Late Gastrointestinal Toxicities Following Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA.
European Urology (Impact Factor: 12.48). 06/2011; 60(5):908-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.05.052
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Radiation therapy is commonly used to treat localized prostate cancer; however, representative data regarding treatment-related toxicities compared with conservative management are sparse.
To evaluate gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities in men treated with either primary radiation or conservative management for T1-T2 prostate cancer.
We performed a population-based cohort study, using Medicare claims data linked to the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data. Competing risk models were used to evaluate the risks.
GI toxicities requiring interventional procedures occurring at least 6 mo after cancer diagnosis.
Among 41,737 patients in this study, 28,088 patients received radiation therapy. The most common GI toxicity was GI bleeding or ulceration. GI toxicity rates were 9.3 per 1000 person-years after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, 8.9 per 1000 person-years after intensity-modulated radiotherapy, 5.3 per 1000 person-years after brachytherapy alone, 20.1 per 1000 person-years after proton therapy, and 2.1 per 1000 person-years for conservative management patients. Radiation therapy is the most significant factor associated with an increased risk of GI toxicities (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.97-5.66). Even after 5 yr, the radiation group continued to experience significantly higher rates of new GI toxicities than the conservative management group (HR: 3.01; 95% CI, 2.06-4.39). Because our cohort of patients were between 66 and 85 yr of age, these results may not be applicable to younger patients.
Patients treated with radiation therapy are more likely to have procedural interventions for GI toxicities than patients with conservative management, and the elevated risk persists beyond 5 yr.

Download full-text


Available from: Grace Lu-Yao, Jun 23, 2015
  • Source
    European Urology 07/2011; 60(5):917-9. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.003 · 12.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the immunohistochemical staining pattern of some mismatch repair (MMR) system proteins in endometriotic tissue (ET) and eutopic endometrium. This was a retrospective study conducted at the Pathology and Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments of the Udine University Hospital. We analyzed 528 samples obtained from 246 patients affected by endometriosis and 71 samples from 71 patients with normal endometrium. A tissue microarray model was used to analyze the immunohistochemical expression of MMR system proteins. Significant loss of MMR proteins was found in the stromal component of ETs. We found MSH2 to be expressed at a higher level than any other MMR system proteins in eutopic endometrium and ETs, to be significantly correlated to Ki-67 expression in both stromal and glandular components of ETs, and to be expressed at a significantly higher level in ETs than in eutopic endometrium. When considering the subgroup of endometriosis with high recurrence rate and glandular cytoplasmic staining for aurora A kinase, we found MMR proteins expressed at a significantly higher level in these ETs than in other ETs and eutopic endometrium of unaffected women. We found significant loss of MMR proteins (known to be associated with microsatellite instability) in the stromal component of ETs. The group of ETs with glandular cytoplasmic staining for aurora A kinase had higher MMR protein expression, suggesting an increased activity of this system. Our result suggests a novel role of increased MSH2 expression in cellular proliferation of endometriosis.
    International journal of clinical and experimental pathology 01/2015; 8(2):1867-77. · 1.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiation therapy (RT) techniques for prostate cancer are evolving rapidly, but the impact of these changes on risk of second cancers, which are an uncommon but serious consequence of RT, are uncertain. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of risks of second cancer according to RT technique (>10 MV vs ≤10 MV and 3-dimensional [3D] vs 2D RT) and modality (external beam RT, brachytherapy, and combined modes) in a large cohort of prostate cancer patients. The cohort was constructed using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. We included cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in patients 66 to 84 years of age from 1992 to 2004 and followed through 2009. We used Poisson regression analysis to compare rates of second cancer across RT groups with adjustment for age, follow-up, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and comorbidities. Analyses of second solid cancers were based on the number of 5-year survivors (n=38,733), and analyses of leukemia were based on number of 2-year survivors (n=52,515) to account for the minimum latency period for radiation-related cancer. During an average of 4.4 years' follow-up among 5-year prostate cancer survivors (2DRT = 5.5 years; 3DRT = 3.9 years; and brachytherapy = 2.7 years), 2933 second solid cancers were diagnosed. There were no significant differences in second solid cancer rates overall between 3DRT and 2DRT patients (relative risk [RR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-1.09), but second rectal cancer rates were significantly lower after 3DRT (RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.88). Rates of second solid cancers for higher- and lower-energy RT were similar overall (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89-1.06), as were rates for site-specific cancers. There were significant reductions in colon cancer and leukemia rates in the first decade after brachytherapy compared to those after external beam RT. Advanced treatment planning may have reduced rectal cancer risks in prostate cancer survivors by approximately 3 cases per 1000 after 15 years. Despite concerns about the neutron doses, we did not find evidence that higher energy therapy was associated with increased second cancer risks. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 02/2015; 91(2):295-302. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.10.040 · 4.18 Impact Factor