Contact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) as a salvage treatment for rectal cancer patients who developed local tumor re-growth after watch-and-wait approach.

A watch-and-wait approach is an alternative to surgery for rectal cancer patients who have achieved a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. However, approximately 25-38% of patients experience subsequent local tumor re-growth that requires salvage surgery. We evaluated the effectiveness of contact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) as an alternative method of salvage therapy for those patients who were either unfit for or refused surgery. Oncological outcomes, tolerability, and feasibility of subsequent surgery for local treatment failure following CXB were reported. From 2009-2021, all patients treated with CXB as salvage therapy for local rectal cancer re-growth after watch-and-wait approach at our center were analyzed. Contact X-ray brachytherapy as a salvage treatment (range, 90-110 Gy) was offered to 56 patients who experienced tumor re-growth following (chemo)radiation and watch-and-wait protocol. Median age was 76 (IQR = 66-83) years. Most patients (82%) had early-stage re-growth (ycT1/ycT2, ycN0), and 18% had more advanced stages (ycT3/ycT4, ycN0). After a median of 37-month follow-up (IQR = 19-53), 48% of patients who had early-stage re-growth achieved a sustained complete remission after CXB compared with 20% of those who had more advanced tumor stages. Disease-free and overall survivals for the whole cohort were 69% and 100% at 1-year, 51% and 82% at 3-year, and 51% and 65% at 5-years. CXB effectively controlled local re-growth-related symptoms. Mild post-CXB side effects occurred in 18% of cases. All (100%) eight patients who developed further local relapse, and 29% of those who had residual disease post-CXB salvage were successfully managed with subsequent surgery. Contact X-ray brachytherapy offers a new treatment option for patients in this situation whose other therapy options are not suitable for or refused initial surgery. Early local tumor re-growth responded best with minimal treatment-related toxicity and excellent symptom control. Disease-free and overall survival rates were acceptable, and delaying surgical salvage for local re-growth did not compromise patients' eventual long-term outcomes.

Than NW ，Pritchard DM ，Duckworth CA ，Hughes DM ，Wong H ，Sripadam R ，Myint AS ... -  《-》

Dose escalation using contact X-ray brachytherapy (Papillon) for rectal cancer: does it improve the chance of organ preservation?

Sun Myint A ，Smith FM ，Gollins SW ，Wong H ，Rao C ，Whitmarsh K ，Sripadam R ，Rooney P ，Hershman MJ ，Fekete Z ，Perkins K ，Pritchard DM ... -  《-》

Dose Escalation Using Contact X-ray Brachytherapy After External Beam Radiotherapy as Nonsurgical Treatment Option for Rectal Cancer: Outcomes From a Single-Center Experience.

To review the outcomes of rectal cancer patients treated with a nonsurgical approach using contact x-ray brachytherapy (CXB) when suspicious residual disease (≤3 cm) was present after external beam chemoradiation therapy/radiation therapy (EBCRT/EBRT). Outcome data for rectal cancer patients referred to our institution from 2003 to 2012 were retrieved from an institutional database. These patients were referred after initial local multidisciplinary team discussion because they were not suitable for, or had refused, surgery. All selected patients received a CXB boost after EBCRT/EBRT. Most patients received a total of 90 Gy of CXB delivered in 3 fractions over 4 weeks. The median follow-up period was 2.5 years (range 1.2-8.3). Of 345 consecutive patients with rectal cancer referred to us, 83 with suspicious residual disease (≤3 cm) after EBCRT/EBRT were identified for a CXB boost. Their median age was 72 years (range 36-87), and 58 (69.9%) were men. The initial tumor stages were cT2 (n = 28) and cT3 (n = 55), and 54.2% were node positive. A clinical complete response (cCR) was achieved in 53 patients (63.8%) after the CXB boost that followed EBCRT/EBRT. Of these 53 patients, 7 (13.2%) developed a relapse after achieving a cCR, and the 6 patients (11.6%) with nonmetastatic regrowth underwent salvage surgery (100%). At the end of the study period, 69 of 83 patients (83.1%) were cancer free. Our data suggest that a CXB boost for selected patients with suspicious residual disease (≤3 cm) after EBCRT/EBRT can be offered as an alternative to radical surgery. In our series, patients with a sustained cCR had a low rate of local regrowth, and those with nonmetastatic regrowth could be salvaged successfully. This approach could provide an alternative treatment option for elderly or comorbid patients who are not suitable for surgery and those with rectal cancer who wish to avoid surgery.

Sun Myint A ，Smith FM ，Gollins S ，Wong H ，Rao C ，Whitmarsh K ，Sripadam R ，Rooney P ，Hershman M ，Pritchard DM ... -  《-》

Sequence of Contact X-ray Brachytherapy (CXB) and External Beam Radiation (EBRT) in organ-preserving treatment for small rectal cancer.

External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) followed by Contact X-ray Brachytherapy (CXB) and vice versa are viable alternatives to surgery for selected rectal cancer patients who have small tumours (≤3 cm). However, the optimal sequence of treatment needs to be established. We compared two approaches using Propensity Score (PS) matching and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses to investigate whether the sequence of treatment affected patient outcomes. This retrospective analysis (2008-2019) included patients with rectal adenocarcinoma (cT1-3,N0-1,M0, grade 1-2, size ≤ 3 cm) who received both EBRT and CXB, irrespective of treatment sequence. PS matching and IPTW were conducted to balance covariate standardised mean differences between groups. Oncological outcomes and rate of post-treatment rectal bleeding were assessed. Following PS matching and IPTW analyses from 251 eligible patients; 103 starting with EBRT (median follow-up: 37 [IQR:18-56] months) and 148 with CXB (median follow-up: 32 [IQR:16-54] months, a significant improvement in 3-year overall survival (77% vs 85%, p = 0.02, [HR:0.58 (95% CI:0.37-0.91)]) and a higher risk of post-treatment rectal bleeding (grade 1 (26%) and grade 2 (6%)) were found in patients who started with CXB (p = 0.08). No significant differences were observed in local regrowth (18% vs 12%, p = 0.47), distant relapse (10% vs 6%, p = 0.53), 3-year organ preservation rates (70% vs 75%, p = 0.20, [HR:0.66 (95% CI: 0.35-1.26)]), or disease-free survival (78% vs 82%, p = 0.17, [HR: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.16-1.38)]) CONCLUSION: In patients with rectal cancer (≤3 cm), commencing with CXB rather than EBRT, was associated with improved overall survival, but had a higher risk of G1/2 rectal bleeding. No statistically significant differences were observed in other oncological outcomes.

Than NW ，Pritchard DM ，Hughes DM ，Duckworth CA ，Wong H ，Haq MU ，Sripadam R ，Myint AS ... -  《-》

Contact X-ray Brachytherapy as an Adjunct to a Watch and Wait Approach is an Affordable Alternative to Standard Surgical Management of Rectal Cancer for Patients with a Partial Clinical Response to Chemoradiotherapy.

Emerging evidence suggests that contact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) may increase the clinical complete response rate and durability when administered after standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. The addition of CXB in partial responders is therefore probably cost-effective. The affordability of widening access to CXB in the UK, however, has not been evaluated. Decision analytical modelling with Monte Carlo simulation was used to evaluate long-term costs for the management of patients with rectal cancers who were given a CXB boost when a clinical complete response was not initially achieved following chemoradiotherapy in order to facilitate a watch and wait approach. A third-party payer (National Health Service) perspective was adopted, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out and a scenario analysis was performed to investigate the effect of the number of referral centres and number of patients treated with CXB. We estimate that 818 (95% confidence interval 628-1021) patients per year are eligible for CXB as an adjunct to a watch and wait approach in England and Wales. As this management is less costly than surgical management for each individual patient, the more patients treated, the more affordable the technology. Even if as few as 125 patients are treated nationally in 15 centres, the cost of implementing this technology would be less than £4 million. If the average number of patients treated in each centre is 30, this technology would be cost saving within 5 years. The cost of CXB is not prohibitive according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for implementation of new technology and may even be cost saving within 5 years compared with standard surgical management, depending on the uptake of the technology and the number of referral centres.

Rao C ，Stewart A ，Martin AP ，Collins B ，Pritchard DM ，Athanasiou T ，Sun Myint A ... -  《-》