Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Choice of Radiotherapy Planning Modality Influences Toxicity in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Three-dimensional computed tomography-based radiotherapy planning (3DCTP) is increasingly employed in the treatment of esophageal cancer. It is unknown whether a 3DCTP approach influences outcomes compared to two-dimensional planning (2DP). This study compares clinical outcomes for homogenously treated patient cohorts stratified by planning modality.

Methods and Materials

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with T3/4 and/or node-positive esophageal carcinoma treated at the Cleveland Clinic between July 1, 2003 and May 31, 2006 who were managed with an institutional regimen consisting of preoperative radiotherapy, whether 3DCTP or 2DP [30 Gy/20 fractions/1.5 Gy twice daily over 2 weeks], with concurrent cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil the first week. Following definitive resection, an identical postoperative course of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) was delivered.

Results

One hundred and forty-one patients completed preoperative CRT and were available for review. The median follow-up of living patients is 21.7 months. Fifty-five percent underwent 3DCTP and 45% had 2DP. The treatment groups were similar, with the exception of clinical stage group, with 2DP having more stage II and fewer stage III patients than 3DCTP (p = 0.02). 3DCTP plans had significantly smaller field sizes by area (p < 0.0001). Pathologic response, locoregional control, distant control, and overall survival were equivalent between the two planning modalities. Esophagitis was significantly less common with a 3D approach compared to 2D planning (49% vs. 71%, p = 0.0096), with other toxicities equivalent between the groups.

Conclusions

3DCTP reduces acute esophagitis in patients receiving multimodality therapy for esophageal cancer without compromising clinical outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2006. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:11–20. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa055531.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Walsh TN, Noonan N, Hollywood D, Kelly A, et al. A comparison of multimodality therapy and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:462–7. doi:10.1056/NEJM199608153350702.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. MacDonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J, et al. Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:725–30. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa010187.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Herskovic A, Martz K, al-Sarraf M, et al. Combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with cancer of the esophagus. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1593–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith TJ, Ryan LM, Douglass HO, et al. Combined chemoradiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone for early stage squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;42:269–76. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00232-6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kumar S, Dimri K, Khurana R, et al. A randomized trial of radiotherapy compared with cisplatin chemo-radiotherapy in patients with unresectable squamous cell cancer of the esophagus. Radiother Oncol. 2007;83:139–47. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2007.03.013.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Adelstein DJ, Rice TW, Rybicki LA, et al. A phase II trial of accelerated multimodality therapy for locoregionally advanced cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: the impact of clinical heterogeneity. Am J Clin Oncol. 2007;30:172–80. doi:10.1097/01.coc.0000251243.58048.12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nishioka T, Shirato H, Arimoto T, et al. Reduction of radiation-induced xerostomia in nasopharyngeal carcinoma using CT simulation with laser patient marking and three-field irradiation technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38:705–12. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00054-0.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jabbari S, Kim HM, Eisbruch A, et al. Matched case-control study of quality of life and xerostomia after intensity-modulated radiotherapy or standard radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: initial report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:725–31. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.02.045.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Graff P, Lapeyre M, Desandes E, et al. Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on health-related quality of life for head and neck cancer patients: matched-pair comparison with conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:1309–17. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.012.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vuong T, Kopek N, Ducruet T, et al. Conformal therapy improves the therapeutic index of patients with anal canal cancer treated with combined chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:1394–400. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.038.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen MF, Tseng CJ, Tseng CC, et al. Clinical outcome in posthysterectomy cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy: comparison with conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:1438–44. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.005.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Donovan E, Bleakley N, Denholm E, et al. Randomized trial of standard 2D radiotherapy (RT) versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients prescribed breast radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2007;82:254–64. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2006.12.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dearnaley DP, Khoo VS, Norman AR, et al. Comparison of radiation side-effects of conformal and conventional radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a randomized trial. Lancet. 1999;353:267–72. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05180-0.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Koper PM, Stroom JC, van Putten WLJ, et al. Acute morbidity reduction using 3DCRT for prostate carcinoma: a randomized study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:727–34. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00406-4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Guzel ZB, Childs JL, Nahum PJ, et al. A comparison of conventional and conformal radiotherapy of the oesophagus: work in progress. Br J Radiol. 1998;71:1076–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ahmad M, Nath R. Three-dimensional radiotherapy of head and neck and esophageal carcinomas: a monoisocentric treatment technique to achieve improved dose distributions. Int J Cancer. 2001;96:55–65. doi:10.1002/1097-0215(20010220)96:1<55::AID-IJC6>3.0.CO;2-#.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rosenman JG, Halle JS, Socinski MA, et al. High-dose conformal radiotherapy for treatment of stage IIIa/IIIb non-small-cell lung cancer: technical issues and results of a phase I/II trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:348–56. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02958-9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bradley J, Deasy J, Bentzen S, et al. Dosimetric correlates for acute esophagitis in patients treated with radiation therapy for lung carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;58:1106–13. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.09.080.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim TH, Cho KH, Pyo HR, et al. Dose-volumetric parameters of acute esophageal toxicity in patients with lung cancer treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:995–1002. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.12.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fang LC, Komaki R, Allen P, et al. Comparison of outcomes for patients with medically inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer treated with two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66:108–16. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.015.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sasso FS, Sasso G, Marsiglia HR, et al. Pharmacological and dietary prophylaxis and treatment of acute actinic esophagitis during mediastinal radiotherapy. Dig Dis Sci. 2001;46:746–9. doi:10.1023/A:1010735914163.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Antonadou D, Coliarakis N, Syndoinou M, et al. Randomized phase III trial of radiation treatment +/− amifostine in patients with advanced-stage lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51:915–22. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01713-8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Antonadou D, Throuvalas N, Petridis A, et al. Effect of amifostine on toxicities associated with radiochemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:402–8. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00590-X.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Komaki R, Lee JS, Kaplan B, et al. Randomized phase III study of chemoradiation with or without amifostine for patients with favorable performance status inoperable stage II-III non-small cell lung cancer: preliminary results. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002;12:46–9. doi:10.1053/srao.2002.31363.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA

    Heath B. Mackley

  2. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Jonathan S. Adelstein

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, T28, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Chandana A. Reddy, Jerrold P. Saxton & Gregory M. M. Videtic

  4. Department of Solid Tumor Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

    David J. Adelstein

  5. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Thomas W. Rice

Authors
  1. Heath B. Mackley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan S. Adelstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chandana A. Reddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David J. Adelstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas W. Rice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jerrold P. Saxton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gregory M. M. Videtic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory M. M. Videtic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mackley, H.B., Adelstein, J.S., Reddy, C.A. et al. Choice of Radiotherapy Planning Modality Influences Toxicity in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer. J Gastrointest Canc 39, 130–137 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-009-9067-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-009-9067-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation