You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Review
  • Open Access

A systematic review of dose-volume predictors and constraints for late bowel toxicity following pelvic radiotherapy

  • 1, 2Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 3 and
  • 1, 4
Radiation Oncology201914:57

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1262-8

  • Received: 7 May 2018
  • Accepted: 27 March 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Advanced pelvic radiotherapy techniques aim to reduce late bowel toxicity which can severely impact the lives of pelvic cancer survivors. Although advanced techniques have been largely adopted worldwide, to achieve their aim, knowledge of which dose-volume parameters of which components of bowel predict late bowel toxicity is crucial to make best use of these techniques.

The rectum is an extensively studied organ at risk (OAR), and dose-volume predictors of late toxicity for the rectum are established. However, for other components of bowel, there is a significant paucity of knowledge. The Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) reviews recommend dose-volume constraints for acute bowel toxicity for peritoneal cavity and bowel loops, although no constraints are recommended for late toxicity, despite its relevance to our increasing number of survivors. This systematic review aims to examine the published literature to seek dose-volume predictors and constraints of late bowel toxicity for OARs (apart from the rectum) for use in clinical practice.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Cinahl and Pubmed. Studies were screened and included according to specific pre-defined criteria. Included studies were assessed for quality against QUANTEC-defined assessment criteria.

Results

101 studies were screened to find 30 relevant studies. Eight studies related to whole bowel, 11 to small bowel, and 21 to large bowel (including 16 of the anal canal). The anal canal is an important OAR for the development of late toxicity, and we recommend an anal canal Dmean <40Gy as a constraint to reduce late incontinence. For other components of bowel (sigmoid, large bowel, intestinal cavity, bowel loops), although individual studies found statistically significant parameters and constraints these findings were not corroborated in other studies.

Conclusions

The anal canal is an important OAR for the development of late bowel toxicity symptoms. Further validation of the constraints found for other components of bowel is needed. Studies that were more conclusive included those with patient-reported data, where individual symptom scores were assessed rather than an overall score, and those that followed statistical and endpoint criteria as defined by QUANTEC.

Background

Pelvic radiotherapy is used to treat approximately 17,000 patients per year in the UK with urological, gynaecological and colorectal malignancies [1]. For a significant proportion of these patients, pelvic radiotherapy improves survival outcomes. For others, it reduces the risk of pelvic recurrences, which can both cause distressing symptoms and be difficult to manage.

Although contributing to the cure of many pelvic cancer survivors, pelvic radiotherapy is associated with late toxicity, in particular late bowel toxicity. Serious life-threatening toxicity such as bowel obstruction, fistulae and bleeding requiring transfusion occur in 4–10% of patients 5–10 years after treatment [2]. Furthermore, an important consideration for the growing number of survivors of pelvic cancers is that 50% of patients report late bowel toxicity symptoms which adversely affect their quality of life after pelvic radiotherapy.

Late bowel toxicity is generally attributed to radiation to bowel and rectum and these are considered the organs at risk (OARs). Advanced radiotherapy techniques for pelvic treatments are continually evolving, with the aim of reducing dose to these OARs.

However, to determine whether the dose reductions achieved by these techniques are likely to translate into reduced toxicity for patients requires detailed knowledge of the dose-volume parameters and constraints for these OARs. Once dose-volume constraints are known these can be used to limit the risk of toxicity and potentially allow safe dose escalation with modern delivery techniques.

In 2010 the Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) review summarised the available dose-volume data for bowel toxicity, with one review focussing on rectum and the other on stomach and bowel. For rectum, an extensively studied OAR, QUANTEC reviewed a large amount of high-quality data and dose-volume constraints for rectum for acute and late toxicity were recommended [3]. These are commonly incorporated into radiotherapy protocols in clinical practice.

However, for bowel there was a relative paucity of data. QUANTEC reviewed data from six papers which examined the dose-volume relationship of bowel with acute bowel toxicity only [4]. For late bowel toxicity, there was no detailed dose-volume relationship analysis described. Studies mentioned were trial data detailing the incidence of late bowel toxicity at the dose-fractionations used within each trial, though no specific dose-volume predictors can be derived from this information.

The QUANTEC reviewers suggest that the constraints identified for acute bowel toxicity may be applied for late bowel toxicity however clarify that “this correlation is not established”. Further, although QUANTEC examined the peritoneal cavity and small bowel loops as OARs, the potential of other bowel components as OARs for bowel toxicity such as sigmoid, duodenum, ileum and anal canal are not detailed.

In a separate paper by Jackson et al., QUANTEC [5] highlighted issues which hinder the development of dose-volume constraints and the pooling of results from different studies, including variations in toxicity endpoint definition, statistical standards, and anatomical definitions of OARs. They recommended several criteria to assess the quality of future dose-volume studies and to facilitate meta-analysis of these studies.

With reduction of late bowel toxicity being a prime aim of advanced pelvic radiotherapy techniques, the lack of clear dose-volume constraints in this setting has been acknowledged and more studies have been reported. This study aims to systematically review published studies examining the dose-volume predictors of all components of bowel (excluding rectum) for late bowel toxicity, including a quality assessment of these studies from criteria derived from QUANTEC.

From this review we aim to determine the clinically useful dose-volume constraints for late bowel toxicity which can guide protocols for advanced pelvic radiotherapy techniques.

Methods

Information sources and search strategy

A systematic search was carried out using Medline, Premedline, Embase, Pubmed and Web of Science on 15th October 2013; Updated searches were performed on 10th November 2014, 3rd September 2015 and 1st May 2017 to ensure all new literature was included. Thesaurus and natural language terms around the concepts of “radiotherapy, radiotherapy injuries, side effects, toxicity, intestines bowel, dose, dose fractionation, dose response relationship” were identified for each database. Duplicate references were removed.

Study selection

Eligible studies were English language studies, involving human adult patients treated for any gastrointestinal, urological or gynaecological malignancies with external beam radiotherapy. Studies correlating the dose-volume relationship of any component of bowel from duodenum to anal canal with late bowel toxicity were included, apart from those focussed on the rectum, given that it has already been extensively studied as an OAR. Late toxicity was defined as more than 3 months from completion of radiotherapy.

Excluded studies were review articles and letters, studies involving brachytherapy only, or stereotactic body radiotherapy. Both full text papers and conference abstracts were considered, however studies with insufficient methodological detail to be able to repeat the method on an independent sample of patients were excluded.

All abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers (RJ, EH) for inclusion. Full papers of abstracts were acquired and further assessed for eligibility, with any discrepancies discussed between the two reviewers. The reference lists of all the included papers were hand-searched for additional references.

Data extraction and synthesis of results

Bowel can be defined in several different ways and for the purpose of this review studies were divided into those looking at the whole bowel (including bowel loops and peritoneal cavity), small bowel (and its components) and large bowel (and its components). For each included study the number of patients, proportion with the toxicity, tumour site, OAR studied, toxicity definition, treatment details and key findings were tabulated.

Furthermore, the recommendations from QUANTEC [5] on quality of dose-volume studies were reviewed, and those criteria that can be applied to this subject were selected (see Table 1). Each included study was assessed for quality against these statistical and endpoint criteria.
Table 1

Statistical and Endpoint Considerations from QUANTEC [5]

Statistical considerations

1 Basic statistical data provided on incidence of toxicity

 -Both number of subjects and number of events should be reported

 -If an estimate of incidence is given the standard error should be supplied

2 Numerical labeling of response histogram – if into groups eg. quartiles must state number of patients in each quartile

3 When predictive models are correlated with complications parameter estimates must be stated with their standard error

4 Complication rates associated with constraints must be reported

5 “Goodness of fit” to be reported such as Chi-squared

6 Discriminator statistics reported such as receiver operating characteristic curves

7 Full organ volumes (rather than partial) should be used

 -If this is not possible absolute volumes should be used or a standard method of normalization

 -A clear statement of organ volume definition should be given

Toxicity Endpoint considerations

1 Symptom-specific information rather than a portmanteau endpoint (eg. RTOG gr 2) should be used

2 Consideration that symptoms may be attributed to pre-radiotherapy co-morbidities

3 Patient-reporting of symptoms may be important

Results

Outcomes of the systematic search are shown in Fig. 1. Overall, 30 studies involving a total of 5126 patients were included as detailed in Table 2. Twenty-one studies included patients with prostate cancer, 6 with gynaecological cancers (cervical and endometrial), and 2 each included bladder and pancreatic cancers. Most studies (n = 18) included less than 100 patients, with 9 studies having less than 50 patients included.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Systematic Search Outcomes

Table 2

All included studies

Author

Year

Cancer site

No of pts

Pts with tox

OAR studied

Toxicity score used

RT Type

Primary RT Dose (Gy/#)

Pelvic RT dose (Gy/#)

Concurrent chemo use

Adkison [34]

2012

Prostate

53

20

small bowel

CTCAE v3.0

IMRT

70/28

56/28

no

al-Abany [18]

2005

Prostate

65

9

anal sphincter region

Own questionnaire

3D

70.2/39

NS

no

Alsadius [19]

2012

Prostate or prostatic bed

403

51

anal sphincter region

Own questionnaire

3D

70/35

NS

no

Buettner [20]

2012

Prostate

388

57

anal canal

Common grading scheme

3D

64/32 or 74/37

NS

no

Chopra [11]

2014

Cervix (post-op)

71

9

small bowel, large bowel

CTCAE v3.0

IG-MRT (46); 3D (25)

50/25

50/25

63/71 cisplatin

Deville [31]

2010

Prostate

30

2

intestinal cavity

RTOG

IMRT

79.2/44

45/25

no

Deville [7]

2012

Prostatic bed

36

5

intestinal cavity

RTOG

IMRT

70.2/39

45/25

no

Ebert [35]

2015

Prostate

754

Symptom specific

Anal canal

LENT-SOMA

IMRT

66–78/33–38

NS

no

Fokdal [14]

2005

Prostate or bladder

71

Symptom specific

small bowel

LENT-SOMA

Conformal

60/30 (bladder) 69.6/35 (prostate)

48-60Gy bladder; NS for prostate)

no

Fonteyne [17]

2007

Prostate

241

Symptom specific

small bowel, sigmoid

RTOG and “RILIT”

IMRT

74/37–80/40

NS

no

Green [36]

2015

Prostate or prostatic bed

73

10

Intestinal cavity

CTCAE v4.0

IMRT/VMAT

61–79.2

45

no

Guerrero- Urbano [8]

2010

Prostate & Pelvic nodes

79

21

bowel loops

RTOG diarrhoea & LENT SOMA diarrhoea

IMRT

70/35

50/35 or 55/35

no

Huang [15]

2011

Pancreas

46

8

duodenum

CTCAE v4.0

3D or IMRT

42/15

42/15; 36/15; 38/19

Gemcitabine; 18 pts. erlotinib in addition

Isohashi [10]

2013

Cervix (post-op)

97

16

peritoneal cavity, small and large bowel

RTOG/EORTC

2D or 3D

50/25

50/25

All nedaplatin

Kelly [13]

2013

Pancreas

106

20

duodenum

CTCAE v4.0

3D or IMRT

50.4/28 (78pts); 57.5–75.4 in 28–39# (28pts)

50.4/28 (78pts); 57.5–75.4 in 28–39# (28pts)

Gemcitabine

5-FUor capecitabine +/− cetuximab or erlotinib

Author

Year

Cancer site

No of pts

Pts with tox

OAR studied

Toxicity score used

RT Type

RT Dose (Gy/#)

Pelvic RT dose (Gy/#)

Concurrent chemo use

Koper [25]

2004

Prostate

266

141

anal canal

RTOG (simplified)

Symptom questionnaire

3D or 2D

66/33

NS

no

Lind [12]

2016

Cervical or Endometrium

519

63

Anal sphincter, small bowel, sigmoid

Own questionnaire (defecation into clothing without forewarning)

2D or 3D

40–46 (endometrium) or 55–70 (cervix)

NS

Not stated

Mavroidis [27]

2005

Prostate

65

Symptom specific

anal sphincter

Own questionnaire

3D

70.2/39

NS

no

Mcdonald [9]

2015

Bladder

47

10

bowel loops

RTOG

3D

64/32

64/32

21 received 5-FU/MMC

Mouttet-Audouard [6]

2015

Cervical

37

8

Small bowel [defined as peritoneal cavity], sigmoid

CTCAE v4.0

IMRT (tomotherapy)

60/28

50/28

Cisplatin

Peeters [21]

2006

Prostate

641

146

Anal wall

RTOG/EORTC plus 5 specified symptoms

3D (41 pts. had IMRT boost)

68/34 or 78/39

NS

no

Peeters [28]

2006

Prostate

368

32

Anal wall

Incontinence (no specific questionnaire)

3D (22 pts. had boost)

68/34 or 78/39

NS

no

Poorvu [16]

2013

Cervix or Endometrium (+ PA nodes)

46

3

peritoneal cavity, small bowel, duodenal segments

CTCAE v4.0

IMRT

45/25 (22pts); PAN boost 50–65 (33pts)

45/25 & PAN boost 50–65 (33 pts)

24 received cisplatin

Smeenk [26]

2012

Prostate

48

21

Anal sphincter muscles

Presence of frequency, urgency and incontinence

3D (n = 43, IMRT (n = 5)

67.5/27 or 70/28

NS

no

Smeenk [22]

2012

Prostate

36

23

Anal wall

Late RILIT score: urgency, incontinence, frequency

3D

67.5/27 or 70/28

NS

no

Taussky [37]

2003

Prostate

73

unclear

anal canal

UCLA, FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-PR25

3D

66.6–72/ 37–40

NS

no

Thor [29]

2015

Prostate

212

Symptom specific

Anal sphincter

Own questionnaire with 19 descriptors for 4 symptoms

3D

70-78Gy

NS

no

Verma [30]

2014

Cervix & Endometrium

105

9

duodenum

RTOG and endoscopic findings

IMRT

45–50 (60-66Gy boost)

45–50 (60–66 boost)

58 pts. platinum agents

Vordermark [23]

2003

Prostate or prostatic bed

44

14% severe incontinence

anal canal

10 question continence questionnaire

3D

58–72/29–36

NS

No

Yeoh [24]

2016

Prostate

106

72%

Anal wall

LENT-SOMA total score

3D

66–74.4/ 33–4

NS

no

Abbreviations: Pts Patients, OAR Organs at risk, RT Radiotherapy, Gy Gray, # Fraction, NS Not stated, CTCAE Common terminology criteria for adverse events, RTOG Radiation therapy oncology group, LENT-SOMA Late Effects of Normal Tissue – Subjective Objective Management Analytical, RILIT Radiation induced late intestinal toxicity, EORTC European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, IG-IMRT Image-guided intensity modulated radiotherapy, IMRT Intensity modulated radiotherapy, VMAT Volumetric modulated arc therapy, PA nodes Para-aortic nodes, pts Patients

Table 3 details studies for whole and small bowel, and Table 4 those for large bowel. In each table the final two columns indicate the quality assessment criteria of statistical and endpoint considerations as defined in Table 1. If a specific criterion is met its number is noted in the column.
Table 3

Whole bowel and small bowel studies – significant findings and quality assessment

      

Quality Assessment

Author

OAR studied

OAR defined

Toxicity definition

Pts with toxicity

Significant findings

Statistical criteria met (1–7)

Endpoint criteria met (1–3)

Deville [7]

Intestinal cavity

Intestinal cavity below L4–5

RTOG Gr ≥ 1

5/36 (14%)

Toxicity associated with total volume & V20. No constraints specified.

1,7

(n/a: 2–6)

None

Mouttet-Audouard [6]

“Small bowel” [outlined as abdominal cavity hence included in this section]

Entire abdominal cavity including all possible organ locations to iliac crests or D12/L1

CTCAE v4.0 Gr1–3 –diarrhoea or “whole digestive toxicity” (diarrhoea, gastritis, bleeding, pain, incontinence)

8/37 (21.6%)

17/37 (46%)

Larger volumes of bowel receiving 10–30Gy associated with diarrhoea & whole digestive toxicity. (No constraints specified)

“Whole digestive toxicity” associated with many parameters including D20%-D95%.

1, 7

(n/a 2–6)

2

Green [36]

Intestinal cavity

Not stated

CTCAE v4.0

9 (12%)

No dose-volume relationship found.

1 (n/a 2–6)

2

Deville [31]

Intestinal cavity

Large & small bowel below L4–5

RTOG Gr ≥ 2

2/30 (6%)

No dose-volume relationship found

1,7

(n/a 2–6)

None

Isohashi [10]

Peritoneal cavity

Volume surrounding small bowel loops to edge of peritoneum excluding bladder & rectum

RTOG/EORTC Gr ≥ 2

16/97 (16.5%)

No dose-volume relationship found

1,7

(n/a 2–6)

2

Poorvu [16]

1. Peritoneum

2. Peritoneum + Colon

1. Possible location of small bowel excluding solid organs & retroperitoneal structures.

2. Peritoneum (as above) plus asc & desc colon

CTCAE v4.0 Gr > 3

3/46 (6.5%)

No dose-volume relationship found

1, 7

(n/a 2–6)

2

Guerrero-Urbano [8]

Bowel loops

Loops from recto-sigmoid junction to 2 cm above PTV

RTOG Gr ≥ 2 diarrhoea; LENT-SOMA consistency & frequency- worst grade

21/79 (26%) RTOG diarrhoea; ≥gr2 6/79 (7.6%)

V40, V45, V60 and bowel volume of > 450 cc had both higher RTOG & LENTSOMA diarrhoea.

Constraints suggested: V40 < 124 cc, V45 < 71 cc, V60 < 0.5 cc for RTOG<gr 2

1,7

(n/a 2–3)

1

McDonald [9]

Bowel loops

Loops from recto-sigmoid junction to 2 cm above PTV

RTOG Gr ≥ 1

7/47 (14.9%) gr1; 3/47 (6.4%) gr2

Constraints for < 25% ≥ gr2 toxicity: V30 < 178 cc;V35 < 163 cc;V40 < 151 cc;V45 < 139c; V50 < 127 cc; V55 < 115 cc; V60 < 98 cc V65 < 40 cc

1,4,7

(n/a 2–3)

2

Chopra [11]

Small bowel

2 cm above target, individual small bowel loops (unclear how differentiated from large bowel)

CTCAE v3.0 Gr3+

9/71 (12.6%)

V15 associated with ≥gr3 toxicity. Recommend V15 < 275 cc, V30 < 190 cc, V40 < 150 cc reduces Gr3 toxicity from 23.6 to 5.6%.

1, 4, 6

(n/a 2,3)

2

Isohashi [10]

Small bowel

Bowel loops remaining after exclusion of large bowel loops

RTOG/EORTC Gr ≥ 2

16/97 (16.5%)

V40 best predictor of late toxicity; Recommend V40 < 340 ml to reduce toxicity from 46.2 to 8.7%

1,4,6,7

(n/a 2,3)

2

Lind [12]

Small bowel

All visible small bowel in small pelvic cavity to caudal part of sacroiliac joints

Defecation into clothing without warning > 1 in last 6 months

63/519 (12.1%)

Mean dose>50Gy to small bowel or sigmoid or anal sphincter region associated with symptom (findings for individual organs not clarified)

1, 7 (n/a 2,3)

1,2,3

Adkison [34]

Small bowel

Not clearly defined

CTCAE v3.0 Gr1 and Gr2

Gr1 16/53 (30%); Gr2 4/53 (8%)

No dose-volume relationship with V30-V60 small bowel

1

(n/a 2–6)

None

Fokdal [14]

Small bowel

Opacified & unopacified small intestine loops (outer contour & contents) from 1st slice to minor pelvis

LENT-SOMA G1–4

Symptom specific

No dose-volume relationship found

1,7

(n/a 2–6)

1,2,3

Fonteyne [17]

Small bowel

Not clearly defined

RTOG and “RILIT” Gr1 & Gr2

Gr1 112/241 (46%), Gr2 32/241(13%)

No dose-volume relationship found

1,

(n/a 2–6)

1,2

Poorvu [16]

Small bowel

Opacified & non-opacified small bowel loops

CTCAE v4.0 Gr3+

3/46 (6.5%)

No dose-volume relationship found

1,7

(n/a 2–6)

2

Huang [15]

Duodenum

Duodenal bulb to ligament of Treitz

CTCAE v4.0 Gr ≥ 3

8/46 (17.4%)

With a V25 > 45% toxicity rates increase from 8 to 48%

1,4,6,7

(n/a 2,3)

2

Kelly [13]

Duodenum

Gastric pylorus until end of duodenum 3 cm past midline

CTCAE v4.0 Gr ≥ 2

20/106 (18.9%)

With a V55 > 1 cc toxicity rates increase from 9 to 47%

1,4,6,7

(n/a 2,3)

2

Verma [30]

Duodenum

From gastric outlet through transverse portion of duodenum (ascending portion excluded)

RTOG, all grades

9 /105 (8.6%)

With a V55 > 15 cc toxicity rates increase from 7.4 to 48.6%

1,4,6,7

(n/a 2,3)

2

Poorvu [16]

Duodenal segments

D1 segment: bulblike shape & origin beyond gastric pylorus. Transitions between 2nd & 3rd segments was lateral border of IVC; Between 3rd & 4th was medial border of aorta

CTCAE v4.0 Gr ≥ 3

3/46 (6.5%)

No dose-volume relationship found with duodenum

1,7

(n/a 2–6)

2

Abbreviations: Pts Patients, OAR Organs at risk, RT Radiotherapy, Gr Grade, CTCAE Common terminology criteria for adverse events, RTOG Radiation therapy oncology group, LENT-SOMA Late Effects of Normal Tissue – Subjective Objective Management Analytical, RILIT Radiation induced late intestinal toxicity, EORTC European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Vx Volume receiving x Gy, AUC Area under curve

Table 4

Large Bowel studies - details and quality assessment

      

Quality Assessment

Author

OAR studied

OAR defined

Toxicity definition

Pts with toxicity

Significant findings

Statistical considerations met (1–7)

Endpoint considerations met (1–3)

Chopra [11]

Large bowel

2 cm above target, individual loops of large bowel (unclear how differentiated from small bowel)

CTCAE v3.0 Gr ≥ 3

9/71 (12.6%)

V15 associated with ≥gr 3 toxicity.

Constraints: V15 < 250 cc, V30 < 100 cc, V40 < 90 cc to reduce toxicity from 26.7 to 5.4%

1, 4, 6

(n/a 2,3)

2

Isohashi [10]

Large bowel

Single loop continuing from end of sigmoid to ascending colon

RTOG/EORTC, Gr ≥ 2

16/97 (16.5%)

No constraint found for large bowel

1,7

(n/a 2–6)

2

Fonteyne [17]

Sigmoid colon

Where rectum sweeps anteriorly to one slice above aortic bifurcation

RTOG and “RILIT” Gr 1 and 2

Gr 1112/241 (46%), Gr 2 32/241 (13%).

V40 associated with gr1 diarrhoea & blood loss.

Constraints: V40 < 10%, V30 < 16% to avoid gr1–2 diarrhoea

1, 7

(n/a 3)

1,2

Mouttet-Audouard [6]

Sigmoid colon

Anterior curvature of sigmoid colon to anterior abdominal wall

CTCAE v4.0

Gr1–3 diarrhoea and “whole digestive toxicity”

8/37 (21.6%) diarrhoea; 17/37

(46%) (whole tox)

‘Whole late digestive toxicity’ associated with V30–40. No specific constraints.

1,7

(n/a 2–6)

1,2

Lind [12]

Sigmoid colon

From where rectum deviates from its mid- position to where it turns cranially in left abdomen connecting to colon descendens

Defecation into clothing without warning > 1 in last 6 months

63/519 (12.1%)

Mean dose>50Gy to small bowel or sigmoid or anal sphincter region associated with symptom (findings for individual organs not clarified)

1, 7

(n/a 2–6)

1,2,3

al-Abany [18]

Anal sphincter region

Caudal 3 cm of the rectum from anal verge (including filling)

Own questionnaire; Faecal leakage >2X/week

9/65 (13.8%) faecal leakage

Increased risk with mean dose of 45-55Gy.

Constraints: V35 < 60%, V40 < 40% associated with no risk of faecal leakage.

1, 7

(n/a 2,3)

1,2,3

Alsadius [19]

Anal sphincter region

Caudal part of large bowel, from end of rectal ampulla where bowel no longer had visible content or air.

Own questionnaire;

Faecal leakage >once per month

51/403 (12.7%) faecal leakage

Dmean<40Gy reduces risk from 17 to 4%.

1,2,4,7

(n/a 3)

1,2,3

Fokdal [14]

Anal canal

Outer contour of the structure extending from anal verge 2 cm cranially

LENT SOMA score

Urge: 27/71 (38%); Incontinence: 21/71 (30%)

Urgency related to Dmed> 33.8: increases toxicity 31 to 47%

Incontinence related to Dmax> 53.8 increases 14 to 44%

1,2,4,5,7

(n/a 3)

1,2,3

Vordermark [23]

Anal canal

Anal verge to the section below visible rectal lumen, corresponding to the upper border of the

levator ani muscle

“Solid soiling” (Severe incontinence)

Own continence questionnaire

6/44 (14%)

Severe incontinence

- associated with Dmin (23.1Gy)

- related to portals extending 2 mm below ischial tuberosities (compared with 5 mm above)

1, 7

(n/a 2–3)

1,2,3

Koper [25]

Anal canal

Caudal 3 cm of the intestine

RTOG gr1 + 2;

Plus symptom questionnaire.

141/248 (57%)

D90% (=54.9Gy) to associated with ≥ gr1 rectal toxicity

1, 7

(n/a 2–6)

2,3

Taussky [37]

Anal canal

Most distal 2-3 cm of rectum

10 questions from UCLA-PCI, FACT-P & EORTC QLQ -PR25

Unclear

no relation with anal canal DVH found

7

(N/a: 2–3)

3

Buettner [20]

Anal canal

Caudal 3 cm of rectum

Common grading scheme; subjective sphincter control at highest grade

57/388 (14.7%)

DSH data: Toxicity correlated with dose to anal surface: lateral extent 53Gy > 56%.

DVH data: Dmean 47Gy to anal sphincter volume correlated with sphincter toxicity. Constraints: Dmean<30Gy.NTCP modeling to LKB model TD50 = 120, m = 0.42.

1,3,6,7

(n/a 2)

1,2,3

Peeters [21]

Anal wall

Wall of caudal 3 cm of anorectum (method described)

RTOG/EORTC ≥ gr 2 and ≥ gr 3 Plus incontinence pad use>2x/wk.

≥gr 2165/641 (25.7%) ≥ gr 3 27/641 4.2%

Dmean increase from 19Gy to 52Gy increased gr2 toxicity: 16 to 31%.

V65 & Dmean most significant for incontinence. Dmean increase by 33Gy increased incontinence by 12%

1,2,4,6,7

(n/a 3)

1,2

Mavroidis [27]

Anal sphincter region

Musculaure layer around the rectal aperture, 3 cm caudal from anal verge

Own questionnaire

faecal leakage 19/65 (29%); blood/mucus 22/65 (34%)

Relative seriality NTCP model of anal sphincter for incontinence, blood/mucus. Parameters for incontinence: D50 = 70.2Gy, γ = 1.22, s = 0.35. Parameters for blood/mucus: D50 = 74.0Gy, γ = 0.75, s ≈ 0

1, 3, 5, 6, 7

(n/a 2)

1,3

Peeters [28]

Anal canal wall

Wall of caudal 3 cm of anorectum (method described)

Incontinence requiring pad

use>2x/wk.;

32/368 (7%)

NTCP LKB model of incontinence with anal wall dose. Parameters found were n = 7.48; TD50 = 105; m = 0.46

1,3,4,5,6,7

(n/a: 2)

1,3

Smeenk [26]

Anal sphincter muscles

Individual muscles defined (Internal anal sphincter (IAS), external anal sphincter (EAS), puborectalis & levator ani)

Frequency, Urgency, Incontinence

21/48 (44%)

For complication <5% Dmean<30Gy to IAS; <10Gy to EAS, < 50Gy to puborectalis, <40Gy to levator ani

1, 4,5

(n/a 2)

1,2,3

Smeenk [22]

Anal wall

Continuation of rectal wall from anal verge to slice below lowest slice with a rectal balloon

Frequency, urgency, incontinence

39% frequency, 31% urgency, 31% incontinence

For urgency:

Anal wall Dmean<38Gy risk < 15%, >38Gy risk is 62%

1,4,7

(n/a 2,3,5,6)

1,3

Lind [12]

Anal sphincter region

Inner muscle layer of the sphincter up to anal verge

Defecation into clothing without warning > 1 in last 6 months

63/519 (12.1%)

Mean dose>50Gy to small bowel or sigmoid or anal sphincter region associated with this symptom

(findings for individual organs not clarified)

1, 7 (n/a 2,3)

1,2,3

Yeoh [24]

Anal wall

From anorectal junction (not clearly defined)

LENT-SOMA total score

72%

Anal wall V40 > 65% associated with chronic toxicity.

1,5 (n/a 2,3)

2,3

Thor [29]

Anal sphincter

Anal canal, inner and outer sphincter (not clearly defined)

Questionnaire of 19 questions in 4 domains: pain urgency, mucus & incontinence.

Specific to each of 19 question

5 LKB models proposed for anal sphincter doses.

Low anal sphincter dose associated with faecal leakage and pain. High anal sphincter dose associated with leakage.

1,3,6 (n/a 2)

1,2,3

Ebert [35]

Anal Canal

Caudal 3 cm of anorectum

LENT-SOMA – 8 symptoms

Specific to each symptom

Bleeding associated with >40Gy, proctitis with 36-63Gy, frequency with 8-85Gy, urgency and tenesmus with 5-34Gy to anal canal.

1,5,7 (n/a 2)

1,2,3

Abbreviations: Pts Patients, OAR Organs at risk, RT Radiotherapy, Gr Grade, CTCAE Common terminology criteria for adverse events, RTOG Radiation therapy oncology group, LENT-SOMA Late Effects of Normal Tissue – Subjective Objective Management Analytical, RILIT Radiation induced late intestinal toxicity, EORTC European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Vx Volume receiving x Gy, AUC Area under curve, Dmean Mean dose, Dmax Maximal dose, DVH Dose volume histogram, DSH Dose surface histogram, NTCP Normal Tissue Complication Probability, LKB Lyman Kutcher Burman

Whole bowel

Eight papers (including 445 patients) examined the dose-volume relationship of whole bowel either using bowel loops or intestinal/peritoneal cavity as detailed in Table 3.

Peritoneal cavity

Late bowel toxicity was associated with low doses to the peritoneal cavity (V10–30Gy) in 2 studies. Mouttett-Audouard et al. [6] found, in 37 cervical cancer patients, an association between “bigger volumes” of bowel receiving 10–30Gy and grade 1–3 Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE) toxicity, although specific cut-offs were not reported. Deville et al. [7] found that peritoneal cavity volume and V20 were both associated with grade 1 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity. Again no constraints were derived.

Bowel loops

Two studies [8, 9] investigated bowel loops as an OAR for late toxicity, both with an identical definition of bowel loops. Guerrero-Urbano et al., in 79 patients who had their prostate and pelvic nodes treated, found V40, V45 and V60 bowel loops to be predictive of late grade 2 RTOG-graded diarrhoea. They suggested constraints of V40 < 124 cc, V45 < 71 cc and V60 < 0.5 cc to reduce grade 2 RTOG toxicity, although no complication rates associated with these constraints are detailed. McDonald et al. in their study of 47 bladder cancer patients suggested constraints to reduce the risk of grade ≥ 2 RTOG toxicity to less than 25% (V30 < 178 cc; V40 < 151 cc; V45 < 139 cc; V60 < 98 cc and V65 < 40 cc), although it must be noted that only 3 patients within this study had grade 2 toxicity.

Small bowel and its components

Eleven studies (including 1401 patients) were included in this section, with 6 studies examining small bowel and 4 examining the duodenum, as detailed in Table 3. No papers investigating the ileum or jejunum were found.

Small bowel

2 of 6 studies found positive correlations with late bowel toxicities and small bowel volume parameters in cervical cancer patients. However, the positive parameters were different between the studies, with Isohashi et al. [10] recommending a V40 < 340 cc, and Chopra et al. [11] recommending a V15 < 275 cc. Lind et al. [12] found that a mean small bowel dose >50Gy was of significance, however could not clarify whether toxicity was linked specifically to small bowel, sigmoid or anal sphincter dose, making these results difficult to interpret.

Duodenum

3 of 4 studies found positive correlations between dose-volume parameters and duodenal toxicity. Two studies found V55 to be an important predictor, though with differing constraints. Kelly et al., in 106 pancreatic patients recommending a V55 < 1 cc [13] and Verma et al. in 105 gynaecological patients recommending a V55 < 15 cc [14]. Huang et al. [15] found V25 to be the significant predictor for pancreatic cancer patients treated with concurrent gemcitabine; with a V25 < 45% toxicity rates were 8%, above this constraint toxicity was 48%. Investigation of individual duodenal segments did not reveal any positive findings [16].

Large bowel and its components

21 studies (including 5006 patients) were included in this section (see Table 4), with 2 examining large bowel, 3 examining sigmoid and 16 studies examining the anal canal/sphincter region.

Large bowel and sigmoid Colon

Chopra et al. [11] found on multivariate analysis that V15 of large bowel was associated with grade 3 CTCAE toxicity (p < 0.03), and recommended with the use of the constraints-V15 < 250 cc, V30 < 100 cc and V40 < 90 cc grade 3 toxicity could reduce from 26.7 to 5.4%.

For the sigmoid colon Fonteyne et al. [17] found in 241 prostate patients that sigmoid V40 was associated with grade 1 diarrhoea and blood loss; they recommended V40 < 10% and V30 < 16% to avoid grade 1–2 diarrhoea. Mouttet-Aldouard et al. [6] also found sigmoid V30–40Gy to be significantly correlated (p < 0.006) with “digestive toxicity” although no specific cut-offs were defined.

Anal canal

15 of 16 studies had positive findings relating dose-volume parameters and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) models of the anal canal/sphincter to late toxicity. Most defined the anal canal as the distal 3 cm of rectum.

Dmean

5 studies [1822] found Dmean anal canal or anal sphincter region to be most predictive of toxicity, 4 of faecal incontinence and 1 of faecal urgency, as summarised in Table 5. There was relative consistency in the recommended Dmean constraints between 40-47Gy, despite the OARs being defined slightly differently.
Table 5

Anal canal Dmean results

Study

No of pts

OAR

Endpoint

Dmean (in EQD2) constraint

Risk of endpoint below this constraint

Risk of endpoint above this constraint

Al-albany [18]

65

Anal sphincter region

Incontinence >2X/week

43.2

8%

52%

Alsadius [19]

403

Anal canal

Incontinence > 1x/month

40

5.2%

21%

Buettner [20]

388

Anal sphincter region

Incontinence: moderate/severe (gr2)

47, though <30Gy ideal

5% (approx; read from graph)

 

Smeenk [22]

36

Anal canal wall

Urgency present

41.8

15%

62%

Peeters [21]

641

Anal canal wall

Incontinence requiring pad >2x/week

No constraint specified

16% at 19Gy

31% at 52Gy

Other dose volume histogram (DVH) and dose-surface histogram (DSH) parameters

Many other DVH parameters of the anal canal were found to be important, including Dmin [23], Dmax, Dmedian [14], V40 [24], V65 [21] and V90% dose [25]; these were all in individual findings with little corroboration between studies. Vordermark et al. also found that the treatment field border was important, with those with a lower border 2 mm below ischial tuberosities more likely to have severe incontinence compared with 5 mm above the ischial tuberosities.

Buettner et al. [20] also examined incontinence using dose surface maps (DSM) for the anal canal. They found the mean dose to the anal surface and the lateral extent of the DSM to be most correlated with subjective sphincter toxicity. They recommend 45Gy for surface-based mean-dose to the anal canal to reduce toxicity.

Anal sphincter muscles

Smeenk et al. [26] related dose to individual sphincter muscles to urgency, frequency and incontinence. To reduce urgency and incontinence to below 5% they recommended a mean dose <30Gy to internal anal sphincter, <10Gy to the external sphincter, < 50Gy to puborectalis and < 40Gy to the levator ani muscles.

Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modeling

Four studies detailed NTCP models for the anal canal [20, 2729], three of fitting data to a Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model. Buettner et al. identified mean-dose anal canal parameters related to grade 2 RTOG toxicity, and Peeters et al. looked at anal wall parameters in relation to faecal incontinence, as detailed in Table 4. Peeters et al. further modified their model to incorporate a previous history of abdominal surgery and found this improved the model fit, suggesting a decreased radiation tolerance for patients with this risk factor. Thor et al. [29] proposed LKB models for pain, mucus and faecal leakage, although their findings are difficult to use practically as within their study they use data from two different centres, where each toxicity is defined differently between centres. Mavroidis et al. [27] modelled dose to the anal sphincter region for ‘faecal leakage’ and ‘blood or phlegm’ in stools using the relative seriality NTCP model. They recommended a reduction in the biologically effective uniform dose (EUD) to anal sphincter < 40–45Gy may significantly reduce toxicity.

Quality assessment

Statistical criteria

Most studies provided information on basic statistical data (29/30) and gave clear definitions of OARs (24/30). Constraints were derived in 16 papers, with associated complication rates stated in 12 papers. Goodness-of-fit was reported in 6 studies, with discriminator statistics reported in 10 papers. For the 4 papers with NTCP models all provided parameter estimates with standard error.

Endpoint criteria

Overall toxicity grades rather than individual symptoms were assessed in 13 of 30 studies, with patient-reported outcomes used in 14 studies (13 of which were studies of the anal canal). 21 of the studies looked at co-morbidity to assess its contribution to late toxicity and this was taken into account in multivariate analyses if thought to be associated.

Discussion

We have systematically reviewed the currently published literature on dose-volume constraints for late bowel toxicity after pelvic radiotherapy, excluding the rectum. We identified 30 studies including 5136 patients. A key finding was consistent dose-volume constraints defined for the anal canal from five studies. For whole bowel loops, small bowel, duodenum, large bowel and sigmoid dose-volume constraints were derived in individual studies, however there was limited validation of these findings in other studies examining the same component of bowel.

Of all the components of bowel studied, most data were available in the 16 studies examining the anal canal or anal sphincter region, and these studies were most conclusive. Statistical and endpoint measures recommended by QUANTEC were met much more frequently in these studies, data of which originated mainly from prostate clinical trials. Fifteen of these sixteen studies used individual symptoms reported by patients rather than an overall toxicity score.

These studies clearly indicate a relationship between dose-volume parameters to the anal canal and faecal incontinence. Dmean was the most significant parameter in five different studies, with a range of doses between 40-47Gy found. From the available data we recommend a constraint Dmean of <40Gy (in 2Gy fractions) to the anal canal to be included in clinical protocols in order to limit late bowel toxicity, in particular faecal incontinence.

For other components of bowel, the evidence was far less conclusive, as the findings of single studies were not corroborated with others. Possible reasons could be differences in the endpoint studied (i.e toxicity, grade and clinician versus patient-reporting) and differences in the definition of the OARs. Furthermore different studies derive constraints with different aims, with some using constraints to lower the risk of toxicity to a certain level eg. to 5% or to 20%, and others attempt to derive constraints with the aim of no toxicity at all.

For example when considering constraints for bowel loops, both Guerrero-Urbano et al. [8] and McDonald et al. [9] derived constraints for V40, V45 and V60 associated with late bowel toxicity. However, the constraints in these studies differed, with one suggesting V40 < 124 cc, V45 < 71 cc and V60 < 0.5 cc, and the other recommending V40 < 151 cc, V45 < 139 cc and V60 < 98 cc, despite the same definition of bowel loops, and use of RTOG scoring. Reasons for these differences could be due to differences in endpoint definition, with one study looking specifically at ≥ grade 2 RTOG diarrhoea, with the other looking at overall RTOG toxicity ≥ grade 1. McDonald et al. determined constraints aiming to reduce the risk of ≥grade 1 toxicity specifically to less than 25%, whereas Guerrero-Urbano et al. found constraints with the aim of reducing ≥grade 2 toxicity, but the level to which this aims to reduce the risk of toxicity is unclear.

A similar lack of consistency was seen for studies focussed on duodenum [13, 30], large bowel [10] and sigmoid colon [6, 17] making it difficult to further recommend constraints for these OARs. Future validation of the published constraints using independent data sets from patients using the same toxicity endpoints, same OAR definitions and the same aim in terms of toxicity reduction, would be a useful next step to improve knowledge on this subject.

Many studies found no correlation with OAR dose parameters and late bowel toxicity at all. This lack of findings could be due to a variety of methodological reasons – many of the studies were underpowered with only a very small incidence of the defined toxicity, making it difficult to determine the likely predictors of these toxicities in only a handful of patients. Many studies have not collected baseline data and presume the presence of bowel symptoms post-radiotherapy is treatment related, when in fact these symptoms may have been pre-existing, or due to a separate bowel pathology. Further a known issue within the pelvis, is that of organ motion of bowel and its subsection, and the use of a single CT scan to define a highly mobile structure may not be an appropriate approach.

Aside from methodology the reason for lack of positive findings may be in fact that particular OARs may genuinely not have any influence on late toxicity, and rather than dose-volume predictors, other considerations such as inherent radiosensitivity of individual patients, may be the main predictors of toxicity.

For acute bowel toxicity QUANTEC have suggested two constraints: V45 < 195 cc for peritoneal cavity, and V15 < 120 cc for small bowel loops. The QUANTEC authors suggest these constraints may be applicable for late bowel toxicity. Some consistency is seen to QUANTEC recommendations within this review with Chopra et al. [11] finding V15 small bowel loops to be important on multivariate analysis, although their recommended constraint was much higher at V15 < 275 cc.

For peritoneal cavity, the findings of the studies reviewed do not corroborate with QUANTEC. Three studies found no correlation of peritoneal cavity doses with late toxicity, and the two positive studies found that in fact lower doses to peritoneal cavity of V20 and V10–30 [6, 31] were predictive of late toxicity. It would be important to validate the significance of these low doses in terms of late toxicity given the increased use of volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) techniques in recent years, where lower dose bath to a larger area of normal tissue is seen, the significance of which is currently not understood.

Strengths of this systematic review are the broad inclusivity of the search, with the studies included having patients with different tumour types, radiotherapy techniques, fractionations, and concurrent treatments. A similar approach was used in key papers such as the Emami et al. data [32], as well as the QUANTEC papers [3, 4], where bowel constraints were sought from studies with gynaecological, rectal, prostate and pancreatic cancers. A potential limitation of this is that some of these treatment factors may influence late toxcity (e.g. use of concurrent systemic agents, or hypofractionation). Although it is expected that individual authors may account for these factors statistically this may not have always been done and may explain partly the inconsistent results found.

Despite attempting to be as inclusive as possible we may have missed those studies not in English, and from grey literature currently unpublished. Studies involving SBRT were excluded given the questionable validity of the linear quadratic model with extreme hypofractionation thus making radiobiological comparisons difficult [33].

Quality assessment based on the QUANTEC-defined criteria added much value to this review, highlighting that many researchers do not report or consider the endpoint or statistical criteria, and further that those that do adhere to these criteria appear to have more conclusive findings.

Conclusions

We recommend the use of Dmean to the anal canal of <40Gy in pelvic radiotherapy protocols as a constraint to reduce the development of late bowel toxicity, in particular faecal incontinence.

Other important organs at risk to consider are whole bowel loops, small bowel, duodenum, large bowel and sigmoid colon and constraints for these OARS are noted in this review. However, clear recommendations for these organs cannot be made, due to lack of correlation between studies. Validation of the constraints found within this systematic review for these OARS with independent data sets would be an important next step. If validated these constraints could be used clinically in prospective patients, and also as a relevant benchmark to assess the likely impact of advanced radiotherapy techniques on late toxicity. Future studies should consider the quality criteria recommended by QUANTEC.

Abbreviations

Cc: 

Cubic centimetres

CTCAE: 

Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Events

Dmean: 

Mean Dose

DSH: 

Dose Surface Histogram

DVH: 

Dose Volume Histogram

EUD: 

Equivalent Uniform Dose

Gy: 

Gray

LKB: 

Lyman-Kutcher Burman

OAR: 

Organ at Risk

QUANTEC: 

Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic

RTOG: 

Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

VMAT: 

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Vx Gy: 

Volume receiving x Gray

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by Velindre Cancer Centre Charitable Funds, and Cancer Research Wales.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Authors’ contributions

BC performed all systematic searching. RJ and EH screened all abstracts, and scrutinized relevant full texts and hand-searched for additional references. All authors read and approved the final draft of this manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

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 Clinical Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Road, Whitchurch, Cardiff, CF14 2TL, UK
(2)
Department of Clinical Oncology, Addenbrookes’ Hospital, Box 193, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
(3)
Cancer Research Wales Library, Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Road, Whitchurch, Cardiff, CF14 2TL, UK
(4)
School of Medicine, Institute of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University, Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Road, Whitchurch, Cardiff, CF14 2TL, UK

References

  1. Benton B, Norton C, Lindsay JO, Dolan S, Andreyev HJ. Can nurses manage gastrointestinal symptoms arising from pelvic radiation disease? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2011;23(8):538–51.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreyev HJ. Gastrointestinal problems after pelvic radiotherapy: the past, the present and the future. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2007;19(10):790–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Kavanagh BD, Pan CC, Dawson LA, Das SK, Li XA, Ten Haken RK, et al. Radiation dose-volume effects in the stomach and small bowel. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3 Suppl):S101–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Jackson A, Marks LB, Bentzen SM, Eisbruch A, Yorke ED, Ten Haken RK, et al. The lessons of QUANTEC: recommendations for reporting and gathering data on dose-volume dependencies of treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3 Suppl):S155–60.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Mouttet-Audouard R, Lacornerie T, Tresch E, Kramar A, Le Tinier F, Reynaert N, et al. What is the normal tissues morbidity following helical intensity modulated radiation treatment for cervical cancer? Radiother Oncol. 2015;115(3):386–91.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Deville C, Vapiwala N, Hwang WT, Lin H, Ad VB, Tochner Z, et al. Comparative toxicity and dosimetric profile of whole-pelvis versus prostate bed-only intensity-modulated radiation therapy after prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(4):1389–96.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Guerrero Urbano T, Khoo V, Staffurth J, Norman A, Buffa F, Jackson A, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy allows escalation of the radiation dose to the pelvic lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: preliminary results of a phase I dose escalation study. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010;22(3):236–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. McDonald F, Waters R, Gulliford S, Hall E, James N, Huddart RA. Defining bowel dose volume constraints for bladder radiotherapy treatment planning. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2015;27(1):22–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Isohashi F, Yoshioka Y, Mabuchi S, Konishi K, Koizumi M, Takahashi Y, et al. Dose-volume histogram predictors of chronic gastrointestinal complications after radical hysterectomy and postoperative concurrent nedaplatin-based chemoradiation therapy for early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(3):728–34.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Chopra S, Dora T, Chinnachamy AN, Thomas B, Kannan S, Engineer R, et al. Predictors of grade 3 or higher late bowel toxicity in patients undergoing pelvic radiation for cervical cancer: results from a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(3):630–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Lind H, Alevronta E, Steineck G, Waldenstrom AC, Nyberg T, Olsson C, et al. Defecation into clothing without forewarning and mean radiation dose to bowel and anal-sphincter among gynecological cancer survivors. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(11):1285–93.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelly P, Das P, Pinnix CC, Beddar S, Briere T, Pham M, et al. Duodenal toxicity after fractionated chemoradiation for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(3):143–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Fokdal L, Honore H, Hoyer M, von der Maase H. Dose-volume histograms associated to long-term colorectal functions in patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2005;74(2):203–10.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang J, Roberson JM, Ye H, Yan D. Dose-volume analysis of predictors for gastrointestinal toxicity after radiotherapy and concurrent fulldose gemcitabine for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;83(4):1120–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Poorvu PD, Sadow CA, Townamchai K, Damato AL, Viswanathan AN. Duodenal and other gastrointestinal toxicity in cervical and endometrial cancer treated with extended-field intensity modulated radiation therapy to paraaortic lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(5):1262–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Fonteyne V, De Neve W, Villeirs G, De Wagter C, De Meerleer G. Late radiotherapy-induced lower intestinal toxicity (RILIT) of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the need for adapting toxicity scales and the appearance of the sigmoid colon as co-responsible organ for lower intestinal toxicity. Radiother Oncol. 2007;84(2):156–63.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. al-Abany M, Helgason AR, Cronqvist AK, Lind B, Mavroidis P, Wersall P, et al. Toward a definition of a threshold for harmless doses to the anal-sphincter region and the rectum. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(4):1035–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Alsadius D, Hedelin M, Lundstedt D, Pettersson N, Wilderang U, Steineck G. Mean absorbed dose to the anal-sphincter region and fecal leakage among irradiated prostate cancer survivors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(2):e181–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Buettner F, Gulliford SL, Webb S, Sydes MR, Dearnaley DP, Partridge M. The dose-response of the anal sphincter region--an analysis of data from the MRC RT01 trial. Radiother Oncol. 2012;103(3):347–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Peeters ST, Lebesque JV, Heemsbergen WD, van Putten WL, Slot A, Dielwart MF, et al. Localized volume effects for late rectal and anal toxicity after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64(4):1151–61.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Smeenk RJ, Hopman WP, Hoffmann AL, van Lin EN, Kaanders JH. Differences in radiation dosimetry and anorectal function testing imply that anorectal symptoms may arise from different anatomic substrates. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(1):145–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Vordermark D, Schwab M, Ness-Dourdoumas R, Sailer M, Flentje M, Koelbl O. Association of anorectal dose-volume histograms and impaired fecal continence after 3D conformal radiotherapy for carcinoma of the prostate. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69(2):209–14.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Yeoh EK, Krol R, Dhillon VS, Botten R, Di Matteo A. Butters J, et al.. Predictors of radiation-induced gastrointestinal morbidity: a prospective, longitudinal study following radiotherapy for carcinoma of the prostate. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(5):604–10.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Koper PC, Jansen P, van Putten W, van Os M, Wijnmaalen AJ, Lebesque JV, et al. Gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary morbidity after 3D conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer: observations of a randomized trial. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73(1):1–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Smeenk RJ, Hoffmann AL, Hopman WP, van Lin EN, Kaanders JH. Dose-effect relationships for individual pelvic floor muscles and anorectal complaints after prostate radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(2):636–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Mavroidis P, al-Abany M, Helgason AR, Agren Cronqvist AK, Wersall P, Lind H, et al. Dose-response relations for anal sphincter regarding fecal leakage and blood or phlegm in stools after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiobiological study of 65 consecutive patients. Strahlenther Onkol. 2005;181(5):293–306.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Peeters ST, Hoogeman MS, Heemsbergen WD, Hart AA, Koper PC, Lebesque JV. Rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, and high stool frequency after conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: normal tissue complication probability modeling. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66(1):11–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Thor M, Olsson CE, Oh JH, Petersen SE, Alsadius D, Bentzen L, et al. Relationships between dose to the gastro-intestinal tract and patient-reported symptom domains after radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(9):1326–34.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Verma J, Sulman EP, Jhingran A, Tucker SL, Rauch GM, Eifel PJ, et al. Dosimetric predictors of duodenal toxicity after intensity modulated radiation therapy for treatment of the Para-aortic nodes in gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(2):357–62.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Deville C, Both S, Hwang WT, Tochner Z, Vapiwala N. Clinical toxicities and dosimetric parameters after whole-pelvis versus prostate-only intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78(3):763–72.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, Coia L, Goitein M, Munzenrider JE, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):109–22.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirkpatrick JP, Meyer JJ, Marks LB. The linear-quadratic model is inappropriate to model high dose per fraction effects in radiosurgery. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2008;18(4):240–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Adkison JB, McHaffie DR, Bentzen SM, Patel RR, Khuntia D, Petereit DG, et al. Phase I trial of pelvic nodal dose escalation with hypofractionated IMRT for high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(1):184–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Ebert MA, Foo K, Haworth A, Gulliford SL, Kennedy A, Joseph DJ, et al. Gastrointestinal dose-histogram effects in the context of dose-volume-constrained prostate radiation therapy: analysis of data from the RADAR prostate radiation therapy trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91(3):595–603.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Green GLA, Zhang J, Ramsinghani N, Asawi S. Dose-volume relationship of acute and late small bowel toxicity from radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a veterans affairs study. J Radiat Oncol. 2015;4:411–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Taussky D, Schneider U, Rousson V, Pescia R. Patient-reported toxicity correlated to dose-volume histograms of the rectum in radiotherapy of the prostate. Am J Clin Oncol. 2003;26(5):144–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement