More Is Not Better When It Comes to Treating Rectal Cancer With Multimodal Chemoradiation Beyond the Standard Radiation Dose of 5040 cGy

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Aswin George Abraham ◽  
Kurian Joseph ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Jihyun Yun ◽  
Brad Warkentin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. H. Lee ◽  
K. C. Lee ◽  
J. H. Choi ◽  
J. H. Oh ◽  
J.-H. Baek ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15676-e15676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinghua Tang ◽  
Yuan-Hong Gao ◽  
Desen Wan ◽  
Zhi-zhong Pan ◽  
Pei-Rong Ding

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Huang ◽  
Jun Dang ◽  
Ying Li ◽  
Hai-xia Cui ◽  
Wen-li Lu ◽  
...  

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (30) ◽  
pp. 2411-2420
Author(s):  
Zhigang Yuan ◽  
Marissa Frazer ◽  
Kamran A Ahmed ◽  
Syeda Mahrukh Hussnain Naqvi ◽  
Michael J Schell ◽  
...  

Aim: Genomic-based risk stratification to personalize radiation dose in rectal cancer. Patients & methods: We modeled genomic-based radiation dose response using the previously validated radiosensitivity index (RSI) and the clinically actionable genomic-adjusted radiation dose. Results: RSI of rectal cancer ranged from 0.19 to 0.81 in a bimodal distribution. A pathologic complete response rate of 21% was achieved in tumors with an RSI <0.31 at a minimal genomic-adjusted radiation dose of 29.76 when modeling RxRSI to the commonly prescribed physical dose of 50 Gy. RxRSI-based dose escalation to 55 Gy in tumors with an RSI of 0.31–0.34 could increase pathologic complete response by 10%. Conclusion: This study provides a theoretical platform for development of an RxRSI-based prospective trial in rectal cancer.


2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. S159-S160
Author(s):  
Z.M. Yuan ◽  
K.A. Ahmed ◽  
S.M. Naqvi ◽  
M. Schell ◽  
S. Felder ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 127 ◽  
pp. S802
Author(s):  
A.M. Couwenberg ◽  
G. Van Veen ◽  
H.M. Verkooijen ◽  
W.M.U. Van Grevenstein ◽  
M.P.W. Intven

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document