Smith Jessica A, Wild Aaron T, Singhi Aatur, Raman Siva P, Qiu Haoming, Kumar Rachit, Hacker-Prietz Amy, Hruban Ralph H, Kamel Ihab R, Efron Jonathan, Wick Elizabeth C, Azad Nilofer S, Diaz Luis A, Le Yi, Armour Elwood P, Gearhart Susan L, Herman Joseph M
Department of Radiation Oncology & Molecular Radiation Sciences, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205-2196, USA.
Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:406568. doi: 10.1155/2012/406568. Epub 2012 Jul 8.
Purpose. To assess for differences in clinical, radiologic, and pathologic outcomes between patients with stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma treated neoadjuvantly with conventional external beam radiotherapy (3D conformal radiotherapy (3DRT) or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)) versus high-dose-rate endorectal brachytherapy (EBT). Methods. Patients undergoing neoadjuvant EBT received 4 consecutive daily 6.5 Gy fractions without chemotherapy, while those undergoing 3DRT or IMRT received 28 daily 1.8 Gy fractions with concurrent 5-fluorouracil. Data was collected prospectively for 7 EBT patients and retrospectively for 25 historical 3DRT/IMRT controls. Results. Time to surgery was less for EBT compared to 3DRT and IMRT (P < 0.001). There was a trend towards higher rate of pathologic CR for EBT (P = 0.06). Rates of margin and lymph node positivity at resection were similar for all groups. Acute toxicity was less for EBT compared to 3DRT and IMRT (P = 0.025). Overall and progression-free survival were noninferior for EBT. On MRI, EBT achieved similar complete response rate and reduction in tumor volume as 3DRT and IMRT. Histopathologic comparison showed that EBT resulted in more localized treatment effects and fewer serosal adhesions. Conclusions. EBT offers several practical benefits over conventional radiotherapy techniques and appears to be at least as effective against low rectal cancer as measured by short-term outcomes.
目的。评估接受新辅助治疗的II - III期直肠腺癌患者,采用传统外照射放疗(三维适形放疗(3DRT)或调强放疗(IMRT))与高剂量率直肠内近距离放疗(EBT)在临床、放射学和病理学结果上的差异。方法。接受新辅助EBT的患者连续4天每天接受6.5 Gy分次照射,不进行化疗,而接受3DRT或IMRT的患者每天接受28次1.8 Gy分次照射,并同时使用5 - 氟尿嘧啶。前瞻性收集了7例EBT患者的数据,回顾性收集了25例历史3DRT/IMRT对照患者的数据。结果。与3DRT和IMRT相比,EBT患者的手术时间更短(P < 0.001)。EBT的病理完全缓解率有升高趋势(P = 0.06)。所有组切除时的切缘阳性率和淋巴结阳性率相似。与3DRT和IMRT相比,EBT的急性毒性更小(P = 0.025)。EBT的总生存率和无进展生存率不劣于其他治疗。在MRI上,EBT达到的完全缓解率和肿瘤体积缩小程度与3DRT和IMRT相似。组织病理学比较显示,EBT导致的治疗效果更局限,浆膜粘连更少。结论。与传统放疗技术相比,EBT具有多种实际优势,并且从短期结果衡量,其对低位直肠癌的疗效似乎至少与传统放疗相当。