Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Clinical outcome after treatment with a brachytherapy boost versus external beam boost for anal carcinoma


Oehler-Jänne, C; Seifert, Burkhardt; Lütolf, U M; Studer, G; Glanzmann, C; Ciernik, I F (2007). Clinical outcome after treatment with a brachytherapy boost versus external beam boost for anal carcinoma. Brachytherapy, 6(3):218-226.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcome after definitive whole pelvis external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) followed by brachytherapy (BT) boost after treatment break vs. external beam boost without break in the treatment of anal carcinoma.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty-one consecutive patients with invasive anal carcinoma were analyzed retrospectively. Patients treated with an interstitial (192)Ir high-dose-rate (HDR) implant boost of 14Gy/7 fractions/3d given 3 weeks after completion of whole pelvis 45Gy EBRT were compared with those treated with external beam boost of 14.4Gy, started immediately after completion of whole pelvis 45Gy EBRT. Concomitant chemotherapy (CT) with mitomycin C was applied during whole pelvis EBRT depending on tumor stage. Pattern of care, local disease control (LC), cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL) were assessed.

RESULTS: Radiotherapy with or without concomitant CT achieved clinical complete response in 93.4% of patients. In early stage tumors, (192)Ir-HDR BT boost with CT resulted in a 5-year LC and CSS of 100%. In all patients, BT boost did not result in improved LC, OS, and CSS compared with EBRT boost, despite stage and treatment bias favoring small tumors to be treated with BT. The 5-year and 10-year OS were 66% and 44% (BT boost) and 66% and 52% (EBRT boost), respectively. Subgroup analysis of Stages I and II disease revealed no significant improvement after BT boost compared with EBRT boost. Acute skin toxicity was less common in the BT boost group (whole cohort: p=0.14; Stages I-IIIa: p=0.05), but long-term morbidity and QOL were similar. No local necrosis was seen after BT boost and the 10-year sphincter preservation rate was 87% in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Interstitial (192)Ir-HDR implant boost with break and EBRT boost without break yield similar results. Acute skin toxicity is reduced with BT boost but long-term morbidity and QOL are identical. BT boost is most beneficial in early stage tumors but the advantage of BT seems to be limited due to its invasiveness, doctor dependence, and logistic circumstances.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcome after definitive whole pelvis external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) followed by brachytherapy (BT) boost after treatment break vs. external beam boost without break in the treatment of anal carcinoma.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty-one consecutive patients with invasive anal carcinoma were analyzed retrospectively. Patients treated with an interstitial (192)Ir high-dose-rate (HDR) implant boost of 14Gy/7 fractions/3d given 3 weeks after completion of whole pelvis 45Gy EBRT were compared with those treated with external beam boost of 14.4Gy, started immediately after completion of whole pelvis 45Gy EBRT. Concomitant chemotherapy (CT) with mitomycin C was applied during whole pelvis EBRT depending on tumor stage. Pattern of care, local disease control (LC), cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL) were assessed.

RESULTS: Radiotherapy with or without concomitant CT achieved clinical complete response in 93.4% of patients. In early stage tumors, (192)Ir-HDR BT boost with CT resulted in a 5-year LC and CSS of 100%. In all patients, BT boost did not result in improved LC, OS, and CSS compared with EBRT boost, despite stage and treatment bias favoring small tumors to be treated with BT. The 5-year and 10-year OS were 66% and 44% (BT boost) and 66% and 52% (EBRT boost), respectively. Subgroup analysis of Stages I and II disease revealed no significant improvement after BT boost compared with EBRT boost. Acute skin toxicity was less common in the BT boost group (whole cohort: p=0.14; Stages I-IIIa: p=0.05), but long-term morbidity and QOL were similar. No local necrosis was seen after BT boost and the 10-year sphincter preservation rate was 87% in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Interstitial (192)Ir-HDR implant boost with break and EBRT boost without break yield similar results. Acute skin toxicity is reduced with BT boost but long-term morbidity and QOL are identical. BT boost is most beneficial in early stage tumors but the advantage of BT seems to be limited due to its invasiveness, doctor dependence, and logistic circumstances.

Statistics

Citations

25 citations in Web of Science®
22 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

2 downloads since deposited on 10 Apr 2009
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI)
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2007
Deposited On:10 Apr 2009 13:31
Last Modified:06 Dec 2017 19:24
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:1538-4721
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2007.02.152
PubMed ID:17681244

Download