Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T11:18:14.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bone marrow sparing RapidArc treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer – can it reduce haematological toxicity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2023

Sheena Joy
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
Judith Aaron*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
Jenny Joseph
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
Biju P. Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
Johny K. Joseph
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
Jose Tom
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Caritas Hospital, Kottayam, India
*
Corresponding author: Judith Aaron; Email: dr.judithaaron@caritashospital.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Context:

Haematological toxicities are seen in rectal cancer patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with capecitabine.

Aims:

To compare dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters and acute haematological toxicities using RapidArc with or without bone marrow constraints for rectal cancer patients receiving pelvic chemoradiation as part of curative treatment.

Setting and designs:

This is a prospective randomised controlled study including patients with rectal cancer initiated on chemoradiation. Patients were stratified into two arms, bone marrow sparing (BMS) arm and non-bone marrow sparing arm (NBMS).

Materials and methods:

DVH parameters and weekly toxicity data were collected. Grade 2 or more anaemia, leucopenia, neutropenia, or thrombocytopenia, any blood transfusions, colony-stimulating factor injection, platelet transfusions were considered as an event in acute haematological toxicity (HT).

Statistical analysis:

Independent t-test was used to compare quantitative parameters, and Mann–Whitney U-test was used for ordinal parameters between groups.

Results:

A total of 43 patients were enrolled. Bone marrow constraints were achieved without compromising the target coverage. There was a significant reduction in the bone marrow dose with BMS technique (p < 0·05). A 16·7% reduction in the HT (33·3% versus 50%) and a 21·9% reduction in the grade 2 or more anaemia (19% versus 40·9%) were noted in the BMS arm when compared to NBMS arm, though not statistically significant. However, in the preoperative setting, a significant reduction in grade 2/more anaemia (7·1% versus 41·1%, p = 0·035) was noticed in the BMS arm.

Conclusions:

Pelvic BMS radiotherapy may benefit patients receiving chemoradiation for locally advanced carcinoma rectum as part of curative treatment.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Bone marrow contouring: CT sections showing whole bone (yellow line) and freehand cavity contours (purple line).

Figure 1

Table 1. Patient characteristics in BMS and NBMS arm

Figure 2

Figure 2. Dosimetric parameters of whole bone marrow (WB) in BMS and NBMS arms.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Dosimetric parameters of free hand bone marrow (FH) in BMS and NBMS arms.

Figure 4

Table 2. Acute HT in whole study group

Figure 5

Table 3. Acute HT in patients who received preoperative CRT

Figure 6

Figure 4. Comparison in incidence of grade 2 or more anaemia in patients who received preoperative CRT, between BMS and NBMS arms.

Figure 7

Table 4. Acute HT in patients who received postop CRT

Figure 8

Table 5. Association of HT with selected variables in whole study group

Figure 9

Table 6. Association of BSA as a predictor for haematological toxicity in whole study group

Figure 10

Figure 5. Association of whole bone marrow (WB) and freehand bone marrow (FH) mean dose as predictors of haematological toxicity in patients who received preoperative CRT.

Figure 11

Table 7. Comparison of response to chemoradiotherapy between the BMS and NBMS arm

Figure 12

Table 8. Clinical trials comparing acute HT in patients who received BMS versus NBMS CRT for pelvic malignancies