Open Access

Is the irradiated small bowel volume still a predictor for acute lower gastrointestinal toxicity during preoperative concurrent chemo-radiotherapy for rectal cancer when using intensity-modulated radiation therapy?

Radiation Oncology201510:257

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0566-6

Received: 14 July 2015

Accepted: 10 December 2015

Published: 18 December 2015

Abstract

Background

The small bowel (SB) represents the most important dose-limiting structure in pelvic radiotherapy (RT). However, we observed that the majority of rectal cancer patients who received preoperative pelvic intensity modulated RT (IMRT) developed acute tenesmus without watery diarrhea. The objective of this study is to determine if the RT dose to SB affects the acute lower gastrointestinal toxicity (ALGIT) in rectal cancer patients who received neoadjuvant concurrent chemotherapy-IMRT. We will also evaluate if patient and tumor factors affect the ALGIT.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 63 rectal cancer patients that consecutively received preoperative IMRT (45 Gy for pelvis and 50 Gy for gross tumor in 25 fractions) with concurrent chemotherapy (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 and capecitabine 825 mg/m2, twice per day from day 1 to day 14, week 1 and 4) between May 2012 and May 2013. The ALGIT was assessed with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3. The patients were stratified into two groups (with and without grade ≥2 ALGIT). The effect of SB volume receiving 5 to 40 Gy (V5 to V40) at a 5 Gy interval dose level on grade ≥2 ALGIT was evaluated. The volume of small bowel is defined as the volume of the small bowel loop. Other factors evaluated include patient’s age and gender, tumor size and location and preexisting number of daily bowel movements.

Results

Overall, grade ≥2 ALGIT occurred in 57 % (36/63) patients. There was no significant difference between the two groups of patients (with and without grade ≥2 ALGIT) in SB V5 to V40, patient’s age and gender, tumor location and preexisting number of daily bowel movements. There was a significant difference between the two groups of patients in tumor volume (with grade ≥2 ALGIT: 115.5 ± 85.5 cm3 versus without grade ≥2 ALGIT: 58.5 ± 25.2 cm3, p = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed no association between the dose SB received (V5 to V40) and the grade ≥2 ALGIT after adjusting for the tumor volume.

Conclusions

With IMRT technique used in rectal cancer patients undergoing preoperative chemo-radiotherapy, the acute lower GI toxicity is not associated with small bowel V5 to V40; instead it is associated with rectal tumor size.

Keywords

Small bowel dose volume Acute lower gastrointestinal toxicity Chemo-radiotherapy Rectal cancer Intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Introduction

Radiation therapy plays an important role in preoperative and postoperative therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer [14]. Radiation-induced lower GI toxicity is the main concern. Serious acute lower GI toxicity was reported in 12 to 44 % of patients undergoing radiotherapy alone or with concurrent chemotherapy in multicenter randomized clinical trials [4, 5]. The small bowel represents the most important dose-limiting structure in the pelvic radiation therapy. Dosimetric studies revealed association between the lower GI toxicity and the irradiated small bowel volume [6, 7].

Since the German trial reported that preoperative chemo-radiotherapy improved local control and was associated with reduced toxicity as compared with postoperative chemo-radiotherapy, preoperative concurrent chemo-radiotherapy has become a standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (T3–4 and/or N positive) [4, 8]. A study has shown that the small bowel volume irradiated could be reduced in patients undergoing preoperative radiotherapy as compared with those undergoing postoperative radiotherapy [9]. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been confirmed to be advantageous at protection of the organs at risk such as bladder, femoral head and small bowel, and widely accepted as a relatively safe and effective radiotherapy method in the treatment of rectal cancer [10, 11]. Using IMRT technique further decreases the small bowel in the radiation field as compared to those using 3D conformal radiotherapy. Hence, the acute lower GI toxicity could be decreased significantly when IMRT used in preoperative chemo-radiation therapy. In clinical practice, we noticed that most rectal cancer patients who received preoperative IMRT typically presented with tenesmus and a feeling of incomplete defecation without watery diarrhea and abdominal pain. It seems that such side effects were induced rather by rectal reaction to radiation than by small bowel inflammation.

To better understand these clinical presentations, we attempted to find out if the irradiated small bowel volume still is a predictor for acute lower GI toxicity during preoperative concurrent chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer when IMRT is utilized. We also examined other potential predictors for acute lower GI toxicity in this patient population.

Patients and methods

Patient selection

The study population consisted of 63 patients with stage II or III pathologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the rectum who were consecutively treated with preoperative IMRT and concurrent chemotherapy between May 2012 and May 2013 in our hospital. The clinical stage and the tumor location (distance from the anal edge) were determined with physical examination and diagnostic studies, including digital rectal endoscopy, abdominal-pelvic contrast-enhanced MRI, endorectal ultrasound (EUS) and a chest CT scan. Factors recorded and analyzed include age, gender, pre-treatment number of daily bowel movements and number of daily bowel movements during the treatment (see Table 1). The study was approved by the institutional ethic committee (reference number: 2013KY011).
Table 1

Patient characteristics

 

n (%)

Acute GI toxicity

P value

N = 63

Grade < 2

Grade ≥2

N = 27

N = 36

Age (years)

 Median (range)

55 (30–78)

55 (30–78)

57 (35–74)

 

 Mean (SD)

56 (10)

55 (11)

57 (10)

0.388a

Gender

 Male

45 (71.4)

16

29

0.092b

 Female

18 (28.6)

11

7

 

T stage

 T1

0

0

0

0.759b

 T2

3 (4.8)

2

1

 

 T3

33 (52.4)

14

19

 

 T4

27 (42.8)

11

16

 

N stage

 Negative

4 (6.3)

2

2

1.000b

 Positive

59 (93.7)

25

34

 

Tumor volume (cc)

 Median (range)

92 (20–318)

55 (20–135)

83 (26–318)

 

 Mean (SD)

91 (72)

59 (25)

116 (86)

0.0004a

Tumor location (cm from the anal verge)

 Median (range)

6 (2–12)

5 (3–10)

6(2–12)

 

 Mean (SD)

6 (2)

6 (2)

6 (2)

0.738a

Pre-existing number of daily bowel movements

 1

6 (9.5)

4

2

0.184b

 2–3

25 (39.7)

13

12

 

 4–6

25 (39.7)

9

16

 

  ≥ 7

7 (11.1)

1

6

 

aIndependent T test; bExact test

Radiotherapy

All patients underwent a contrasted CT simulation with a supine position. Oral contrast was given 30 min prior to simulation in order to differentiate the small bowel from the large bowel. A planning CT scan of the lower abdomen and pelvis was obtained at 5-mm intervals from the inferior edge of the second lumbar vertebrae (L2) through the mid-thigh. The CT data was transferred to the Xio treatment planning system (CMS Xio Version4.6 and Monaco 3.2.0, Elekta CMS Software, Maryland Heights, MO) for delineating the target volume and organs at risk (OARs).

The gross tumor volume (GTV) was contoured based on clinical information, including digital rectal examination, endoscopy ultrasound and abdominopelvic MRI. The clinical target volume (CTV) included a minimum of a 3 cm craniocaudal margin to the GTV in addition to the entire mesorectum, presacral, and internal iliac lymph node drainage regions. The CTV was delineated per atlas at the RTOG web site http://www.rtog.org/Corelab/ContouringAtlases/Anorectal.aspx. Planning target volumes (PTVs) for GTV and CTV were generated with an additional 10-mm margin separately. Critical normal structures including the small bowel, bladder, femoral head, femoral neck, and pelvic bones (including sacrum, ilium, pubis and ischium) were contoured according to the pelvic normal tissue contouring guidelines of RTOG [11, 12] . The small bowel was outlined as loops containing contrast. The small bowel contouring stopped at least 2 cm above the PTV-CTV (see Fig. 1a).
Fig. 1

a. Axial (left) and sagittal (right) views of small bowel contour in a 46 year-old male patient with a stage cT3 cN+ cM0 rectal cancer treated with preoperative IMRT concurrent with chemotherapy. b. Reference video capsule endoscopy image for radiation induced small bowel injury: Friability and oozing blood from atrophic-appearing mucosa. (Authorization by Medscape Drugs & Diseases). c. Case1: A 60 year-old female patient with a stage cT3 cN+ cM0 rectal adenocarcinoma who presented with grade 2 tenesmus without watery stools on the day 13 of the radiotherapy which was resolved in 2 days after symptomatic treatment. Video capsule endoscopy showed normal mucosa throughout the small bowel. d. Case 2: A 60 year-old male patient with a stage cT2 cN+ cM0 rectal adenocarcinoma who did not experienced significant lower GI toxicity during the treatment course. Video capsule endoscopy showed normal mucosa throughout the small bowel

The IMRT plan consisted of 5 coplanar beams with the isocenter set at the center of PTV-GTV, arranged at 55°, 115°, 180°, 245°and 310°. The dose prescribed to PTV-GTV was 50 Gy/25fractions and to PTV-CTV was 45 Gy/25fractions. The doses to OARs were limited as follows: V45 < 35 % for bladder, V30 < 15 % for femoral head, and V30 < 60 % and Dmax <45 Gy for small bowel. All patients were irradiated with one fraction daily for five consecutive days per week. The prescription dose was to cover at least 95 % volume of PTV.

A small bowel dose-volume histogram (DVH) was generated for each patient. The absolute and relative volumes of small bowel receiving doses between 5 Gy and 40 Gy were recorded from the DVH at 5-Gy interval (V5 to V40) according to the study of Baglan KL [6].

Concurrent chemotherapy

The chemotherapy that patients received during the radiation therapy was per an institutional protocol [13]. All patients had two 3-week cycles of chemotherapy during the course of radiation therapy. The chemotherapy regimen included oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2on day-1) and capecitabine (825 mg/m2, twice per day from day-1 to day-14) every 3 weeks.

Toxicity assessment

All patients received chemo-radiation therapy as inpatients. The patients were evaluated and the toxicities were recorded daily prospectively. For the purpose of this study, the daily progress notes and the final treatment summary note were reviewed to determine the lower GI toxicities during the radiation therapy course. Lower GI toxicity was assessed with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 3. Because most patients had no watery diarrhea or abdominal pain, we assessed the lower GI toxicities by using only the number of daily bowel movements [14] (see Table 2). Patients were stratified into two groups: with grade <2 and grade ≥ 2 lower GI toxicity.
Table 2

Scale for acute GI toxicity based on common toxicity criteria v3.0

Grade

Symptom

0

None

1

Increase of <4 stools per day over pretreatment

2

Increase of 4–6 stools per day or nocturnal stools

3

Increase of ≥7 stools per day or incontinence or need for parenteral support for dehydration

4

Physiologic consequences requiring intensive care of hemodynamic collapse

Statistical analysis

The chi-squared test was used to compare the proportions of the two patient groups for the baseline patient characteristics and RT delivery parameters. The independent sample T-test was used to compare the treatment target volume, small bowel volume, the volumes of small bowel receiving doses between 5 Gy and 40 Gy between the two groups (patients with grade <2 and ≥ 2 lower GI toxicity). A p value of ≤ .05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Analysis Systems software package, version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

Overall, acute grade ≥ 2 lower GI toxicity during radiotherapy occurred in 57.1 % (36/63) patients. Among them, 14 were grade 2, 22 grade 3 and 0 grade 4. Only 4 of 36 had watery diarrhea at the second, seventh, eleventh and sixteenth fraction of radiotherapy. The remaining 27 patients experienced grade 0 and 1 lower GI toxicities. The median age of the entire group of patients was 55 (range 30–78). Most patients were male (71.4 %) and had a clinical stage of T3-4 (95.2 %) or were N positive (93.7 %). The tumor located 2–12 cm from the anal verge with a median of 6 cm. The tumor volume ranged from 20 cm3 to 318 cm3 with a median volume of 92 cm3 (Table 1). Patients with a larger tumor volume had a significantly higher rate of grade ≥ 2 toxicity (59 ± 25 cm3 vs 116 ± 86 cm3, p = 0.0004). Almost half of the patients (32/63) had pre-existing grade 2 or above frequent bowel movements secondary to rectal tumor (Table 1). It was found that 52.4 % (33/63) patients had either stable symptoms or had various extents of improvement in symptoms during the radiotherapy.

The average total contoured small bowel volume for all patients was 257 ± 152 cm3 and was 288 ± 193 cm3 and 234 ± 108 cm3 for patients that had lower GI toxicities of grade < 2 and ≥ 2 (p = 0.244), respectively. Table 3 shows that small bowel V5 to V40 did not have significant differences in patients with or without ≥ grade 2 acute lower GI toxicity.
Table 3

Comparison of small bowel dose-volume in patients with grade < 2 to grade ≥2 acute lower GI toxicity

Dose level

Small bowel volume(mean ± SD, cm3)

(Gy)

Grade 0–1

Grade ≥2

P value

5

268 ± 173

217 ± 107

0.156

10

230 ± 154

189 ± 99

0.196

15

203 ± 138

169 ± 95

0.242

20

174 ± 124

143 ± 86

0.247

25

127 ± 105

103 ± 68

0.272

30

75 ± 78

60 ± 49

0.367

35

47 ± 63

37 ± 37

0.445

40

30 ± 49

23 ± 24

0.429

Factors such as age, gender, T stage, N stage, tumor volume, tumor location, pre-existing number of daily bowel movement and small bowel V5-V40 were analyzed in the univariate logistic regression model (Table 4). All but tumor volume (p = 0.002), pre-existing number of daily bowel movements (p = 0.06) and gender (p = 0.07) were not significantly correlated with grade ≥ 2 acute lower GI toxicity. Therefore, only tumor volume, pre-existing number of daily bowel movements and gender were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Multivariate analysis (Table 4) revealed that tumor volume (OR 0.147, 95 % CI 0.043–0.499) and pre-existing number of daily bowel movements (OR 0.272, 95 % CI 0.080–0.922) but not gender were significantly correlated with grade ≥ 2 acute lower GI toxicity. Forcing V5-V40 into the model showed that small bowel V5-V40 was not significantly correlated with grade ≥ 2 acute lower GI toxicity.
Table 4

Factors associated with grade ≥ 2 lower GI toxicity

Factors

Median

Univariate

Multivariate

OR (95 % CL)

P value

OR (95 % CL)

P value

Age (years)

≤55/>55

0.716 (0.259–1.946)

0.513

  

Gender

Female/Male

0.351 (0.114–1.084)

0.069

0.376 0.108 1.308

0.124

T stage

≤ T3/>T3

0.859 (0.313–2.361)

0.769

  

N stage

N-/N+

0.735 (0.097–5.581)

0.766

  

Tumor volume (cc)

≤64/> 64

0.185 (0.062–0.550)

0.002

0.147 0.043 0.499

0.002

Tumor locationa

≤6/>6

0.700 (0.248–1.978)

0.501

  

Pre-existing BMb

<4/≥ 4

0.374 (0.134–1.048)

0.061

0.272 0.080 0.922

0.036

Small bowel V5 (cc)

≤213/>213

1.562 (0.572–4.265)

0.384

  

Small bowel V10 (cc)

≤191/>191

1.562 (0.572–4.265)

0.384

  

Small bowel V15 (cc)

≤174/>174

1.818 (0.662–4.995)

0.246

  

Small bowel V20 (cc)

≤146/>146

1.818 (0.662–4.995)

0.246

  

Small bowel V25 (cc)

≤100/>100

1.626 (0.593–4.458)

0.345

  

Small bowel V30 (cc)

≤53/>53

1.818 (0.662–4.995)

0.246

  

Small bowel V35 (cc)

≤23/>23

0.550 (0.200–1.511)

0.246

  

Small bowel V40 (cc)

≤11/>11

0.640 (0.234–1.747)

0.384

  

aDistance from the anal verge; bpre-existing number of daily bowel movement

Discussion

The most interesting finding of this study is no correlations between the dose-volume parameters of small bowel (V5 to V40) and the acute lower GI toxicity during preoperative concurrent chemo-radiotherapy for rectal cancer when IMRT is used. This study also revealed that the rectal tumor volume is a predictor of grade ≥ 2 lower GI toxicity. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report that with IMRT, the acute lower GI toxicity in this patient population is mainly influenced by rectal tumor volume but not small bowel dose-volume parameters.

Preoperative radiotherapy with IMRT decreased small bowel volume in the pelvic radiation field

Minsky et al. showed a dramatic decrease of small bowel volume in the radiation field for patients that received preoperative radiotherapy when compared with postoperative radiotherapy (212 ± 44 cm3 versus 462 ± 129 cm3, p = 0.002) [9]. Sauer et al. found that ≥ grade 3 diarrhea occurred in patients treated preoperatively significantly less frequent than those treated postoperatively (12 % vs. 18 %, p = 0.04) [4]. To further reduce small bowel volume in the radiation field, IMRT has been used in several studies in the preoperative chemo-radiation therapy for rectal cancer [15, 16]. Two dosimetric studies showed that the small bowel volume was reduced significantly in the radiation field with IMRT [17, 18]. In the study by Arbea L et al., the small bowel V40 with IMRT was only one third of the V40 treated with conventional 3-field technique (68.9 cc vs. 178.3 cc, p < 0.01) [19]. In our study, all patients received preoperative radiotherapy with IMRT technique. The small bowel V40 in the current study was only 23–30 cc which is smaller than the small bowl V40 (68.9 cc) in patients treated with IMRT in the study of Arbea et al. Our study suggests that the small bowel V5-V20 are no longer predictors for grade ≥ 2 lower GI toxicity when an irradiated small bowl volume is reduced to a very low level by using modern radiotherapy technique such as IMRT.

Lower GI toxicity is the consequence of rectal irradiation

It is well known that the symptoms of small bowel and rectal injury are different. The symptoms from acute small bowel injury include watery diarrhea, colicky abdominal pain, bloating, loss of appetite, nausea and dehydration [20]. On the other hand, the symptoms from rectal injury typically include soft or diarrhea-like stools, rectal pain and tenesmus (a sense of rectal distention with cramping and frequency) [21]. Studies have shown that patients treated with chemotherapy alone had a risk of around 20 % in developing ≥ grade 3 treatment-related diarrhea [22] and adding chemotherapy concurrently to radiotherapy increased the frequency and severity of diarrhea [23]. In theory, diarrhea caused by chemotherapy should occur in the course of chemotherapy and could be cured in a short duration. In our study, most patients presented tenesmus. We believe that the occasional watery diarrhea of 4 patients in our study was caused by concurrent chemotherapy since they only occurred during the week of receiving chemotherapy and was cured in a week.

Primary tumor volume influences the lower GI toxicity

Another finding in this study was that the most common acute lower GI toxicity was tenesmus. The gross tumor volume was the only independent influencing factor for the acute lower GI toxicity. The larger the tumor volume the more frequent bowel movements (115.5 ± 85.5 cm3 versus 58.5 ± 25.2 cm3 for grade ≥ 2 and grade 0–1, p = 0.000). Given that most patients had no watery diarrhea, we believe that the named lower GI acute toxicity is a rectal reaction to the tumor and to the radiation injury. In the study of Myerson RJ et al., although they used the 3D-CRT technique, they also found that proctitis was the most common acute toxicity (5/37) during preoperative chemo-radiotherapy and associated with large tumors (PTV ≥ 500 cc). There was only one patient who had enteritis during the treatment course [24].

Wireless whole gastrointestinal video capsule endoscopy

The acute toxicity of the small bowel is to a large extent a result of clonogenic and apoptotic cell death in the crypt epithelium, resulting in insufficient replacement of the villus epithelium, breakdown of the mucosal barrier, mucositis, and prominent compensatory and proliferative reactions (see Fig. 1b) [25]. The best way to observe the small bowl reaction to radiation is to use the wireless whole gastrointestinal video capsule endoscopy (VCE). Video capsule endoscopy enables excellent visualization of the small bowel mucosa [26]. Only a pilot study and a case report demonstrated the usefulness of VCE for radiation-induced late small bowel injury [27, 28]. We elected 2 patients, one had grade 2 and the other had grade 0 lower GI toxicity, to undergo VCE (Model of JS-ME-II, Chongqing Jinshan Science and Technolgy (group) Co.,Ltd) examination in 2 to 3 days after the completion of preoperative chemo-radiotherapy in order to observe the changes in the small bowel mucosa. The duration of both VCE examinations were around 9 h and both showed normal small bowel mucosa (see Fig. 1c and d). The small bowel V5-V40 of these two patients are shown in Table 5. These findings directly confirmed our results that clinical lower GI toxicity in pelvic IMRT is not associated with the dose-volume parameters of small bowel.
Table 5

Small bowel dose-volume for the two patients who underwent VCE examination

Dose level

Small bowel volume (cm3)

(Gy)

Case 1

Case 2

5

330

183

10

295

159

15

281

142

20

254

116

25

192

90

30

108

44

35

64

18

40

40

9

Quantifying the lower GI toxicity

Although there were many reports concerning the acute and chronic small bowel toxicity in pelvic radiation therapy, little data has been published quantifying the details of the toxicity such as extent, timing, duration, correlation with chemotherapy, etc. It is very hard to evaluate the lower GI toxicity via the status of stools for rectal cancer, because for most patients, the most common symptom at the time of diagnosis is increasing frequency of stools with or without mixed blood. Among the 63 patients in our study, the number of pre-existing daily bowel movements was found to be 1 time in 6 (9.5 %) patients, 2–3 times in 25 (39.7 %) patient, 4–6 times in 25(39.7 %) patients and ≥ 7 stools in 7 patients (11.1 %) (see Table 1). Almost half of these patients presented with grade ≥ 2 bowel toxicity before initiating radiotherapy treatment. Moreover, both RTOG [29] and CTCAE [14] toxicity scales for lower GI toxicity are simple and rapidly assessable, but provide limited information. For example, they do not assess the development of anorectal symptoms such as tenesmus which is the most common symptom during the pelvic irradiation, especially for rectal cancer treated with IMRT technique. A modified questionnaire from the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) and Vaizey Incontinence questionnaire may be more sensitive and useful for toxicity data collection during the treatment and follow-up [30, 31]. Such questionnaires include much more information when compared to RTOG and CTCAE scales.

Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, a lack of information on total small bowel volume and details of toxicity.

Conclusion

When small bowel volume in the radiation field was reduced to a low level with IMRT, it was no longer as an influencing factor for acute lower GI toxicity. The radiation-induced lower GI symptoms such as tenesmus without watery diarrhea during pelvic IMRT may be caused by the rectal tumor itself and rectal reaction to radiotherapy. A future prospective study is warranted to investigate the details of lower GI toxicity during treatment and early follow-up, by using a real-time recorded clinical note, modified questionnaire and whole gastrointestinal wireless capsule endoscopy.

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Radiation Oncology, The Fujian Medical University Union Hospital
(2)
Department of General Surgery, The Fujian Medical University Union Hospital
(3)
Institute of Life Sciences, Fuzhou University
(4)
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 987521 Nebraska Medical Center

Referrences

  1. Prolongation of the disease-free interval in surgically treated rectal carcinoma. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. The New England journal of medicine.N Engl J Med. 1985, 312(23):1465–1472.Google Scholar
  2. O’Connell MJ, Martenson JA, Wieand HS, Krook JE, Macdonald JS, Haller DG, et al. Improving adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer by combining protracted-infusion fluorouracil with radiation therapy after curative surgery. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(8):502–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Pasetto LM, Pucciarelli S, Agostini M, Rossi E, Monfardini S. Neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004;52(1):61–71.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, Rodel C, Wittekind C, Fietkau R, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(17):1731–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Roh MS, Colangelo LH, O’Connell MJ, Yothers G, Deutsch M, Allegra CJ, et al. Preoperative multimodality therapy improves disease-free survival in patients with carcinoma of the rectum: NSABP R-03. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(31):5124–30.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Baglan KL, Frazier RC, Yan D, Huang RR, Martinez AA, Robertson JM. The dose-volume relationship of acute small bowel toxicity from concurrent 5-FU-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52(1):176–83.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Banerjee R, Chakraborty S, Nygren I, Sinha R. Small bowel dose parameters predicting grade >/= 3 acute toxicity in rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation: an independent validation study comparing peritoneal space versus small bowel loop contouring techniques. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(5):1225–31.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosset JF, Collette L, Calais G, Mineur L, Maingon P, Radosevic-Jelic L, et al. Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(11):1114–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Minsky BD, Conti JA, Huang Y, Knopf K. Relationship of acute gastrointestinal toxicity and the volume of irradiated small bowel in patients receiving combined modality therapy for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(6):1409–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Mok H, Crane CH, Palmer MB, Briere TM, Beddar S, Delclos ME, et al. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): differences in target volumes and improvement in clinically relevant doses to small bowel in rectal carcinoma. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:63.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Samuelian JM, Callister MD, Ashman JB, Young-Fadok TM, Borad MJ, Gunderson LL. Reduced acute bowel toxicity in patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(5):1981–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Gay HA, Barthold HJ, O’Meara E, Bosch WR, El Naqa I, Al-Lozi R, et al. Pelvic normal tissue contouring guidelines for radiation therapy: a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group consensus panel atlas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(3):e353–62.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Xu BH, Chi P, Guo JH, Guan GX, Tang TL, Yang YH, et al. Pilot study of intense neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: retrospective review of a phase II study. Tumori. 2014;100(2):149–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Trotti A, Byhardt R, Stetz J, Gwede C, Corn B, Fu K, et al. Common toxicity criteria: version 2.0. an improved reference for grading the acute effects of cancer treatment: impact on radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47(1):13–47.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Callister MD, Ezzell GA, Gunderson LL. IMRT Reduces the Dose to Small Bowel and Other Pelvic Organs in the Preoperative Treatment of Rectal Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66(3):S290.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Engels B, De Ridder M, Tournel K, Sermeus A, De Coninck P, Verellen D, et al. Preoperative helical tomotherapy and megavoltage computed tomography for rectal cancer: impact on the irradiated volume of small bowel. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(5):1476–80.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Duthoy W, De Gersem W, Vergote K, Boterberg T, Derie C, Smeets P, et al. Clinical implementation of intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60(3):794–806.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Guerrero Urbano MT, Henrys AJ, Adams EJ, Norman AR, Bedford JL, Harrington KJ, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer reduces volume of bowel treated to high dose levels. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(3):907–16.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Arbea L, Ramos LI, Martinez-Monge R, Moreno M, Aristu J. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) vs. 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): dosimetric comparison and clinical implications. Radiat Oncol. 2010;5:17.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Stacey R, Green JT. Radiation-induced small bowel disease: latest developments and clinical guidance. Ther Advanc Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;5(1):15–29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Michalski JM, Gay H, Jackson A, Tucker SL, Deasy JO. Radiation dose-volume effects in radiation-induced rectal injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3 Suppl):S123–9.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Cassidy J, Tabernero J, Twelves C, Brunet R, Butts C, Conroy T, et al. XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin): active first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(11):2084–91.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller RC, Martenson JA, Sargent DJ, Kahn MJ, Krook JE. Acute treatment-related diarrhea during postoperative adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;41(3):593–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Myerson RJ, Valentini V, Birnbaum EH, Cellini N, Coco C, Fleshman JW, et al. A phase I/II trial of three-dimensionally planned concurrent boost radiotherapy and protracted venous infusion of 5-FU chemotherapy for locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50(5):1299–308.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Hauer-Jensen M, Wang J, Denham JW. Bowel injury: current and evolving management strategies. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003;13(3):357–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kopylov U, Nemeth A, Koulaouzidis A, Makins R, Wild G, Afif W, et al. Small bowel capsule endoscopy in the management of established Crohn’s disease: clinical impact, safety, and correlation with inflammatory biomarkers. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21(1):93–100.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim HM, Kim YJ, Kim HJ, Park SW, Bang S, Song SY. A pilot study of capsule endoscopy for the diagnosis of radiation enteritis. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2011;58(106):459–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee DW, Poon AO, Chan AC. Diagnosis of small bowel radiation enteritis by capsule endoscopy. Hong Kong Med J. 2004;10(6):419–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Cox JD, Stetz J, Pajak TF. Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31(5):1341–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Khalid U, McGough C, Hackett C, Blake P, Harrington KJ, Khoo VS, et al. A modified inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire and the Vaizey Incontinence questionnaire are more sensitive measures of acute gastrointestinal toxicity during pelvic radiotherapy than RTOG grading. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64(5):1432–41.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Olopade FA, Norman A, Blake P, Dearnaley DP, Harrington KJ, Khoo V, et al. A modified Inflammatory Bowel Disease questionnaire and the Vaizey Incontinence questionnaire are simple ways to identify patients with significant gastrointestinal symptoms after pelvic radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2005;92(9):1663–70.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Xu et al. 2015