A Retrospective Comparison of Toxicity, Response and Survival of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Versus Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Rectal Carcinoma

Georgios Kouklidis; Manolis Nikolopoulos; Omer Ahmed; Boulos Eskander; Ben Masters

doi:10.7759/cureus.48128

A Retrospective Comparison of Toxicity, Response and Survival of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Versus Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Rectal Carcinoma

Cureus. 2023 Nov 1;15(11):e48128. doi: 10.7759/cureus.48128. eCollection 2023 Nov.

Authors

Georgios Kouklidis¹, Manolis Nikolopoulos², Omer Ahmed¹, Boulos Eskander³, Ben Masters⁴

Affiliations

¹ Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Dorset, NHS (National Health Service) UK, Poole, GBR.
² Gynae-oncology, University Hospitals Dorset, NHS (National Health Service) UK, Poole, GBR.
³ Psychiatry, Dorset Healthcare University, NHS (National Health Service) UK, Poole, GBR.
⁴ Oncology, University Hospitals Dorset, NHS (National Health Service) UK, Poole, GBR.

Abstract

Introduction: The main target of neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer is to downstage and downsize large tumours to increase the chance of complete surgical resection, and therefore decrease the chances of local recurrence. With or without the addition of chemotherapy, until recently, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) used to be the radiotherapy treatment modality of choice. However, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is being increasingly adopted by many radiotherapy centres as a more modern, conformal technique due to its ability to minimize radiation dose to nearby organs. The aim of our analysis was to assess the difference in toxicity, response to treatment, and survival between the patients treated with these two different treatment modalities in our institution.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of data and compared two groups of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were treated with either 3D-CRT or IMRT. The main outcomes were radiation toxicity and response to treatment. Overall survival was a secondary outcome.

Results: One hundred and thirty-six patients were included in the study: 71 patients treated with 3D-CRT and 65 patients treated with IMRT. With regard to toxicity, there was no significant difference between the groups for bladder and skin toxicity, but there was a significant reduction in acute grade 2 bowel toxicity in patients treated with a long course of IMRT [3D-CRT 77% (48/62) vs IMRT 64% (30/47) p=0.042]. There was no statistically significant difference in the treatment response rates of these two radiotherapy treatment modalities, as well as in overall survival between the groups (p=0.604). Conclusion: Our study showed that IMRT can significantly reduce acute bowel side effects for patients undergoing neoadjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancers. Further studies are needed to confirm the clinical advantage of IMRT in rectal carcinoma.

Keywords: pathological response rate; rectal cancer; survival; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy; toxicity.