A phase I dose escalation study of continuous oral capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin and pelvic radiation (XELOX-RT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of continuous oral capecitabine plus oxaliplatin and pre-operative pelvic radiotherapy (XELOX-RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinically unresectable rectal cancer or for whom resection with histologically clear (R0) surgical margins was unlikely received continuous capecitabine (500-825 mg/m2 twice daily, 7 days/week), oxaliplatin 2-h intravenous infusion (130 mg/m2 days 1 and 29) and pelvic radiotherapy (Monday-Friday for 5 weeks, total dose 45 Gy in 25 daily 1.8 Gy fractions). The MTD was the capecitabine dose causing dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; treatment-related grade 3/4 toxicities) in one-third or more of patients treated per dose level. RESULTS: Eighteen patients received three dose levels. The MTD was capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily: DLTs occurred in two of six patients (grade 3 diarrhoea, rectal pain with local skin reaction). No DLTs occurred in six patients receiving capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily. Grade 3/4 toxicity was rare, with minimal myelosuppression. Although predominantly a dose-finding study, XELOX-RT showed promising activity. Fourteen patients had histologically confirmed R0 resections and five had a pathological complete response. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended dose for further study is capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily with oxaliplatin and radiotherapy. XELOX-RT showed promising antitumour activity. Further evaluation is underway.     

局部晚期宫颈癌螺旋断层放疗同步化疗早晚期不良反应和疗效观察

目的：分析局部晚期宫颈癌螺旋断层调强（HT）放疗同步顺铂化疗和高剂量率（HDR）腔内照射的早晚期不良反应及疗效。方法选取接受根治性放疗的Ⅰb～Ⅲb宫颈癌患者46例。外照射采用HT-IMRT,14例盆腔淋巴结受累进行勾画定义为GTVnd,临床靶区（CTV）包括盆腔淋巴结区（6例扩大野包括腹主动脉旁淋巴结区）,GTVnd、全部子宫、宫颈及阴道,外扩0.8~1 cm构成计划靶区（PTV）。PTV中位剂量50.4 Gy（45～50.4 Gy）,常规分割;同步顺铂化疗,40 mg/m2/周;外照射30～40 Gy后联合HDR腔内照射,HDR的A点中位剂量30 Gy （30~36 Gy）,总的A点生物等效剂量（EQD2）90.3 Gy（84.9~98.3 Gy)。治疗期间每周及治疗后1~24个月评价不良反应及疗效。结果24例患者完成4～5周期同步化疗,22例患者仅完成2～3周期同步化疗。3级不良反应包括：白细胞减少9例（19.6%）,腹泻2例（4.3%）,恶心5例（10.9%）及呕吐1例（2.2%）;晚期3级不良反应2例：1例直肠出血,1例膀胱出血;无4级,5级不良反应发生。2年内无复发生存率、无病生存率及总生存率分别为91.7%、86.0%及97.1%。结论局部晚期宫颈癌螺旋断层调强放疗同步每周顺铂化疗联合HDR腔内照射,不良反应以血液学反应和恶心为主,晚期不良反应小,近期疗效较好。     

体部伽玛刀联合微波加热治疗直肠癌术后局部复发的临床观察

目的：评价体部伽玛刀联合微波加热治疗对直肠癌术后局部复发患者的临床疗效及毒副反应。方法：对直肠癌术后局部复发的３６例患者应用体部伽玛刀联合微波加热治疗。伽玛刀治疗方案：５０％ ～８０％处方剂量线,４～６Ｇｙ／次,每周５次,总剂量３６～４２Ｇｙ,生物等效剂量５６～６７Ｇｙ。微波加热治疗方案：伽玛刀治疗期间予以微波加热治疗,每周２次,共４次。每次热疗均在伽玛刀治疗前进行,热疗温度保持在４０～４３℃范围,持续加热时间１.５～２ｈ。治疗结束后１个月复查盆腔ＣＴ。结果：完全缓解７例,部分缓解２５例,稳定３例,进展１例,近期总有效率８８.９％。１、２和３年生存率分别为１０００％、８３.３％和６０.８％。主要毒副反应为下消化道反应,其中Ⅲ级反应２例。其余均为Ⅰ ～Ⅱ级。结论：体部伽玛刀联合微波加热治疗直肠癌术后局部复发患者的疗效好,毒副反应轻。     

98例老年前列腺癌根治术后调强技术放疗结果分析

目的 回顾分析老年前列腺癌患者根治术后接受调强技术放疗疗效和不良反应。 方法 2007-2017年收治 98例接受术后放疗的前列腺癌患者,中位年龄 68岁。全组患者中低危 10例、中危 21例、高危 67例。2例患者存在寡转移(均为骨盆骨转移),64例患者联合了内分泌治疗。全组患者中 43例接受辅助放疗,55例接受挽救放疗。放疗均采用了调强技术(55例调强放疗、43例容积调强弧形治疗),前列腺瘤床中位剂量72 Gy。共 29例接受了盆腔淋巴结区域照射,中位放疗剂量50 Gy。 结果 中位随访40个月,全组 5年总生存率、无生化复发生存率、局部控制率分别为90%、76%、100%。辅助放疗和挽救放疗的总生存率、无生化复发生存率、局部控制率均相近[89%和91%(P=0.94)、76%和71%(P=0.79)、100%和100%(P=0.32)]。不良反应方面 1-2级晚期直肠反应发生率为24.1%,1-2级晚期膀胱反应发生率为29.9%,3级为3.4%。 结论 前列腺癌根治术后采用调强技术放疗可以获得很好的疗效,晚期不良反应轻微。     

直肠癌手术前后辅助放疗疗效比较

［目的］探讨比较术前单次、术前４０Ｇｙ放疗及术后放疗对直肠癌疗效的影响。〔方法）１２７例病理证实的直肠癌患者, 于１９９０年 ４月至 １９９４年 １２月随机分为 ３组,分别为术前单次组 ３９例,术前４０Ｇｙ组 ４３例和术后放疗组 ４５例。术前放疗组中病理 若属Ｔ_３期以上,则加用术后放疗。术前单次组放疗剂量为５Ｇｙ－６Ｇｙ／次,放疗后４８ 小时内手术。术前４０Ｇｙ组中位剂量为４０Ｇｙ／２０ 次（２０Ｇｙ－ ４０Ｇｙ）,放疗后休息 ４周手术。术后放疗组中位剂量为 ５５．１Ｇ ｙ／２９次（３０Ｇｙ－ ６３Ｇｙ／１５次～ ３５次）,手术放疗间隔为 ３～ ４ 周。［结果］全部病例中位随访７８个月,３组中位生存期分别为５５、５８、４７个月,Ｋａｐｌａｎ Ｍｅｉｅｒ法计算３年及５年生存率分别为 ７４．３％、４８７％,６７．４％、４８９％和６２２％、４２２％。局部复发率分别为１２．８％、２３．１％,１４．０％、２３．３％和２２．２％、２８．９％。单因素Ｌｏｇ ｒａｎｋ检验术前放疗２组３年局部复发率低于术后放疗（Ｐ＜０．０５）。５年局部复发率和生存率无差别。［结论］适当剂量的术前放 疗较术后放疗具有更高的局控率和较低的副反应。     

Chemo-radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in the pre-operative treatment of resectable rectal cancer.

AIM: To determine the differences in downstaging, local control (LC), disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between combined pre-operative chemoradiation and pre-operative radiotherapy alone in the treatment of resectable rectal cancer. METHODS: One hundred and ten patients who underwent pre-operative radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy were reviewed. Fifty-seven patients were treated with radiotherapy (30 Gy/3 Gy) alone and 53 patients with chemo-radiotherapy (bolus 5FU+45 Gy/1.8 Gy). The median interval between the end of neo-adjuvant treatment and surgery was 28 and 46 days for the patients treated with radiotherapy alone and chemo-radiotherapy. RESULTS: The groups were homogeneously distributed for all characteristics except for cN-stage with more clinically node positive patients in the combined modality treatment group (47 vs 73%). A significant downstaging for tumour and/or lymph node status was observed in both groups. More ypT0-x-is were observed after chemoradiation than after radiotherapy alone (26 vs 7%; p=0.02). The local control rate at 3 years was 94% for both groups. DFS after radiation and chemoradiation was comparable with a 3-year DFS of 83 and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both pre-operative schemes have similar outcomes concerning DFS, OS and LC. Tumour downstaging is associated with improved survival.     

根治术后盆腔复发直肠癌疗效及预后因素分析

目的 分析直肠癌根治术后盆腔复发规律以及放疗疗效和影响预后的因素.方法 回顾分析2000-2006年直肠癌根治术后盆腔复发接受放疗患者93例,分别为单纯放疗21例、放化疗56例、放疗结合手术和(或)化疗16例.放疗采用60Co或加速器X线,中位剂量59.4Gy,其中90例采用常规分割技术.68例患者放疗后接受了1～8个(中位数3个)疗程化疗,42例行同步放化疗,多为氟尿嘧啶为主的化疗方案.16例患者在放疗后接受了复发灶切除术,其中RO切除7例,姑息性肿块切除9例.结果 全组共132处复发,常见复发部位为直肠周围(31.8%)和骶前区(30.3%),髂外淋巴结和腹股沟淋巴结少见(1.5%和3.0%).总随访率为92%,随访满2、5年者分别为39、4例.有局部症状的84例患者中83%(70例)放疗后症状缓解.全组2、5年局部无进展率分别为49%、22%,2、5年生存率分别为46%、14%.多因素分析结果显示复发后治疗方法是影响直肠癌根治术后复发的局部无进展率的独立预后因素,复发灶最大径、无病间期、放疗后有无远处转移是影响直肠癌根治术后复发患者生存率的独立顶后因素.结论 直肠周围区、骶前区、髂内淋巴结区是直肠癌主要复发部位;放疗可明显改善直肠癌根治术后盆腔复发患者的症状和提高生存质量,放疗联合手术和(或)化疗可提高直肠癌根治术后复发的局部无进展率,复发灶直径＞5 cm、无病间期＜2年、放疗后有远处转移是影响预后的因素.     

Postoperative radiotherapy for DukesB ‘ and C rectal cancer: Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute experience

This retrospective study reviews the outcome of patients with DukesB ‘ and C rectal cancer treated with adjuvant postoperative pelvic radiotherapy at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute from 1981 to 1990. Sixty-one patients (22 DukesB ‘, 36 DukesC ‘ and 3 unknown stage) received a median dose of 50 Gy of pelvic irradiation. Locoregional relapse occurred in 33% of patients. Estimated median progression-free survival was 1.7 years with 46% surviving without progression at 2 years and 30% at 5 years. There was no difference according to Dukesstage ‘. The estimated median survival was 2.6 years, with no difference according to disease stage. These results with postoperative radiotherapy alone are inferior to results achievable by combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy as adjuvant therapy which should now be considered standard therapy following surgical resection for DukesB ‘ and C rectal cancer.     

Treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer, results and prognostic factors.

PURPOSE: Assessment of the results and prognostic factors in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer treated with curative intent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients with an isolated pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer were studied retrospectively. The treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy and/or surgery performed between January 1992 and July 2001. Radiotherapy was given with a 3-4 fields technique (6-15 MV), five times a week. The median radiation dose was 50 Gy (range 25-66.6 Gy). Twenty-five patients underwent salvage surgery. Five patients were treated with concomitant chemotherapy (5-fluoro-uracil/leucovorin) (5FU/LV) during the 1st and 5th week of radiotherapy. RESULTS: Twenty-two of the 40 patients were male. The local recurrence free survival after 3 and 5 years, respectively, was 49 and 39%. Male gender was the only independent factor associated with failure of local control. The 3 and 5-year overall survival of the total group was 36 and 19%, respectively, with a median survival of 26 months. CONCLUSION: In a selection of patients in the treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer valuable local palliation if not cure, can be reached. A multimodality approach seems to offer the best chances in this threatening situation.     

Postoperative pelvic radiotherapy with or without elective irradiation of para-aortic nodes and liver in rectal cancer patients. A controlled clinical trial of the EORTC Radiotherapy Group.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this randomized multicenter study was to assess the impact on disease free and overall survival of low dose irradiation to para-aortic nodes and liver in patients with a locally advanced resected rectal cancer receiving a 50 Gy postoperative pelvic radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Main inclusion criteria were: a curative resection for a histologically proved carcinoma of the rectum, Gunderson-Sosin stages B2-B3, C1-C3, age <70 years. The patients were randomized between pelvic irradiation (Lim-XRT): 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks and extended irradiation (Ext-XRT): same scheme/doses in the pelvis and extended fields on para-aortic nodes and liver, delivering 25 Gy in 19 fractions over 25 days. From 1983 to 1992, 484 patients were enrolled by 18 EORTC institutions and 29 patients were ineligible. The end-points were local and distant relapses, toxicity and survival. RESULTS: Compliance to treatment: 87.2% in Lim-XRT arm and 71.8% in Ext-XRT arm. Moderate acute hematological and hepatic toxicities were significantly increased in Ext-XRT arm. Among 325 patients at risk, 44 suffered a severe intestinal complication requiring surgery in 29. The 5- and 10-year estimates of disease free survival were respectively 42 and 31% in Lim-XRT arm and 47 and 31% in Ext-XRT arm (ns). The corresponding figures for overall survival were respectively 45 and 40% in Lim-XRT arm and 48 and 37% in Ext-arm (ns). The 10 years estimate of intra-pelvic failures was approximately 30% in both arms. Patients in Ext-arm appeared to have a slight shorter interval free of liver metastases (P=0.047). CONCLUSION: Low dose irradiation to the para-aortic nodes and liver did not improve survival for patients with resected adenocarcinoma of the rectum.     

Ⅱ期和(或)Ⅲ期直肠癌术后希罗达同步放化疗的研究

目的 探讨Ⅱ期和（或）Ⅲ期直肠癌患者根治术后,采用希罗达同步放化疗的剂量限制性毒性反应（DLT）和最大耐受剂量（MTD）。方法24例直肠癌患者,年龄为18～75岁,KPS评分≥70分,根治性手术后病理证实为Ⅱ期和（或）Ⅲ期。希罗达从放射治疗第1天开始服用,间隔12h,连续服用14d,休息7d,为1个周期。共治疗2个周期。同步进行的盆腔放射治疗5周,共25次,总剂量为50Gy。≥3度的血液学或非血液学毒性反应为希罗达DLT。结果24例患者分别入希罗达每天1000mg/m^2组（3例）、1200mg／m^2组（3例）、1400mg／m^2组（3例）、1500mg／m^2组（3例）、1600mg／m^2组（6例）和1700mg／m^2组（6例）。1600mg／m^2组出现1例DLT（1例3度腹泻）,补充3例后,未出现DLT,继而进入每天1700mg／m^2组。1700mg／m^2组相继出现2例DLT（3度和4度腹泻各1例）。结论Ⅱ期和（或）Ⅲ期直肠癌根治术后希罗达同步放化疗是安全、可行的。希罗达的最大耐受剂量为每天1600mg／m^2,限制性毒性反应为腹泻。     

宫颈癌盆腔淋巴结转移同步推量调强放射治疗的临床研究

目的 子宫颈癌是妇女最常见恶性肿瘤之一,对于中晚期宫颈癌患者放疗是较理想和有效的选择.本研究通过观察不同放疗方法在中晚期宫颈癌合并盆腔淋巴结转移患者的临床应用,比较同步推量调强放射治疗(simultaneous modulated accelerated radiotherapy,SMART)和常规放射治疗(conventional radiotherapy,CRT)对中晚期宫颈癌合并盆腔淋巴结转移患者的剂量学差异和临床效果.方法 选取2009 12-01-2015-06-30临沂市肿瘤医院68例接受SMART和65例行CRT的ⅡB～ⅢB期宫颈癌合并盆腔淋巴结转移患者为研究对象.SMART计划:PTV达到处方剂量50.4～52.2 Gy/28～29次,1.8～1.85 Gy/次,同时给予P-GTV 61.6～67.2 Gy/28～29次,2.2～2.4 Gy/次,计划进行18次给予缩野.CRT计划:5次/周,1.8～1.9 Gy/次,照射剂量达30 Gy后,中间档铅4 cm照射,4次/周,1.8～2.0 Gy/次,至全盆总量达48.2～53.2 Gy;盆腔淋巴结转移侧加量至54.2～58.2 Gy.体外放疗同时给予一体化后装放疗及静脉化疗.比较靶区剂量、危及器官受照射剂量、近期疗效、急慢性不良反应和生存率.结果 两组患者的靶区剂量比较,SMART组中位P-GTV剂量64.7 Gy,CRT组的体外放疗中位剂量(全盆十四野十淋巴结区缩野后)55.4 Gy,两组比较差异有统计学意义,t=33.717,P＜0.001.SMART与拟行CRT计划比较,SMART组小肠(t=12.888,P＜0.001)、结肠(t=11.828,P＜0.001)、膀胱(t=12.135,P＜0.001)、脊髓(t=3.523,P=0.002)、股骨头(t=3.545,P=0.002)受照射剂量明显降低;SMART组的急性消化道反应(x2=9.965,P=0.019)和泌尿系统不良反应(x2=11.092,P=0.011)及骨髓抑制(x2 =9.071,P=0.028)均明显减少,差异均有统计学意义;SMART组的慢性消化道(x2=7.226,P=0.027)和泌尿系统不良反应(x2 =9.344,P=0.025)均明显减少,差异均有统计学意义.SMART与CRT组的CR(87.7％ vs72.1％,P=0.029)及近期有效率(98.5％ vs 86.9％,P=0.012)比较有统计学意义,SMART组明显提高.SMART组总的生存率(P=0.014)及无瘤生存率(P=0.001)均明显提高;1年生存率比较无统计学意义,x2=0.257,P=0.612;3年生存率(x2 =5.399,P=0.020)和5年生存率(x2=5.965,P=0.015)比较差异有统计学意义,SMART组明显提高.结论 SMART比较CRT,对中晚期宫颈癌合并盆腔淋巴结转移患者可获得理想的剂量分布,靶区可获得根治性剂量,邻近危及器官得到保护,急慢性毒副作用明显降低,完全缓解率及无瘤生存率明显提高.     

后程三维适形放疗结合化疗治疗67例中晚期宫颈癌的临床观察

目的：探讨不作腔内后装治疗的中晚期宫颈癌采用后程三维适形放疗结合化疗的疗效。方法：67例宫颈癌随机分为三维适形放疗加化疗组31例（适形组）与常规放疗加化疗组36例（常规组）,适形组患者均不作腔内后装治疗,先采用6MvX 线全盆腔放疗DT40Gy后采用三维适形放疗针对盆腔淋巴区及宫颈原发灶继续照射19Gy,最后再缩野针对宫颈原发灶推量,使宫颈原发灶总量达70～75Gy。常规组则采用全盆腔放疗40Gy后改为盆腔四野照射20Gy,腔内后装治疗A 点剂量30Gy/5 次,使宫颈原发灶A 点达70Gy。两组均作同期化疗,方案为：顺铂30mgd 1～3,5-FU 500mg/m2,d1～5,静脉滴注,第1 周、第5 周各一次。结果：适形组和常规组1、2 年生存率分别为93.5％、90.3％和83.3％、72.2％（P=0.198 和P=0.062）,无显著统计学意义。3 年生存率分别为87.1％和61.1％（P=0.017）,两组有显著的统计学意义。两组毒副作用比较,适形组Ⅰ～Ⅱ级放射性直肠炎及盆腔纤维化发生率低于常规组（P=0.000 和P=0.015）,其他的毒性相似。结论：后程三维适形放疗合并化疗治疗中晚期宫颈癌是一种有效、肯定的治疗方法,能提高患者近期生存率,晚期并发症较常规放疗低。3DCRT在宫颈癌放疗中的作用仍需大宗病例和长期随访来验证其优越性。     

三维适形放射治疗20例复发性直肠癌

目的 探讨三维适形放射治疗对复发性直肠癌的临床疗效。方法 20例复发性直肠癌患者均采用三维适形放疗，3～4Gy／次，隔日1次，总剂量48～60Cy。结果1、2、3年生存率分别为40％（8／20），15％（3／20），5％（1／20）。结论 三维适形放射治疗可提高复发性直肠癌生存率，改善生存质量。     

Pre-operative chemo-radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: Is this the way of future management?

The purpose of the present paper was to update a prospective analysis (H Elsaleh et al. unpubl. data, 1997) investigating the effectiveness and toxicity of pre-operative pelvic radiotherapy with modest dose 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in locally advanced rectal cancer (T₃–T₄). A total of 31 patients were assessed (28 T₃ and three T₄ tumours). Pre-operative pelvic radiotherapy was delivered in four fields, 45 Gy to the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) point in 25 fractions over 5 weeks. A radiosensitizing dose of 5-FU was delivered at 500 mg/m² on days 1, 2 and 3, and days 22, 23 and 24. Mesorectal excision of the rectal tumour either by anterior or abdomino-perineal resection was planned at 4–6 weeks from completion of pre-operative treatment. Response to therapy was assessed by fresh macroscopic measurement of the surgical specimen. Patients had a low toxicity profile; an estimated 50% or greater response was seen in 24 out of 31 (two complete responses). There were no surgical difficulties achieving resection. No late complications were documented, although follow-up was short. In locally advanced rectal cancer, pre-operative chemo-radiotherapy had a low toxicity profile. Appropriately fractionated pre-operative chemo-radiotherapy is a reasonable option in this disease and should be further evaluated. The optimal method of delivery of the radiosensitizing agent (5-FU) is the subject of further investigation.     

局部进展期非手术直肠癌外照射联合近距离治疗结果初步观察

目的 探讨外照射联合近距离放疗在治疗局部进展期非手术直肠癌患者的疗效和不良反应。方法 回顾分析2013-2015年间局部进展期非手术直肠癌患者11例临床资料,其中男7例、女4例。患者均接受盆腔外照射联合三维腔内近距离放疗,完成盆腔外照射放疗(D_T50Gy分25次)后,行近距离推量D_T15~20Gy分3~4次。盆腔转移淋巴结采用外照射推量至60~66Gy分30~33次。外照射期间均行同期卡培他滨单药化疗。放疗后采用RECIST标准进行疗效评价。应用Kaplan-Meier法计算生存和局控率。采用RTOG损伤分级标准评估早、晚期放疗反应。结果 11例患者高剂量率三维腔内近距离治疗近距离中CTV D90%的EQD2 Gy为(21.3±1.60) Gy。原发灶完全缓解率为64%,部分缓解率为27%,客观缓解率为91%。中位随访时间36个月,1、2、3年总生存率分别为 82%、64%、46%,无瘤生存率为64%、45%、27%;3年局部额控制率为46%。1例患者治疗结束后第8个月肺部转移。1-2级肠道急性不良反应7例,泌尿系统急性不良反应5例;2级骨髓抑制反应1例;1-2级肠道晚期不良反应5例,泌尿系统晚期不良反应1例;均给予对症处理后好转。结论 外照射联合三维腔内近距离治疗在局部进展期不可手术的直肠癌患者中,疗效可靠且不良反应可耐受,是一种可行的、安全有效的直肠癌根治性治疗方案。     

Preoperative uracil, tegafur, and concomitant radiotherapy in operable rectal cancer: a phase II multicenter study with 3 years' follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To assess tolerance and efficacy of preoperative treatment with uracil/tegafur and radiotherapy (RT) followed by surgery and postoperative flurouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) in patients with rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 94) with potentially resectable tumors, ultrasound at stages T2N+ (n = 4), T3 (n = 77), T4 (n = 13) were treated with UFT (400 mg/m2/d, 5 days a week for 5 weeks) and concomitant RT to the pelvis (45 Gy; 1.8 Gy/d over 5 weeks). Patients underwent surgery 5 to 6 weeks later followed by four cycles of FU/LV. Primary end points included downstaging, pathologic responses, and sphincter-preserving surgery. Secondary end points were recurrence-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: All patients received the full RT dose. Fifteen patients (16%) needed UFT dose reduction. Preoperative G3+ toxicities included diarrhea (14%), leukopenia (1%), thrombocytopenia (1%), and nausea (4%). The downstaging rate was 54%, pathologic complete response (pCR) was 9% and, in an additional 23%, there were only residual microscopic foci. When cellular viability criteria were taken into account, the pCR was 15%. From 43 patients with abdominoperineal resection indication, 11 (25%) had sphincter-preserving surgery performed. Postoperative scheduled chemotherapy dose was not administered to 24% of patients because of G3+ toxicity (diarrhea, 8%; mucositis, 9%; and leukopenia, 7%). Patients with downstaging had significantly higher survival and recurrence-free survival rates than those without. At 3 years, actuarial patterns of failure were pelvic, 5% and distant, 11%. OS was 75%. CONCLUSION: UFT combined with RT is safe and effective. In resectable rectal cancer, if preoperative treatment is considered, this approach can be an option.     

Advanced rectal cancer in the female: reduction of pelvic recurrence by rectal resection en bloc with hysterectomy and/or posterior vaginal wall excision

The authors report their experience with 20 female patients with advanced rectal cancer in whom rectal excision was combined with concomitant excision of the uterus and/or posterior vaginal wall. Six patients presented with a malignant fistula between the rectum and the genital tract; 10 had pre-operative radiotherapy, with a total dose of 50 Gy in seven patients and 30 Gy in three. The resection was judged as radical in 18 patients; the specimen was staged as a Dukes' B in eight and a Dukes' C in 10 cases. Three patients died within the follow-up period, due to intercurrent disease, without evidence of recurrence. Seven patients have been followed without evidence of disease for an average of 91 months (range 39-143 months). One patient is alive 5 years after surgery with a pelvic recurrence. Seven patients succumbed to distant metastases alone (n = 4) or to a combination of haematogenous metastases and pelvic recurrence (n = 3). The authors make a plea for local radicality in advanced rectal cancer in female patients, to preserve quality of life in most patients and a cure in some.     

Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer at an Asian Cancer Specialist Centre

Introduction: The current treatment options for localized prostate cancer are radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) gaining interest as a treatment option compared to standard fractionation radiation therapy. This present study is a retrospective study evaluating the correlations between the biochemical efficacy, and treatment toxicity in SBRT for localized prostate cancer. Methods: All organ-confined prostate cancer patients treated with SBRT from 2010 to 2018, at Beacon Hospital, Malaysia were included in this study. Patient demographics, dosimetric parameters, and disease information were retrospectively collected. The primary endpoint was biochemical recurrence-free survival assessed using the Phoenix definition (Nadir + 2 ng/mL). Toxicity outcomes were scored using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. Results: Fourty-nine patients who met the inclusion criteria (5 low-, 13 intermediate- and 31 high-risk according to the D’amico Risk Classification) received SBRT. The most common dose regime was 34-35Gy in 5 fractions (n=18). Other dose regimes were 24Gy in 3 fractions and 25-33Gy in 5 fractions. Median follow-up was 45.4 months. The median pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 11.22 ng/mL, which decreased to a median PSA of 0.1 ng/mL by 2 years post-treatment. Out of the 49 cases, only 1 case of biochemical recurrence occurred, yielding a 3- and 5-year overall survival of 100%, and a 3- and 5- year biochemical recurrence-free rate of 100% and 95.2%. Acute grade III urinary toxicities occurred in 1 (2%); whereas acute grade I urinary and rectal toxicities were seen in 22 (44.9%) and 7 (14.3%) patients respectively. Grade I and grade III late rectal toxicities occurred in 3 and 1 patients respectively, while 3 and 1 patient reported late grade I and III urethral stricture respectively. Conclusion: SBRT for clinically-localized and locally advanced prostate cancer provided promising outcomes with low toxicity and good biochemical control.     

Unresectable and locally recurrent rectal cancer treated with radiotherapy or bilateral internal iliac artery infusion of 5-fluorouracil

Seventy-nine patients with histopathologically verified unresectable or locally recurrent rectal cancer were nonrandomly allocated to radiotherapy or regional intra-arterial infusion of 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU). Fifteen patients with unresectable and 32 with locally recurrent rectal cancer were subjected to radiotherapy. The absorbed dose was 30 Gy in patients with an unresectable tumor and 45 Gy in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer. Six patients with unresectable and 26 with locally recurrent rectal cancer received bilateral internal iliac artery infusion of 5-FU in a median dose of 7.5 g. There was no difference in survival between the two methods of treatment. Resection of an initially unresectable tumor could be performed in 5 of 21 patients (4 after radiotherapy and 1 after chemotherapy). All except eight patients had pelvic or perineal pain before treatment. Forty of 43 (93%) patients reported pain relief after radiotherapy and 21 of 28 (75%) after infusion therapy. Ten nonresponders were subjected to alternative treatment (three to intra-arterial infusion and seven to radiotherapy). Five of these ten patients reported complete pain relief and five partial pain relief. After radiotherapy, no significant side effects or complications were observed. The infusion chemotherapy was the cause of death in one patient. In summary, similar palliation was achieved with bilateral iliac artery 5-FU-infusion and radiotherapy. Owing to the complications registered with infusion therapy, radiotherapy must be considered the treatment of choice for these patients. Patients who do not respond to radiotherapy or suffer recurrence of pelvic and perineal pain may receive further palliation from intra-arterial infusion.