Intraoperative radiation therapy with the photon radiosurgery system in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer: retrospective review of the Cleveland clinic experience
© Guo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 17 February 2012
Accepted: 20 July 2012
Published: 20 July 2012
Patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer often require multimodality treatment. Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is a focal approach which aims to improve local control.
We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients treated with IORT following definitive resection of a locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer from 2000–2009. All patients were treated with the Intrabeam® Photon Radiosurgery System (PRS). A dose of 5 Gy was prescribed to a depth of 1 cm (surface dose range: 13.4-23.1, median: 14.4 Gy). Median survival times were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
Of 42 patients, 32 had recurrent disease (76%) while 10 had locally advanced disease (24%). Eighteen patients (43%) had tumors fixed to the sidewall. Margins were positive in 19 patients (45%). Median follow-up after IORT was 22 months (range 0.2-101). Median survival time after IORT was 34 months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 49% (43% for recurrent and 65% for locally advanced patients). Local recurrence was evaluable in 34 patients, of whom 32% failed. The 1-year local recurrence rate was 16%. Distant metastasis was evaluable in 30 patients, of whom 60% failed. The 1-year distant metastasis rate was 32%. No intraoperative complications were attributed to IORT. Median duration of IORT was 35 minutes (range: 14–39). Median discharge time after surgery was 7 days (range: 2–59). Hydronephrosis after IORT occurred in 10 patients (24%), 7 of whom had documented concomitant disease recurrence.
The Intrabeam® PRS appears to be a safe technique for delivering IORT in rectal cancer patients. IORT with PRS marginally increased operative time, and did not appear to prolong hospitalization. Our rates of long-term toxicity, local recurrence, and survival rates compare favorably with published reports of IORT delivery with other methods.
KeywordsColorectal cancer Intraoperative radiation therapy Local disease relapse Salvage Radiation tolerance
Treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer consists of multiple modalities including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Many locally advanced lesions can be rendered resectable with preoperative chemotherapy and radiation, and modern recurrence rates range from 6-10% after neoadjuvant therapy [1–4]. Local recurrence leads to significant morbidities including pelvic pain, bleeding, bowel obstruction, and poor quality of life. Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been used as part of a multimodality approach in an attempt to improve local control in this patient population.
Similarly, recurrent rectal cancer can be extremely debilitating. In the setting of recurrence, the likelihood of a margin negative resection is low . The historical survival rates following surgical resection alone have been poor, with one series reporting a zero percent 5-year overall survival . Furthermore, a majority of these patients have been previously treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), which may preclude the delivery of additional pelvic radiation. IORT has been used in an attempt to increase local control in these patients. Using a single institutional database of patients treated with IORT for rectal cancer, we retrospectively reviewed our experience with the photon radiosurgery system (PRS) in the delivery of IORT for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer patients.
Methods and materials
From an IRB-approved registry, we retrospectively reviewed patients treated with IORT following definitive resection of locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer at our institution. All patients were treated with the Intrabeam® Photon Radiosurgery System (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany).
The Intrabeam device provides a point source of low energy x-rays (50 kV maximum) at the tip of a 3.2 mm diameter tube that is placed at the center of a spherical tumor bed applicator. The diameter of the spherical applicators ranges from 1.5-5 cm in 0.5 cm increments. Spherical applicators ranging from 2–5 cm were used for the patients in our review.
During the operative procedure, calibration and quality checks are performed by the medical physicist. In the case of primary rectal cancers, surgery is performed following the principles of total mesorectal excision. The hypogastric nerves are identified at the level of the sacral promontory and are preserved. Likewise, the endopelvic fascia covering the pelvic sidewall is not violated so as to maintain protection of the autonomic plexus bilaterally. In cases where the rectal cancer is not located anteriorly, Denonvillier's fascia is preserved (not included with the resection specimen) so as to minimize the risk of injury to the nervi erigentes. These technical details allow for very low rates of sexual and urinary dysfunction after total mesorectal excision, even with the additional effects of external beam pelvic radiation. Resections for recurrent rectal cancer are carried out in the anatomic plane that will provide the best chance for a tumor-free radial margin. These operations often involve the enbloc resection of adjacent viscera (vagina, uterus, bladder, sacrum, etc.) to achieve R0 status. In cases where a restorative procedure is being performed (colorectal or coloanal anastomosis), IORT is delivered prior to the creation of the anastomosis when the pelvis is largely empty. Areas of concern for a close or involved radial margin are identified and marked by the surgeon. The largest possible applicator that can be placed into the tumor bed is selected and locked into the x-ray unit. The spherical applicator is placed in the tumor bed by surgeon and radiation oncologist. Thin sheets of lead, covered in sterile plastic drape, are then applied to shield normal structures such as the small bowel and ureters in or near the radiation field. The operating room personnel wear leaded aprons and stand behind a shields screen while IORT is delivered.
In all patients, a dose of 5 Gy was prescribed to a depth of 1 cm (surface dose – based on applicator diameter- range: 13.4-23.1 Gy, median: 14.4 Gy). This dose was selected based on our institutional experience in using the same dose to treat microscopic and subclinical disease. This was also the dose used in the TARGIT trial, whose primary goal was to eradicate microscopic and subclinical disease in breast cancer after lumpectomy . Resection status in our cohort were as follows: R0 in 22 patients (52.4%), R1 in 19 patients (45.2%), and R2 in 1 patient (2.4%). In the sole patient with R2 resection, the residual tumor was larger than the surface of the applicator (length 5 cm, width 3 cm, depth 3 mm); after discussion with the colorectal surgeons, it was felt that IORT would be beneficial to palliate the bulk of disease. Therefore, the dose was not altered to account for the R2 resection. Prescribing the dose to 1 cm depth ensured full dose at this depth, which was felt to be at risk for microscopic disease. The surface dose was higher, commensurate with the applicator diameter.
Ureteral stents were placed at the time of surgery for identification of ureters in 76% of patients. Median survival times, defined as survival after the IORT procedure, were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. In patients with recurrent disease, IORT was delivered at the time of salvage surgical resection. Local recurrence was defined as failure within the pelvis, and distant metastasis was defined as metastatic disease outside the pelvis.
Initial Stage at Diagnosis
Carcinoma, poorly differentiated
Recurrent vs. Advanced
Pelvic radiation before IORT
Margin Status at IORT
Chemotherapy before IORT
The median applicator size used was 5 cm (range: 2–5 cm). Median tumor size at IORT was 2.8 cm (range: 0–10 cm) based on operative report. Thirty-two patients had recurrent disease (76%) while 10 (24%) had locally advanced disease at presentation. For the purpose of the analysis, locally advanced disease was defined as tumors that were assessed to be unresectable without leaving microscopic or gross residual disease at the resection site. Fixed disease was defined by the operative report, and refers to tumors that were adherent to adjacent structures. Forty patients (95%) had adenocarcinoma histologies, and 18 patients (43%) had tumors fixed to the sidewall. Median follow-up after IORT was 22 months (range 0.2-101).
Median duration of IORT was 35 minutes (range: 14–39). Median discharge time after surgery was 7 days (range: 2–59). IORT did not appear to prolong hospitalization. Hydronephrosis after IORT was seen in 10 patients (24%).
Comparison of the Cleveland Clinic’s Data with Major Series of Patients with Recurrent Disease treated with IORT
MS: 36 mo
MS: 28 mo
MS: 32 mo
Although there were only 10 patients with locally advanced disease in our series, our outcomes were comparable to other IORT series of this patient population. We observed 3-year local control of 100%, 3-year distant metastasis rate of 71%, and 5-year survival of 39%. The median survival was 49 months. Mathis et al. published the Mayo experience with 146 locally advanced rectal cancer patients treated with IORT and observed a median survival of 44 months . They also observed 3-year local control of 90%, 3-year distant metastasis rate of 43%, and 5-year survival of 52%. Willet et al. retrospectively reviewed the series at Massachusetts General Hospital of 65 patients who underwent resection with the intention of using IORT if areas at high risk for local recurrence were apparent at surgery, 42 of whom ultimately received IORT . Local control of 77% was seen at 5 years; distant metastases and overall survival rates were not reported.
Comparison of the Cleveland Clinic’s Data with Major Series of Patients with Locally Advanced Disease treated with IORT
MS: 44 mo
MS: Not Reached
MS: 49 mo
In the Mayo series, the largest series of patients with recurrent disease treated with IORT, toxicity grade 3 or higher partially attributable to IORT was seen in 66 patients, mostly consisting of wound infection, abscess, or fistula (cumulatively 7%), ureteral obstruction (3%), and neuropathy (3%). Any grade neuropathy was observed in 15% of patients and was more commonly seen with IORT doses exceeding 12.5 Gy . In our series, of the 10 patients who were found to have hydronephrosis after IORT, 7 had documented concomitant disease recurrence, and the etiology of hydronephrosis is likely multifactorial. Peripheral neuropathy was not identified as a toxicity in our series. However, our toxicities rates may be limited due to our relatively short follow-up time. A subset of our patients were referred to our center for IORT only and subsequently discharged home; these patients were not included in the analysis of toxicities due to lack of follow-up information. Reporting of toxicities was also limited because of the retrospective nature of this analysis. Prospective documentation of follow-up visits as well as thorough assessment of expected toxicities are necessary to detail toxicities of this emerging treatment modality. Also due to the retrospective nature of this analysis, we did not have follow-up information on 8 patients for local recurrence and 12 patients for distant metastases. Some of these patients were diagnosed with local recurrence or distant metastases at our institution but were subsequently lost to follow-up. Because our institution is a tertiary medical center, a number of patients traveled here solely for IORT and chose to be followed with their local physicians. However, the data that we report on the remaining evaluable patients still represents the largest pool of patients treated with the Intrabeam® PRS for colorectal cancer.
The only other report of using the Intrabeam® PRS for colorectal cancer in the literature is a series of twenty patients from Russia, presented as an abstract. Lyadov et al. reported their experience with 20 colorectal adenocarcinoma patients with T3-4 disease treated with this system after curative resection . A dose of 14–17 Gy to the surface was prescribed. Five patients received minimally invasive surgery; in these patients, the IORT applicator was inserted through the incision that was used to remove resected material. Of these five patients, no local recurrences were seen. No early or delayed radiation toxicities were attributed to radiation, and no deaths occurred in the early postoperative period. Similar to our series, their mean duration of radiation exposure was 30 minutes. The authors proved the feasibility of this technique to be used with minimally invasive surgery, and although the length of follow-up is not given, they reported minimal complications attributable to IORT in the early postoperative period.
The Intrabeam® PRS has some limitations. The largest applicator, being 5 cm, restricts the area that can be treated. Intraoperative high dose-rate brachytherapy with 192Iridium and IORT with low energy electron beams can cover a much larger area. In certain clinical scenarios, IORT has been aborted because the target area could not be adequately covered with the largest applicator. Because our database was only able to query cases where IORT was delivered, we cannot provide an exact number of cases in which IORT was not possible. Other reasons for aborting IORT at our institution include unresectable disease and metastatic disease detected at the time of surgical exploration.
The dose-rate of the Intrabeam® PRS is lower than other modalities, which results in longer treatments. The median duration of IORT was 35 minutes in our series (range: 14–39). The percent depth dose of 50 kV X-rays is very steep with no build-up region. This creates inhomogeneity across the treatment volume, with the highest dose being at the surface (dose inhomogeneity index for this series – range: 2.68-4.62, median: 2.88).
The use of Intrabeam® PRS appears to be a safe technique for delivering IORT in patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. IORT with PRS marginally increased operative time, and did not appear to prolong hospitalization. Our rates of toxicity, local recurrence, and survival rates compare favorably with published reports of IORT delivery with electrons.
Presented at European Society of Surgical Oncology (Bordeaux, FR, September 2010) and International Society of Intraoperative Radiation (Scottsdale, AZ, October 2010)
- Peeters KC, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Kranenbarg EK, Putter H, Wiggers T, Rutten H, Pahlman L, Glimelius B, Leer JW, van de Velde CJ: The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: increased local control but no survival benefit in irradiated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Ann Surg 2007, 246: 693-701. 10.1097/01.sla.0000257358.56863.ceView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bosset JF, Collette L, Calais G, Mineur L, Maingon P, Radosevic-Jelic L, Daban A, Bardet E, Beny A, Ollier JC: Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2006, 355: 1114-1123. 10.1056/NEJMoa060829View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bujko K, Nowacki MP, Nasierowska-Guttmejer A, Michalski W, Bebenek M, Kryj M: Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing preoperative short-course radiotherapy with preoperative conventionally fractionated chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2006, 93: 1215-1223. 10.1002/bjs.5506View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, Rodel C, Wittekind C, Fietkau R, Martus P, Tschmelitsch J, Hager E, Hess CF, et al.: Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004, 351: 1731-1740. 10.1056/NEJMoa040694View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Valentini V, Morganti AG, De Franco A, Coco C, Ratto C, Battista Doglietto G, Trodella L, Ziccarelli L, Picciocchi A, Cellini N: Chemoradiation with or without intraoperative radiation therapy in patients with locally recurrent rectal carcinoma: prognostic factors and long term outcome. Cancer 1999, 86: 2612-2624. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19991215)86:12<2612::AID-CNCR5>3.0.CO;2-MView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Suzuki K, Gunderson LL, Devine RM, Weaver AL, Dozois RR, Ilstrup DM, Martenson JA, O'Connell MJ: Intraoperative irradiation after palliative surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Cancer 1995, 75: 939-952. 10.1002/1097-0142(19950215)75:4<939::AID-CNCR2820750408>3.0.CO;2-EView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vaidya JS, Joseph DJ, Tobias JS, Bulsara M, Wenz F, Saunders C, Alvarado M, Flyger HL, Massarut S, Eiermann W, et al.: Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet 2010, 376: 91-102. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60837-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Haddock MG, Miller RC, Nelson H, Pemberton JH, Dozois EJ, Alberts SR, Gunderson LL: Combined modality therapy including intraoperative electron irradiation for locally recurrent colorectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011, 79: 143-150. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.10.046View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lindel K, Willett CG, Shellito PC, Ott MJ, Clark J, Grossbard M, Ryan D, Ancukiewicz M: Intraoperative radiation therapy for locally advanced recurrent rectal or rectosigmoid cancer. Radiother Oncol 2001, 58: 83-87. 10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00309-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wiig JN, Tveit KM, Poulsen JP, Olsen DR, Giercksky KE: Preoperative irradiation and surgery for recurrent rectal cancer. Will intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) be of additional benefit? A prospective study. Radiother Oncol 2002, 62: 207-213. 10.1016/S0167-8140(01)00486-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dresen RC, Gosens MJ, Martijn H, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Creemers GJ, Daniels-Gooszen AW, van den Brule AJ, van den Berg HA, Rutten HJ: Radical resection after IORT-containing multimodality treatment is the most important determinant for outcome in patients treated for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2008, 15: 1937-1947. 10.1245/s10434-008-9896-zPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Abuchaibe O, Calvo FA, Azinovic I, Aristu J, Pardo F, Alvarez-Cienfuegos J: Intraoperative radiotherapy in locally advanced recurrent colorectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993, 26: 859-867. 10.1016/0360-3016(93)90502-MView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bussieres E, Gilly FN, Rouanet P, Mahe MA, Roussel A, Delannes M, Gerard JP, Dubois JB, Richaud P: Recurrences of rectal cancers: results of a multimodal approach with intraoperative radiation therapy. French Group of IORT. Intraoperative radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996, 34: 49-56. 10.1016/0360-3016(95)02048-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mathis KL, Nelson H, Pemberton JH, Haddock MG, Gunderson LL: Unresectable colorectal cancer can be cured with multimodality therapy. Ann Surg 2008, 248: 592-598.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Willett CG, Shellito PC, Tepper JE, Eliseo R, Convery K, Wood WC: Intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy for primary locally advanced rectal and rectosigmoid carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1991, 9: 843-849.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Diaz-Gonzalez JA, Calvo FA, Cortes J, Garcia-Sabrido JL, Gomez-Espi M, Del Valle E, Munoz-Jimenez F, Alvarez E: Prognostic factors for disease-free survival in patients with T3-4 or N + rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation therapy, surgery, and intraoperative irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 64: 1122-1128. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.09.020View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Krempien R, Roeder F, Oertel S, Roebel M, Weitz J, Hensley FW, Timke C, Funk A, Bischof M, Zabel-Du Bois A, et al.: Long-term results of intraoperative presacral electron boost radiotherapy (IOERT) in combination with total mesorectal excision (TME) and chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 66: 1143-1151. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lyadov KV SS, Krymskiy VA, Krymskiy AV: Improvement of curativity of video-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer due to intra-operative contact radiotherapy using the Intrabeam system. In Rev Cancer 2008, 2008: 8.Google Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.