Dataset Information

Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer in the UK in 2020.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Preoperative (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 methods

A 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.

Results

In 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.

Conclusion

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Hanna CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7985673 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In this study, we present an intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique based on forward planning dose calculations to provide a concave dose distribution to the prostate and seminal vesicles by means of modified dynamic arc therapy (M-DAT). Dynamic arcs (350 degrees) conforming to the beam's eye view of the prostate and seminal vesicles while shielding the rectum, combined with two lateral oblique conformal fields (15 degrees with respect to laterals) fitting the prostate only,were applied to deliver doses of 78 Gy and 61.23 Gy in 39 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles respectively. Dynamic wedges (45 degrees of thick end, anteriorly oriented) were used with conformal beams to adjust the dose homogeneity to the prostate, although in some cases, hard wedges (30 degrees of thick part,inferiorly oriented) were used with arcs to adjust the dose coverage to the seminal vesicles. The M-DAT was applied to 10 patients in supine and 10 patients in prone positioning to determine the proper patient positioning for optimum protection of the rectum. The M-DAT was compared with the simplified intensity-modulated arc therapy (SIMAT) technique, composed of three phases of bilateral dynamic arcs. The mean rectal dose in M-DAT for prone patients was 22.5 +/- 5.1 Gy; in M-DAT and SIMAT for supine patients, it was 30.2 +/- 5.1 Gy and 39.4 +/- 6.0 Gy respectively. The doses to 15%, 25%, 35%, and 50% of the rectum volume in M-DAT for prone patients were 44.5 +/- 10.2 Gy, 33.0 +/- 8.2 Gy, 25.3 +/- 6.4 Gy, and 16.3 +/- 5.6 Gy respectively. These values were lower than those in M-DAT and in SIMAT for supine patients by 7.7%, 18.2%, 22.4%, and 28.5% and by 25.0%, 32.1%, 34.9%, and 41.9% of the prescribed dose (78 Gy) respectively. Ion chamber measurements showed good agreement of the calculated and measured isocentric dose (maximum deviation of 3.5%). Accuracy of the dose distribution calculation was evaluated by film dosimetry using a gamma index, allowing 3% dose variation and 4 mm distance to agreement as the individual acceptance criteria in prostate and seminal vesicle levels alike for all supine and prone patients. We found that fewer than 10% of the pixels in the dose distribution of the calculated area of10 x 10-cm failed the acceptance criteria. These pixels were observed mainly in the low-dose regions, particularly at the level of the seminal vesicles. In conclusion, the single-phase M-DAT technique with patients in the prone position was found to provide the intended coverage of the prescribed doses to the prostate and seminal vesicles with improved protection for the rectum. Accordingly, M-DAT has replaced non-modulated conformal radiotherapy or SIMAT as the standard treatment for prostate cancer in our department.

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:BackgroundWhile chemo-radiotherapy improves local control in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, it can also increase acute hematological toxicity (HT), which leads to poor outcomes. Patients receiving bone marrow radiation have been shown to develop acute HT. However, the safety and efficacy of bone marrow sparing is undetermined. The aim of our study was to explore the feasible dosimetric constraints for pelvic bone marrow (PBM) that can be widely used in rectal cancer patients undergoing chemo-radiotherapy.Methods112 rectal cancer patients were selected and divided into the PBM sparing IMRT group (60 cases) and the non-PBM sparing IMRT group (52 cases). All patients underwent pelvic radiotherapy with concurrent capecitabine-based chemotherapy. The PBM dosimetric constraints in the PBM sparing IMRT group were set to:V10 ≤ 85%, V20 ≤ 65% and V30 ≤ 45%. An independent sample t test was applied for the dose-volume parameters, and Chi-squared analysis was applied for clinical parameters and adverse events.ResultsThe radiation dose to PBM (V5~V45, Dmean, P<0.05), PBM sub-regions (V10~V35, Dmean, P<0.05) and both femoral heads (V5~V40, Dmean, P<0.05) decreased significantly in the PBM sparing IMRT group compared with that of the non-PBM sparing IMRT group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in any dose-volume parameters of the bladder and small bowel in either groups, and none in the planning target volume (PTV) dose homogeneity and conformity (P>0.05). For acute HT observation, the incidence of grade 3 acute HT (χ2 = 7.094, P=0.008) was significantly reduced in patients treated with PBM sparing IMRT compared with patients treated with non-PBM sparing IMRT. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, anorexia, nausea, hand-foot syndrome, cystitis, perianal pain and perianal dermatitis in patients of both groups (P >0.05).ConclusionsApplying PBM dosimetric constraints (V10 ≤ 85%, V20 ≤ 65% and V30 ≤ 45%) can significantly reduce the radiation dose to PBM. The patients treated with PBM sparing IMRT had a lower incidence of acute HT compared with those treated with non-PBM sparing IMRT. Applying the PBM dosimetric constraints proposed by our study can benefits the patients with rectal cancer undergoing capecitabine-based chemo-radiotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer survival remains poor. The introduction of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) allows treatment of more complex tumours as it improves conformity around the tumour and greater normal tissue sparing. However, there is limited evidence assessing the clinical impact of IMRT. In this study, we evaluated whether the introduction of IMRT had an influence on the proportion of patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy over time, and whether this had an effect on patient survival.Materials and methodsPatients treated with thoracic radiotherapy at our institute between 2005 and 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped into three time periods: A) 2005-2008 (pre-IMRT), B) 2009-2012 (selective use of IMRT), and C) 2013-2020 (full access to IMRT). Data on performance status (PS), stage, age, gross tumour volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV) and survival were collected. The proportion of patients treated with a curative dose between these periods was compared. Multivariable survival models were fitted to evaluate the hazard for patients treated in each time period, adjusting for PS, stage, age and tumour volume.Results12,499 patients were included in the analysis (n=2675 (A), n=3127 (B), and n=6697 (C)). The proportion of patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy increased between the 3 time periods, from 38.1% to 50.2% to 65.6% (p<0.001). When stage IV patients were excluded, this increased to 40.1% to 58.1% to 82.9% (p<0.001). This trend was seen across all PS and stages. The GTV size increased across the time periods and PTV size decreased. Patients treated with curative-intent during period C had a survival improvement compared to time period A when adjusting for clinical variables (HR=0.725 (0.632-0.831), p<0.001).ConclusionIMRT was associated with to more patients receiving curative-intent radiotherapy. In addition, it facilitated the treatment of larger tumours that historically would have been treated palliatively. Despite treating larger, more complex tumours with curative-intent, a survival benefit was seen for patients treated when full access to IMRT was available (2013-2020). This study highlights the impact of IMRT on thoracic oncology practice, accepting that improved survival may also be attributed to a number of other contributing factors, including improvements in staging, other technological radiotherapy advances and changes to systemic treatment.