Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T00:55:31.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bone marrow sparing RapidArc treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer – can it reduce haematological toxicity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2023

Sheena Joy ,
Judith Aaron Open the ORCID record for Judith Aaron [Opens in a new window] ,
Jenny Joseph ,
Biju P. Thomas ,
Johny K. Joseph  and
Jose Tom
Sheena Joy
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
Judith Aaron*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
Jenny Joseph
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
Biju P. Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
Johny K. Joseph
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
Jose Tom
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
*
Corresponding author: Judith Aaron; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Context:

Haematological toxicities are seen in rectal cancer patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with capecitabine.

Aims:

To compare dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters and acute haematological toxicities using RapidArc with or without bone marrow constraints for rectal cancer patients receiving pelvic chemoradiation as part of curative treatment.

Setting and designs:

This is a prospective randomised controlled study including patients with rectal cancer initiated on chemoradiation. Patients were stratified into two arms, bone marrow sparing (BMS) arm and non-bone marrow sparing arm (NBMS).

Materials and methods:

DVH parameters and weekly toxicity data were collected. Grade 2 or more anaemia, leucopenia, neutropenia, or thrombocytopenia, any blood transfusions, colony-stimulating factor injection, platelet transfusions were considered as an event in acute haematological toxicity (HT).

Statistical analysis:

Independent t-test was used to compare quantitative parameters, and Mann–Whitney U-test was used for ordinal parameters between groups.

Results:

A total of 43 patients were enrolled. Bone marrow constraints were achieved without compromising the target coverage. There was a significant reduction in the bone marrow dose with BMS technique (p < 0·05). A 16·7% reduction in the HT (33·3% versus 50%) and a 21·9% reduction in the grade 2 or more anaemia (19% versus 40·9%) were noted in the BMS arm when compared to NBMS arm, though not statistically significant. However, in the preoperative setting, a significant reduction in grade 2/more anaemia (7·1% versus 41·1%, p = 0·035) was noticed in the BMS arm.

Conclusions:

Pelvic BMS radiotherapy may benefit patients receiving chemoradiation for locally advanced carcinoma rectum as part of curative treatment.

Keywords

Haematological toxicityBone marrow sparingRapidArcRectal cancerConcurrent chemoradiotherapy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e104
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sauer, R, Becker, H, Hohenberger, W et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1731–1740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parekh, A, Truong, MT, Pashtan, I et al. Acute gastrointestinal toxicity and tumor response with preoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy for rectal cancer. Gastrointest Cancer Res 2013; 6 (5–6):137–143.Google ScholarPubMed
Samuelian, JM, Callister, MD, Ashman, JB, Young-Fadok, TM, Borad, MJ, Gunderson, LL. Reduced acute bowel toxicity in patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82 (5): 1981–1987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albuquerque, K, Giangreco, D, Morrison, C et al. Radiation-related predictors of hematologic toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for cervical cancer and implications for bone Marrow–Sparing Pelvic IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79 (4): 1043–1047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mell, LK, Schomas, DA, Salama, JK et al. Association between bone marrow dosimetric parameters and acute hematologic toxicity in anal cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70 (5): 1431–1437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, TJ, Oh, JH, Apte, A, Son, CH, Deasy, JO, Goodman, KA. Clinical and dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity in rectal cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2014; 113 (1): 29–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wan, J, Liu, K, Li, K, Li, G, Zhang, Z. Can dosimetric parameters predict acute hematologic toxicity in rectal cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy? Radiat Oncol 2015; 10: 162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jianyang, W, Yuan, T, Yuan, T et al. A prospective phase II study of magnetic resonance imaging guided hematopoietical bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy for rectal cancer. Radiol Med 2016; 121 (4): 308–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myerson, RJ, Garofalo, MC, Naga, IE et al. Elective clinical target volumes for conformal therapy in anorectal cancer: a radiation therapy oncology group consensus panel contouring atlas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74 (3): 824–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mok, H, Crane, CH, Palmer, MB et al. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): differences in target volumes and improvement in clinically relevant doses to small bowel in rectal carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 2011; 6 (1): 63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jabbour, SK, Patel, S, Herman, JM et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for rectal carcinoma can reduce treatment breaks and emergency department visits. Int J Surg Oncol 2012; 2012: 891067.Google ScholarPubMed
Klopp, AH, Yeung, AR, Deshmukh, S et al. Patient-reported toxicity during Pelvic intensity-modulated radiation therapy: NRG oncology-RTOG 1203. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (24): 2538–2544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klopp, AH, Moughan, J, Portelance, L et al. Hematologic toxicity in RTOG 0418: a phase 2 study of postoperative IMRT for gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 86 (1): 83–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lujan, AE, Mundt, AJ, Yamada, SD, Rotmensch, J, Roeske, JC. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy as a means of reducing dose to bone marrow in gynecologic patients receiving whole pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57 (2): 516–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahantshetty, U, Krishnatry, R, Chaudhari, S et al. Comparison of 2 contouring methods of bone marrow on CT and correlation with hematological toxicities in non-bone marrow-sparing pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin for cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012; 22 (8): 1427–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, BS, Liang, Y, Lau, SK et al. Correlation between radiation dose to 18F-FDG-PET defined active bone marrow subregions and acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83 (4): 1185–1191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGuire, SM, Bhatia, SK, Sun, W et al. Using [(18)F]Fluorothymidine imaged with positron emission tomography to quantify and reduce hematologic toxicity due to chemoradiation therapy for Pelvic cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96 (1): 228–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, T, Schernberg, A, Busato, F et al. Correlation between pelvic bone marrow radiation dose and acute hematological toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation. Cancer Manag Res 2019; 11: 6285–6297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, W, Dang, J, Jiang, Q et al. Effect of Pelvic bone marrow-sparing on acute hematologic Toxicity in rectal cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105 (1): E165–E166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, Y, Bydder, M, Yashar, CM et al. Prospective study of functional bone marrow-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for pelvic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 85 (2): 406–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Man, LS, Leung, CC. Dosimetric comparison of bone marrow sparing volumetric arc therapy versus three dimensional conformal radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Estro Session Item 2019; 8200: 1.Google Scholar
Kaminski, A, Joseph, D, Elsaleh, H. Differences in toxicity across gender in patients treated with chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Australas Radiol 2007; 51 (3): 283–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jalilian, M, Davis, S, Mohebbi, M et al. Pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer and impact on outcome. J Gastrointest Oncol 2016; 2016 (4): 603–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jodda, A, Urbański, B, Piotrowski, T, Malicki, J. Relations between doses cumulated in bone marrow and dose delivery techniques during radiation therapy of cervical and endometrial cancer. Phys Med 2017; 36: 54–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, J, Gu, F, Ji, T, Zhao, J, Li, G. Pelvic bone marrow sparing intensity modulated radiotherapy reduces the incidence of the hematologic toxicity of patients with cervical cancer receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15 (1): 180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arcadipane, F, Silvetti, P, Olivero, F et al. Bone marrow-sparing IMRT in anal cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemo-radiation: results of the first phase of a prospective phase II trial. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12 (11): 3306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rattan, R, Kapoor, R, Bahl, A, Gupta, R, Oinam, AS, Kaur, S. Comparison of bone marrow sparing intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in carcinoma of anal canal: a prospective study. Ann Transl Med 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4779784/ Google Scholar