-related fatalities (2%, one attributed to IMRT), and another reported by the CTx group (1%). The sole classified locoregional recurrence within the cohort of 37 individuals treated with CTx for proximal pT3N0 rectal cancer was, in fact, the development of sigmoid colon cancer.ConclusionThe results suggest that for patients with proximal pT3N0 rectal cancer post-TME, IMRT is better when not combined with CTx, except in highly perilous scenarios or those involving perforation.

Project description:AimsPreoperative (chemo)radiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision is the current standard of care for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for rectal cancer is increasing in the UK. However, the extent of IMRT implementation and current practice was not previously known. A national survey was commissioned to investigate the landscape of IMRT use for rectal cancer and to inform the development of national rectal cancer IMRT guidance.Materials and methodsA web-based survey was developed by the National Rectal Cancer IMRT Guidance working group in collaboration with the Royal College of Radiologists and disseminated to all UK radiotherapy centres. The survey enquired about the implementation of IMRT with a focus on the following aspects of the workflow: dose fractionation schedules and use of a boost; pre-treatment preparation and simulation; target volume/organ at risk definition; treatment planning and treatment verification. A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out.ResultsIn total, 44 of 63 centres (70%) responded to the survey; 30/44 (68%) and 36/44 (82%) centres currently use IMRT to treat all patients and selected patients with rectal cancer, respectively. There was general agreement concerning several aspects of the IMRT workflow, including patient positioning, use of intravenous contrast and bladder protocols. Greater variation in practice was identified regarding rectal protocols; use of a boost to primary/nodal disease; target volume delineation; organ at risk delineation and dose constraints and treatment verification. Delineation of individual small bowel loops and daily volumetric treatment verification were considered potentially feasible by most centres.ConclusionThis survey identified that IMRT is already used to treat rectal cancer in many UK radiotherapy centres, but there is heterogeneity between centres in its implementation and practice. These results have been a valuable aid in framing the recommendations within the new National Rectal Cancer IMRT Guidance.

Project description:BackgroundThe literature regarding pericardial effusion after definitive concurrent chemotherapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for esophageal cancer was lacking. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors of pericardial effusion in esophageal cancer patients undergoing definitive concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT.MethodsA total of 126 consecutive esophageal cancer patients treated with definitive concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT between 2008 and 2018 were reviewed. The pericardial effusion was determined on computed tomography scan of the chest and graded by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. The cumulative incidence of pericardial effusion was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups by the log-rank test. The risk factors of pericardial effusion were determined with multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.ResultsThe median follow-up time was 14.0 months. Thirty-seven (29.4%) patients had pericardial effusion after a median interval of 6.6 months since the end of IMRT. The cumulative incidence of pericardial effusion of any grade was higher in patients with mean heart dose > 23.45 Gy (p = 0.00018), heart V30 > 33.55% (p = 0.00015), mean pericardium dose > 20.33 Gy (p = 0.00027), and pericardium V20 > 42.55% (p = 0.00018). Furthermore, eight (6.3%) patients had symptoms related to pericardial effusion and were considered as cases with pericardial effusion ≥ grade 3. The cumulative incidence of pericardial effusion ≥ grade 3 was higher in patients with pericardium V30 > 65.80% (p = 0.00028), V40 > 55.35% (p < 0.0001), and V60 > 24.70% (p = 0.0021). Multivariate analyses showed the above dose-volume parameters predicted the risk of pericardial effusion in esophageal cancer.ConclusionsDose-volume parameters predicting the risk of pericardial effusion were identified in esophageal cancer treated with definitive concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT. They could be applied as constraints of IMRT for esophageal cancer.

Dataset Information

Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without intensity-modulated radiotherapy for patients with rectal cancer.

Publications

Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without intensity-modulated radiotherapy for patients with rectal cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets