Prospective evaluation of acute toxicity and patient reported outcomes in anal cancer and plan optimization

被引:19
作者
Kronborg, Camilla [1 ]
Serup-Hansen, Eva [2 ]
Lefevre, Anna [1 ]
Wilken, Eva E. [3 ]
Petersen, Jorgen B. [4 ]
Hansen, Jolanta [4 ]
Schouboe, Annette [5 ]
Nyvang, Lars [4 ]
Spindler, Karen-Lise G. [1 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Aarhus Univ Hosp, Dept Oncol, Aarhus, Denmark
[2] Herlev Hosp, Dept Oncol, Herlev, Denmark
[3] Herlev Hosp, Dept Med Phys, Herlev, Denmark
[4] Aarhus Univ Hosp, Dept Med Phys, Aarhus, Denmark
[5] Danish Ctr Particle Therapy, Aarhus N, Denmark
[6] Aarhus Univ Hosp, Dept Expt Clin Oncol, Aarhus, Denmark
关键词
Anal cancer; PROM; Adverse effects; VMAT; Radiotherapy; Protons; MODULATED RADIATION-THERAPY; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; ARC THERAPY; CONCURRENT CHEMORADIATION; CANAL CARCINOMA; RTOG; 0529; RADIOTHERAPY; IMRT; RADIOCHEMOTHERAPY; PREDICTORS;
D O I
10.1016/j.radonc.2018.06.006
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background and purpose: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard therapy for localized anal cancer (AC), but this treatment is associated with substantial toxicity. However, there is a lack of prospectively collected toxicity and patient reported outcome (PRO) data from larger cohorts. The purpose was to prospectively collect and determine agreement between physician assessed toxicity (CTCAE) and PRO during and after CRT and to compare IMRT, VMAT and proton-based planning in a subgroup of patients. Material and methods: Patients, treated with CRT for AC, were included between 2015 and 2017. NCI-CTCAE v.4.0, EORTC QLQ-C30 and CR29 data were collected baseline, mid-therapy, end-of therapy and 2-4 weeks posttherapy. Treatment planning with 5- or 6-fixed field IMRT, 2 and 3 arc VMAT, and 3- and 4-field proton plans were compared. Results: One-hundred patients were included. Both CTCAE and PROs related to acute toxicity reached a maximum at end of therapy. Incidences of PROs were markedly higher with only slight to fair agreement to CTCAE, (kappa 13-37). Comparative planning revealed dosimetric equality of IMRT and VMAT plans, but superiority of proton plans. Conclusions: The high incidence of PRO scores and weak agreement to CTCAE suggest that PROs are important tools complementary to CTCAE in evaluating patient symptoms during and after CRT. Proton therapy has the potential to lower radiation doses to most organs at risk. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:375 / 379
页数:5
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] Scanning proton beam therapy reduces normal tissue exposure in pelvic radiotherapy for anal cancer
    Anand, Aman
    Bues, Martin
    Rule, William G.
    Keole, Sameer R.
    Beltran, Chris J.
    Yin, Jun
    Haddock, Michael G.
    Hallemeier, Christopher L.
    Miller, Robert C.
    Ashman, Jonathan B.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2015, 117 (03) : 505 - 508
  • [2] The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO): a systematic review
    Atkinson, Thomas M.
    Ryan, Sean J.
    Bennett, Antonia V.
    Stover, Angela M.
    Saracino, Rebecca M.
    Rogak, Lauren J.
    Jewell, Sarah T.
    Matsoukas, Konstantina
    Li, Yuelin
    Basch, Ethan
    [J]. SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, 2016, 24 (08) : 3669 - 3676
  • [3] Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the combined modality treatment of anal cancer patients
    Franco, Pierfrancesco
    Arcadipane, Francesca
    Ragona, Riccardo
    Mistrangelo, Massimiliano
    Cassoni, Paola
    Munoz, Fernando
    Rondi, Nadia
    Morino, Mario
    Racca, Patrizia
    Ricardi, Umberto
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 89 (1060)
  • [4] Survivorship after lower gastrointestinal cancer: Patient-reported outcomes and planning for care
    Frick, Melissa A.
    Vachani, Carolyn C.
    Hampshire, Margaret K.
    Bach, Christina
    Arnold-Korzeniowski, Karen
    Metz, James M.
    Hill-Kayser, Christine E.
    [J]. CANCER, 2017, 123 (10) : 1860 - 1868
  • [5] Gilbert Alexandra, 2015, Lancet, V385 Suppl 1, pS38, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60353-1
  • [6] Squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus: progress in radiotherapy treatment
    Glynne-Jones, Rob
    Tan, David
    Hughes, Robert
    Hoskin, Peter
    [J]. NATURE REVIEWS CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 13 (07) : 447 - 459
  • [7] Clinical endpoints in trials of chemoradiation for patients with anal cancer
    Glynne-Jones, Robert
    Adams, Richard
    Lopes, Andre
    Meadows, Helen
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2017, 18 (04) : E218 - E227
  • [8] The prognostic significance of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials
    Gotay, Carolyn C.
    Kawamoto, Crissy T.
    Bottomley, Andrew
    Efficace, Fabio
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2008, 26 (08) : 1355 - 1363
  • [9] Prospective Evaluation of Acute Toxicity and Quality of Life After IMRT and Concurrent Chemotherapy for Anal Canal and Perianal Cancer
    Han, Kathy
    Cummings, Bernard J.
    Lindsay, Patricia
    Skliarenko, Julia
    Craig, Tim
    Le, Lisa W.
    Brierley, James
    Wong, Rebecca
    Dinniwell, Robert
    Bayley, Andrew J.
    Dawson, Laura A.
    Ringash, Jolie
    Krzyzanowska, Monika K.
    Moore, Malcolm J.
    Chen, Eric X.
    Easson, Alexandra M.
    Kassam, Zahra
    Cho, Charles
    Kim, John
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2014, 90 (03): : 587 - 594
  • [10] Patient reported quality of life after helical IMRT based concurrent chemoradiation of locally advanced anal cancer
    Joseph, Kurian
    Vos, Larissa J.
    Warkentin, Heather
    Paulson, Kim
    Polkosnik, Lee-anne
    Usmani, Nawaid
    Tankel, Keith
    Severin, Diane
    Nijjar, Tirath
    Schiller, Dan
    Wong, Clarence
    Ghosh, Sunita
    Mulder, Karen
    Field, Colin
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2016, 120 (02) : 228 - 233