Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Treatment Volume, Dose Prescription and Delivery Techniques for Dose-intensification in Rectal Cancer: A National Survey

LUCIANA CARAVATTA, MARCO LUPATTELLI, GIOVANNA MANTELLO, MARIA ANTONIETTA GAMBACORTA, GIUDITTA CHILOIRO, MONICA DI TOMMASO, CONSUELO ROSA, LUCREZIA GASPARINI, ALESSIO GIUSEPPE MORGANTI, VINCENZO PICARDI, RITA MARINA NIESPOLO, MATTIA FALCHETTO OSTI, SABRINA MONTRONE, NICOLA SIMONI, CATERINA BOSO, FRANCESCA FACCHIN, MARIA ASSUNTA DEIDDA, CRISTINA PIVA, CESARE GUIDA, LUIGI ZICCARELLI, FERNANDO MUNOZ, GIOVANNI BATTISTA IVALDI, VANIA MARCHETTI, PAOLA FRANZONE, CORRADO SPATOLA, PIERFRANCESCO FRANCO, VITTORIO DONATO, DOMENICO GENOVESI and on behalf of Gastrointestinal Study Group of AIRO (Italian Association of Radiation Oncology and Clinical Oncology)
Anticancer Research April 2021, 41 (4) 1985-1995; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14966
LUCIANA CARAVATTA
1Radiation Oncology Unit, “SS Annunziata” Hospital, “G. D’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: lcaravatta@hotmail.com
MARCO LUPATTELLI
2Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GIOVANNA MANTELLO
3Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARIA ANTONIETTA GAMBACORTA
4UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS - Rome, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GIUDITTA CHILOIRO
4UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS - Rome, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MONICA DI TOMMASO
1Radiation Oncology Unit, “SS Annunziata” Hospital, “G. D’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CONSUELO ROSA
1Radiation Oncology Unit, “SS Annunziata” Hospital, “G. D’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy;
5Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, “G. D’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LUCREZIA GASPARINI
1Radiation Oncology Unit, “SS Annunziata” Hospital, “G. D’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ALESSIO GIUSEPPE MORGANTI
6Radiation Oncology Centre, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VINCENZO PICARDI
7Radiotherapy Unit, Gemelli Molise Hospital, Largo Agostino Gemelli, Campobasso, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RITA MARINA NIESPOLO
8Radiotherapy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo, Monza, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MATTIA FALCHETTO OSTI
9Department of Radiotherapy, “La Sapienza University”, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SABRINA MONTRONE
10Department of Radiotherapy, Pisa University, Pisa, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NICOLA SIMONI
11Department of Radiotherapy, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CATERINA BOSO
12Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine Unit, IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FRANCESCA FACCHIN
13AULSS 3 Serenissima Ospedale dell’Angelo, Mestre, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARIA ASSUNTA DEIDDA
14Radiotherapy Department, AOB P.O. “A. Businco”, Cagliari, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CRISTINA PIVA
15Department of Radiation Oncology, A.S.L. TO4, Ivrea Community Hospital, Ivrea, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CESARE GUIDA
16Unit of Radiation Oncology, Ospedale del Mare, Naples, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LUIGI ZICCARELLI
17Radiotherapy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera di Cosenza, Cosenza, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FERNANDO MUNOZ
18Radiotherapy Unit, Ospedale Regionale Parini-AUSL Valle d’Aosta, Aosta, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GIOVANNI BATTISTA IVALDI
19Radiation Oncology Centre, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Pavia, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VANIA MARCHETTI
20Radiotherapy Unit, USL Toscana Nord-Ovest, Carrara, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PAOLA FRANZONE
21Radiotherapy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CORRADO SPATOLA
22UOC Radiodiagnostica e Radioterapia, AOU Policlinico-VE, Catania, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PIERFRANCESCO FRANCO
23Department of Oncology, University of Turin, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VITTORIO DONATO
24Radiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo-Forlanini, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOMENICO GENOVESI
1Radiation Oncology Unit, “SS Annunziata” Hospital, “G. D’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy;
5Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, “G. D’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: The aim of the study was to investigate boost volume definition, doses, and delivery techniques for rectal cancer dose intensification. Patients and Methods: An online survey was made on 25 items (characteristics, simulation, imaging, volumes, doses, planning and treatment). Results: Thirty-eight radiation oncologists joined the study. Twenty-one delivered long-course radiotherapy with dose intensification. Boost volume was delineated on diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 18 centres (85.7%), and computed tomography (CT) and/or positron emission tomography-CT in 9 (42.8%); 16 centres (76.2%) performed co-registration with CT-simulation. Boost dose was delivered on gross tumor volume in 10 centres (47.6%) and on clinical target volume in 11 (52.4%). The most common total dose was 54-55 Gy (71.4%), with moderate hypofractionation (85.7%). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was used in all centres, with simultaneous integrated boost in 17 (80.8%) and image-guidance in 18 (85.7%). Conclusion: A high quality of treatment using dose escalation can be inferred by widespread multidisciplinary discussion, MRI-based treatment volume delineation, and radiation delivery relying on IMRT with accurate image-guided radiation therapy protocols.

Key Words:
  • Rectal cancer
  • dose intensification
  • intensity modulated radiotherapy
  • simultaneous integrated boost
  • gross tumor volume

A correlation between radiation therapy (RT) doses and tumor response has been reported in rectal cancer (1). Indeed, a dose intensification strategy has been investigated to improve oncological outcomes and pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, as favourable prognostic factor (2, 3) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients (4, 5), especially in those less likely to respond to preoperative long-course radiotherapy (LCRT) or to select patients for organ-preserving. A high rate of pCR has been reported when the administered dose was escalated up to 50-60 Gy (30% vs. 12-15% in standard treatment) (6-14).

Preoperative intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) have also resulted in a high rate of pCR with a low acute toxicity profile, excellent compliance to treatment (8-10) and effectiveness in several prospective phase II studies (15-28) and in an Italian pooled analysis (29).

Although international guidelines suggest dose intensification up to 54 Gy in cases of high risk tumor (bulky disease or circumferential resection margin involvement) (30, 31), some issues regarding boost planning and delivery (i.e. volumes definition, best imaging for delineation, and delivery technique) are still debated. Based on these considerations, a national survey was proposed by the Italian Association of Radiation and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) gastrointestinal study group aimed at evaluating the pattern of care in the setting of dose intensification at the national level.

Patients and Methods

In May 2019, an online survey was set up within www.surveymonkey.com. Members of AIRO gastrointestinal study group were individually contacted by email to request their willingness to participate in the survey. An expertise in rectal cancer treatment was required based on the professional experience and their involvement in a multidisciplinary team for rectal cancer treatment. Dose intensification was defined as a total dose up to 54 Gy (>2 Gy fraction), or more than 54 Gy.

Questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised 3 main sections and 25 items focused on: centre characteristics (5 items), simulation (3 items), imaging (4 items), volumes and doses (5 items), planning and treatment (8 items). Most of these questions were close ended questions, including quantitative and multiple-choice answers, besides the opportunity for free text comments.

Section 1: Patient care and therapeutic approach. Centre’s characteristics (public, private, university), number of LARC patients treated every year, professional members of the Interdisciplinary Group for Cancer Care, and type of diagnostic imaging were investigated.

Section 2: Simulation. Patient set-up, immobilization, and use of Iodinated contrast medium during CT simulation were explored.

Section 3: Planning and delivery. Selection criteria for dose intensification, imaging for boost delineation, boost volume definition, margins applied to generate the planning target volume (PTV), boost technique, image-guided RT (IGRT) protocols, and chemotherapy schedules were evaluated.

Statistics. The statistical analysis was provided by www.surveymonkey.com and included a description of all variables. Responses were tabulated, and the percentage values are reported.

Results

Thirty-eight centres (Public=27, Private=7, University=4) of different Italian regions (northern Italy:25, center:8, south:5) joined the survey.

Section 1: Patient care and therapeutic approach. Fourteen centres (36.8%) declared to treat >30 patients per year with dose intensification preoperative LCRT, and 11 (28.9%) between 10-20 patients. All centres reported case discussion by the Interdisciplinary Group for Cancer Care, where different specialists were involved: Radiation Oncologist= 100%, Medical Oncologist=100%, Surgeon=100%, Radiologist=86.1%, Endoscopist=75%, Pathologist=69.4%, Nuclear Medicine physician=27.8%; Psychologist=11.1%, Geneticist=5.6%, Anesthesiologist=2.8%, Geriatrician=2.8%, Nutritionist=2.8%. Preliminary exams requested in all centres for diagnosis and staging are reported in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Preliminary exams requested in all centres for diagnosis and staging. CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CT: computed tomography; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; FDG-PET: fluorodeoxyglucose - positron emission tomography.

Section 2: Simulation. Immobilization devices were used in 35 centres (92.1%), including belly board in 47.37% of cases. Irradiation in the prone or supine position were equally preferred.

Iodinated contrast medium was administered during CT simulation in one centre; Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) simulation (with same treatment set-up position) was routinely used in 3 centres (7.9%) and for specific indication in 8 centres (21.1%); Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation (with same treatment set-up position) was routinely used in 5 centres (13.2%) and for specific indications in 3 centres (7.9%). In 26 centres (68.4%) an empty bladder filling protocol was used.

Section 3: Planning and delivery. Twenty-one centres declared to perform dose intensified preoperative LCRT. Table I shows the selection criteria for dose intensification. Volumes delineation: Boost volume was delineated on diagnostic MRI in 18 centres (85.7%), and on CT scan and/or FDG-PET-CT in 9 centres (42.8%). Co-registration with CT simulation was always performed in 16 centres (76.2%), for selected cases in 3 centres (14.3%) and never in 2 centres (9.5%). A boost dose was delivered on the gross tumor volume (GTV) in 10 centres (47.6%), and on the clinical target volume (CTV) in 11 centres (52.4%). Detailed areas included in the boost volume are shown in Table II. PTV for the boost volume was generated as an isotropic, anisotropic and adapted margin in 16 (76.1%), 3 (14.3%) and 2 (9.5%) centres, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Selection criteria for dose intensification.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Detailed areas included in the Boost volume delivered on the gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV), respectively.

Dose and fractionation schedule. SIB is the preferred modality for boost delivery (17 centres=80.8%). Daily sequential or concomitant boost was delivered in 4 (19%) and 3 (14.3%) of the institutions, respectively. Boost was delivered up to a total dose of 54-55 Gy in15 centres (71.4%), and >55 Gy (range=56-61.6 Gy) in 6 centres (28.6%), with moderate hypofractionation in 19 centres (90.5%).

Techniques. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was used for dose intensification treatment in all the centres. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is alternatively used in 1 centre. Image-guided RT (IGRT) is used in 18 centres (85.7%). Modality and protocols are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) modality (a) and protocols (b). kV EPI: kV Electronic portal imaging; MV EPI: MV electronic portal imaging; kV CBCT: kV cone-beam computer tomography; MV CBCT: MV cone-beam computer tomography.

Concurrent chemotherapy. Nineteen (90.5%) out of 21 centres offered dose intensified radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy: Capecitabine (17 centres=89.4%), 5-FU (1 centre=5.2%) or 5-FU plus oxaliplatin (FolOx, 2 centres= 10.5%).

Intensified treatment employing chemotherapy was also investigated. Induction chemotherapy was given in selected patients in 13 centres (42.8%). Consolidation chemotherapy (post-RT and before surgery) was administered in selected cases in 4 centres (19%). Selection criteria for patients treated with induction or consolidation chemotherapy and treatment schedules are shown in Table III. FolOx is the preferred schedule prescribed for both induction (61.5%) and consolidation (66.7%) chemotherapy.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Selection criteria for patient treated with induction or consolidation chemotherapy and treatment schedules.

Discussion

The clinical outcome of LARC patients is largely dependent on tumor response to chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) (1, 2). A pCR rate of 26.7%, with TRG1-2 rate of 41.8%, was shown in a dose intensification study of 322 patients with LARC. The 5- and 10-year OS, DFS and LC rates were 82.5%±2.5% and 65.5%±3.8%, 81.2%±2.4% and 79.3%±2.9%, 93.1%±1.7% and 90.5%±2.1%, respectively (32). Moreover, an exponential increase in pCR-rate after neoadjuvant radiation dose ≥60 Gy, has been shown by mathematical and clinical dose–response prediction models (pCR=50% with >92 Gy) (6). These data were confirmed by a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 studies on 487 patients treated with ≥60 Gy, reporting high pCR-rates (20.4%; 95%CI=16.8-24.5%) with acceptable early toxicity (grade ≥3 toxicity in 10.3%; 95%CI=5.4-18.6%) (7). None of the studies included in this meta-analysis used IMRT. In the last two decades, a progressive increase in the use of IMRT in respect to 3D-CRT has been reported in a retrospective cohort study including a total of 1,773 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, especially in LARC patients with huge tumors (cT4) (33).

The effect of dose intensification delivered with modern radiation and/or planning techniques, has been tested in phase II studies reporting favourable results in terms of feasibility and toxicity when using IMRT with SIB intensification in combination with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (15-28). Then, outcomes within studies using modern inverse-planning techniques (IMRT, volumetric modulated arc therapy and tomotherapy) and moderate intensified schedules (54-60 Gy) have been evaluated in a recent meta-analysis (34). The estimated pooled pCR rate was 24.1% across 37 eligible studies (1,817 patients), and 25.7% when inverse-planning was delivered (17 publications, 959 patients).

Included in this metanalysis, a retrospective multicentric Italian study on 76 LARC patients was conducted, reporting a pCR rate of 27.8% for patients treated with dose ranging from 52.5 to 57.5 Gy (median 54 Gy) to the SIB boost volume. Treatment was well tolerated with grade ≥3 acute toxicity rates of 4-25% (29). The main critical issues of this study were represented by the different SIB doses employed due to the different IMRT modalities available at each participating centre and by the limited sample size, probably related to the lack of significant indication, including the RT dose level. On the contrary, since the 5 participating centres had previous collaborated in the INTERACT rectal cancer trial (14), they shared the same delineation criteria for boost volume, defined as tumour and corresponding mesorectum plus an MRI-based cranio-caudal extension of 1-2 cm.

Most of evaluated patients were staged as IIIB (64.5%) and mesorectal fascia involvement (MRF+) was documented in 45% of them. Indeed, a dose intensification strategy could be particularly demanded in locally advanced high risk tumors such as T4-tumors, those with mesorectal fascia involvement, or suspicious bulky lymph nodes, aiming to improve resectability and local control.

Based on the aforementioned critical issues and the still debated considerations regarding the setting of dose intensification, this survey was proposed by the gastrointestinal study group of Italian Association of Radiation and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) to evaluate the pattern of care at the national level.

Pelvic MRI routinely performed for staging definition and risk factor identification in 97.4% of centres (Figure 1). This is in agreement with current guidelines that recognize MRI of the rectum as able to accurately predict the depth of extramural spread and the involvement of the mesorectal fascia and then recommend MRI for local staging, as well as for preoperative assessment of patients with high risk tumors, where dose intensification could be carried out (35, 36). Consequently, the selection criteria for dose intensification applied in this survey mainly included patients with high risk tumors, especially cT4 (52.4%), MRF involvement (47.6%), and/or low rectum (38%) (Table I).

The target volume delineation represents one of the major sources of uncertainty in radiotherapy and, it may have a significant impact on the delivery dose to the tumor, especially when dose intensification is planned and highly conformal techniques, such as SIB-IMRT, are used. Then, accuracy in the choice of the appropriate image for delineating volumes, in the delineation of the volume itself and image-guidance protocols is strongly recommended (37). Although many guidelines are currently available for elective CTV delineation in rectal cancer (38-40), no consensus or guideline is currently available for the definition and delineation of the boost volume.

In order to compare our results with the available data in the literature, details about prescribed doses, definition of volumes and possible margins were investigated in the 18 studies, included in the review of Burbach et al., on 649 patients treated with >60 Gy (7) (Table IV), and in 19 modern prospective and or randomized studies with boost dose/fraction between 2-2.5 Gy (Table V). Compared to historical studies using conformational technique, SIB boost is often delineated as primary tumor with corresponding mesorectum and or macroscopically suspicious lymph node, with different margins to generate the CTV.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Dose prescription and boost parameters in the 18 studies, on 649 patients treated with >60 Gy, included in the systematic review by Burbach J et al. (7).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table V.

Dose and boost volume parameters in modern prospective or randomized studies with boost dose/fraction between 2-2.5 Gy (19, on 1209 patients treated with a total accumulation of EBRT dose between 45-60 Gy). If not clearly reported, EQD2 total dose was calculated considering α/β= 10 for tumor * (7), and α/β=5.06 for rectal tumor ** (24).

The ability of modulated intensity techniques to deliver high doses sparing the organs at risk (OARs) allows to consider a margin to the GTV for tumor spread. The need to add a margin to the GTV, with the possible inclusion of the mesorectum, is related to the evidence that microscopic metastatic foci were reported within the mesorectum in up to 38.7% of patients (41) and that one of the main prognostic factors in rectal cancer is the status of the circumferential resection margin (CRM). Indeed, the CRM involvement has been associated with a poor prognosis, not only for local recurrence, but also for the development of distant metastases and patient survival (42). Location and depth of tumor invasion, nodal involvement, and tumor size >2 cm, mucinous adenocarcinomas and signet ring cell carcinomas, high grade tumors, and lymphovascular and perineural invasion have been identified as features independently associated with a positive CRM (41). Bulky lymph nodes with mesorectal fascia involvement and/or suspicious extra mesorectal nodes could then benefit of dose intensification. Finally, the inclusion of pathological lymph nodes could be individually considered based on their dimensions and the proximity of OARs and the related tolerability (i.e. bowels).

The improvement of diagnostic imaging allowed for a prediction of a potentially involved margin. Currently, preoperative MRI is considered highly accurate for the prediction of CRM involvement and represents the standard of care in assessing T-stage and margin status of tumor within a tolerance of 0.5 and 1 mm, respectively, resulting in more adequate treatment planning with a further decrease in cases of positive resection margins at surgery (43, 44). Moreover, Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) looks promising for delineation due to its ability to discriminate tumors from healthy tissue upon diffusion-restriction, resulting in smaller GTV compared to T2-weighted MRI and lower inter-observer variability (45-47). Fourteen of the evaluated studies (74%, Table V) specifically reported the use of MRI for GTV delineation, with DWI in two studies.

Our results are comparable, showing that boost volume is delineated on diagnostic MRI in 18 centres (85.7%), and on CT scan and/or PET-CT in 9 centres (42.8%). Boost dose was delivered on the macroscopic disease (GTV) in 10 centres (47.6%), and included the macroscopic tumor, cN+, or bulky cN+ extra-mesorectum in 66.7%, 52.4% and 47.6% of the cases, respectively (Table II). Boost dose was delivered on the CTV in 11 centres (52.4%), including high-risk areas (Table II). IMRT was used for dose intensification treatment in all centres and SIB was the preferred modality for boost delivery (80.8%), with moderate hypofractionation in 19 centres (90.5%), and chemotherapy was administered concurrently to dose intensification radiotherapy in 19 of 21 (90.5%) centres.

Finally, Image-guided RT protocols were used in 18 centres (85.7%). This seems particularly relevant considering that large deformation in the shape of the mesorectum have been described and that changes in rectal filling have been found to be the major cause of changes (48-50), with significant clinical impact when modulated intensity techniques are performed (51). Based on these considerations, an individualized anisotropic margin should be evaluated and an optimal IGRT strategy (imaging modality and frequency) should be identified based on the height of the tumor and site-specific set-up calculations (52).

In conclusion, locally advanced rectal cancer patients could benefit from different radiation treatment strategies including dose modulation, appropriate volume delineation, organ motion evaluation, IGRT protocols and modern delivery techniques aimed to improve oncological outcomes. Although there is currently no consensus in the literature regarding boost volume definition and relative margins, our survey is in accordance with the main prospective and randomized studies of preoperative LCRT with dose intensification. The current status in this setting in Italy showed a high quality of treatment, as highlighted by multidisciplinary discussion in all centres, volume delineation based on MRI in the majority of centres, and SIB-IMRT for delivery in all centres, with accurate IGRT protocols. Considering the growing interest in dose intensification treatment, these requirements could therefore be considered essential when moderate escalation (54-60 Gy) with modern inverse-planning techniques is delivered.

Acknowledgements

The Authors wish to thank the Scientific Commission of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) for the revision of the manuscript and the Italian Radiation Centres who have contributed to this study providing data for standard treatment: Rosetto Maria Elena, UOC Radioterapia, Viterbo; Reso Maria, Ospedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi ASST-Sette Laghi, Varese; Conti Monica, AULSS 3 Serenissima Ospedale di Venezia; RuoRedda Maria Grazia, Ordine Mauriziano, Torino; Galardi Alessandra, AOU Careggi, Firenze; Dell’Acqua Veronica, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milano; Bacigalupo Almalina; Policlinico San Martino, Genova; Ciabattoni Antonella, Ospedale S. Filippo Neri, Roma; Fusco Vincenzo, IRCCS CROB, Rionero in Vulture; Lucido M. Rosaria, ASL 1 Imperiese, Sanremo; Bagnoli Rita, ASL Nord-Ovest, Lucca; Leone Maria Vittoria, Ospedale S. Giovanni Calibita - FBF, Roma; Canino Paola, Multimedica Castellanza; Pittoni Patrizia, ASST-Lariana, Como; Gumina Calogero, Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milano; Musio Daniela, Policlinico Universitario Umberto I, Roma; Maurizi Francesca, Ospedale San Salvatore Muraglia, Pesaro

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    LC, ML, GM, MAG and DG designed and coordinated the study and the analysis. All authors provided data. CL, CR and LG performed main data analysis, provided pictures and drafted the manuscript. ML, GM, MAG, DG, FP, and VD critically revised the study and the manuscript. All Authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

  • ↵§ These Authors contributed equally to the present study.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors report no conflicts of interest in relation to this study.

  • Received February 3, 2021.
  • Revision received March 1, 2021.
  • Accepted March 3, 2021.
  • Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Overgaard M,
    2. Overgaard J and
    3. Sell A
    : Dose-response relationship for radiation therapy of recurrent, residual, and primarily inoperable colorectal cancer. Radiother Oncol 1(3): 217-225, 1984. PMID: 6505258. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(84)80003-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Maas M,
    2. Nelemans PJ,
    3. Valentini V,
    4. Das P,
    5. Rödel C,
    6. Kuo LJ,
    7. Calvo FA,
    8. García-Aguilar J,
    9. Glynne-Jones R,
    10. Haustermans K,
    11. Mohiuddin M,
    12. Pucciarelli S,
    13. Small W Jr.,
    14. Suárez J,
    15. Theodoropoulos G,
    16. Biondo S,
    17. Beets-Tan RG and
    18. Beets GL
    : Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: A pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 11(9): 835-844, 2010. PMID: 20692872. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70172-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Vecchio FM,
    2. Valentini V,
    3. Minsky BD,
    4. Padula GD,
    5. Venkatraman ES,
    6. Balducci M,
    7. Miccichè F,
    8. Ricci R,
    9. Morganti AG,
    10. Gambacorta MA,
    11. Maurizi F and
    12. Coco C
    : The relationship of pathologic tumor regression grade (TRG) and outcomes after preoperative therapy in rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62(3): 752-760, 2005. PMID: 15936556. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.11.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Chan AK,
    2. Wong AO,
    3. Langevin J,
    4. Jenken D,
    5. Heine J,
    6. Buie D and
    7. Johnson DR
    : Preoperative chemotherapy and pelvic radiation for tethered or fixed rectal cancer: A phase II dose escalation study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48(3): 843-856, 2000. PMID: 11020583. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(00)00692-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Wiltshire KL,
    2. Ward IG,
    3. Swallow C,
    4. Oza AM,
    5. Cummings B,
    6. Pond GR,
    7. Catton P,
    8. Kim J,
    9. Ringash J,
    10. Wong CS,
    11. Wong R,
    12. Siu LL,
    13. Moore M and
    14. Brierley J
    : Preoperative radiation with concurrent chemotherapy for resectable rectal cancer: Effect of dose escalation on pathologic complete response, local recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64(3): 709-716, 2006. PMID: 16242252. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.08.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Appelt AL,
    2. Pløen J,
    3. Vogelius IR,
    4. Bentzen SM and
    5. Jakobsen A
    : Radiation dose-response model for locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85(1): 74-80, 2013. PMID: 22763027. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.05.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Burbach JP,
    2. den Harder AM,
    3. Intven M,
    4. van Vulpen M,
    5. Verkooijen HM and
    6. Reerink O
    : Impact of radiotherapy boost on pathological complete response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 113(1): 1-9, 2014. PMID: 25281582. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.08.035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Guerrero Urbano MT,
    2. Henrys AJ,
    3. Adams EJ,
    4. Norman AR,
    5. Bedford JL,
    6. Harrington KJ,
    7. Nutting CM,
    8. Dearnaley DP and
    9. Tait DM
    : Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer reduces volume of bowel treated to high dose levels. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65(3): 907-916, 2006. PMID: 16751073. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.12.056
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mok H,
    2. Crane CH,
    3. Palmer MB,
    4. Briere TM,
    5. Beddar S,
    6. Delclos ME,
    7. Krishnan S and
    8. Das P
    : Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): Differences in target volumes and improvement in clinically relevant doses to small bowel in rectal carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 6: 63, 2011. PMID: 21651775. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-6-63
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Arbea L,
    2. Martínez-Monge R,
    3. Díaz-González JA,
    4. Moreno M,
    5. Rodríguez J,
    6. Hernández JL,
    7. Sola JJ,
    8. Ramos LI,
    9. Subtil JC,
    10. Nuñez J,
    11. Chopitea A,
    12. Cambeiro M,
    13. Gaztañaga M,
    14. García-Foncillas J and
    15. Aristu J
    : Four-week neoadjuvant intensity-modulated radiation therapy with concurrent capecitabine and oxaliplatin in locally advanced rectal cancer patients: A validation phase II trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83(2): 587-593, 2012. PMID: 22079731. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Caravatta L,
    2. Padula GD,
    3. Picardi V,
    4. Macchia G,
    5. Deodato F,
    6. Massaccesi M,
    7. Sofo L,
    8. Pacelli F,
    9. Rotondi F,
    10. Cecere G,
    11. Sallustio G,
    12. Di Lullo L,
    13. Piscopo A,
    14. Mignogna S,
    15. Bonomo P,
    16. Cellini N,
    17. Valentini V and
    18. Morganti AG
    : Concomitant boost radiotherapy and multidrug chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer: Results of a phase II study. Acta Oncol 50(8): 1151-1157, 2011. PMID: 21851185. DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2011.582880
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Osti MF,
    2. Agolli L,
    3. Bracci S,
    4. Masoni L,
    5. Valeriani M,
    6. Falco T,
    7. De Sanctis V and
    8. Maurizi Enrici R
    : Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with concomitant boost radiotherapy associated to capecitabine in rectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 29(7): 835-842, 2014. PMID: 24825722. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-014-1879-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Picardi V,
    2. Deodato F,
    3. Guido A,
    4. Giaccherini L,
    5. Macchia G,
    6. Gambacorta MA,
    7. Arcelli A,
    8. Farioli A,
    9. Cellini F,
    10. Cuicchi D,
    11. DI Fabio F,
    12. Poggioli G,
    13. Ardizzoni A,
    14. Frezza G,
    15. Cilla S,
    16. Caravatta L,
    17. Valentini V,
    18. Fuccio L and
    19. Morganti AG
    : Concurrent chemoradiation with concomitant boost in locally advanced rectal cancer: A phase II study. Anticancer Res 36(8): 4081-4087, 2016. PMID: 27466517.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Valentini V,
    2. Gambacorta MA,
    3. Cellini F,
    4. Aristei C,
    5. Coco C,
    6. Barbaro B,
    7. Alfieri S,
    8. D’Ugo D,
    9. Persiani R,
    10. Deodato F,
    11. Crucitti A,
    12. Lupattelli M,
    13. Mantello G,
    14. Navarria F,
    15. Belluco C,
    16. Buonadonna A,
    17. Boso C,
    18. Lonardi S,
    19. Caravatta L,
    20. Barba MC,
    21. Vecchio FM,
    22. Maranzano E,
    23. Genovesi D,
    24. Doglietto GB,
    25. Morganti AG,
    26. La Torre G,
    27. Pucciarelli S and
    28. De Paoli A
    : The INTERACT Trial: Long-term results of a randomised trial on preoperative capecitabine-based radiochemotherapy intensified by concomitant boost or oxaliplatin, for cT2 (distal)-cT3 rectal cancer. Radiother Oncol 134: 110-118, 2019. PMID: 31005204. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.11.023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Burbach JP,
    2. Verkooijen HM,
    3. Intven M,
    4. Kleijnen JP,
    5. Bosman ME,
    6. Raaymakers BW,
    7. van Grevenstein WM,
    8. Koopman M,
    9. Seravalli E,
    10. van Asselen B and
    11. Reerink O
    : Randomized controlled trial for pre-operative dose-escalation BOOST in locally advanced rectal cancer (RECTAL BOOST study): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 16: 58, 2015. PMID: 25888548. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0586-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ballonoff A,
    2. Kavanagh B,
    3. McCarter M,
    4. Kane M,
    5. Pearlman N,
    6. Nash R,
    7. Shah RJ,
    8. Raben D and
    9. Schefter TE
    : Preoperative capecitabine and accelerated intensity-modulated radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: A phase II trial. Am J Clin Oncol 31(3): 264-270, 2008. PMID: 18525306. DOI: 10.1097/COC.0b013e318161dbd3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. De Ridder M,
    2. Tournel K,
    3. Van Nieuwenhove Y,
    4. Engels B,
    5. Hoorens A,
    6. Everaert H,
    7. Op de Beeck B,
    8. Vinh-Hung V,
    9. De Grève J,
    10. Delvaux G,
    11. Verellen D and
    12. Storme GA
    : Phase II study of preoperative helical tomotherapy for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70(3): 728-734, 2008. PMID: 17904302. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.07.2332
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Li JL,
    2. Ji JF,
    3. Cai Y,
    4. Li XF,
    5. Li YH,
    6. Wu H,
    7. Xu B,
    8. Dou FY,
    9. Li ZY,
    10. Bu ZD,
    11. Wu AW and
    12. Tham IW
    : Preoperative concomitant boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy with oral capecitabine in locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer: A phase II trial. Radiother Oncol 102(1): 4-9, 2012. PMID: 21903285. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.07.030
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Passoni P,
    2. Fiorino C,
    3. Slim N,
    4. Ronzoni M,
    5. Ricci V,
    6. Di Palo S,
    7. De Nardi P,
    8. Orsenigo E,
    9. Tamburini A,
    10. De Cobelli F,
    11. Losio C,
    12. Iacovelli NA,
    13. Broggi S,
    14. Staudacher C,
    15. Calandrino R and
    16. Di Muzio N
    : Feasibility of an adaptive strategy in preoperative radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer with image-guided tomotherapy: Boosting the dose to the shrinking tumor. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 87(1): 67-72, 2013. PMID: 23790770. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.05.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Engels B,
    2. Platteaux N,
    3. Van den Begin R,
    4. Gevaert T,
    5. Sermeus A,
    6. Storme G,
    7. Verellen D and
    8. De Ridder M
    : Preoperative intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost in locally advanced rectal cancer: Report on late toxicity and outcome. Radiother Oncol 110(1): 155-159, 2014. PMID: 24239243. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.10.026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Zhu J,
    2. Liu F,
    3. Gu W,
    4. Lian P,
    5. Sheng W,
    6. Xu J,
    7. Cai G,
    8. Shi D,
    9. Cai S and
    10. Zhang Z
    : Concomitant boost IMRT-based neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for clinical stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma: results of a phase II study. Radiat Oncol 9: 70, 2014. PMID: 24606870. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-9-70
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hernando-Requejo O,
    2. López M,
    3. Cubillo A,
    4. Rodriguez A,
    5. Ciervide R,
    6. Valero J,
    7. Sánchez E,
    8. Garcia-Aranda M,
    9. Rodriguez J,
    10. Potdevin G and
    11. Rubio C
    : Complete pathological responses in locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative IMRT and integrated-boost chemoradiation. Strahlenther Onkol 190(6): 515-520, 2014. PMID: 24715243. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-014-0650-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. But-Hadzic J,
    2. Anderluh F,
    3. Brecelj E,
    4. Edhemovic I,
    5. Secerov-Ermenc A,
    6. Hudej R,
    7. Jeromen A,
    8. Kozelj M,
    9. Krebs B,
    10. Oblak I,
    11. Omejc M,
    12. Vogrin A and
    13. Velenik V
    : Acute toxicity and tumor response in locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiation therapy with shortening of the overall treatment time using intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost: A phase 2 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96(5): 1003-1010, 2016. PMID: 27727065. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Picardi V,
    2. Macchia G,
    3. Guido A,
    4. Giaccherini L,
    5. Deodato F,
    6. Farioli A,
    7. Cilla S,
    8. Compagnone G,
    9. Ardizzoni A,
    10. Cuicchi D,
    11. Gambacorta MA,
    12. Cellini F,
    13. Frezza G,
    14. Poggioli G,
    15. Valentini V,
    16. Fuccio L and
    17. Morganti AG
    : Preoperative chemoradiation with VMAT-SIB in rectal cancer: A phase II study. Clin Colorectal Cancer 16(1): 16-22, 2017. PMID: 27435759. DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2016.06.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Alongi F,
    2. Fersino S,
    3. Mazzola R,
    4. Fiorentino A,
    5. Giaj-Levra N,
    6. Ricchetti F,
    7. Ruggieri R,
    8. Di Paola G,
    9. Cirillo M,
    10. Gori S,
    11. Salgarello M,
    12. Zamboni G and
    13. Ruffo G
    : Radiation dose intensification in pre-operative chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 19(2): 189-196, 2017. PMID: 27271749. DOI: 10.1007/s12094-016-1522-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tey J,
    2. Leong CN,
    3. Cheong WK,
    4. Sze TG,
    5. Yong WP,
    6. Tham IWK and
    7. Lee KM
    : A phase II trial of preoperative concurrent chemotherapy and dose escalated intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer. J Cancer 8(16): 3114-3121, 2017. PMID: 29158782. DOI: 10.7150/jca.21237
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Yang Y,
    2. Liu Q,
    3. Jia B,
    4. Du X,
    5. Dai G,
    6. Liu H,
    7. Chen J,
    8. Zeng M,
    9. Wen K,
    10. Zhu Y,
    11. Wang Y and
    12. Feng L
    : Preoperative volumetric modulated Arc therapy with simultaneous integrated boost for locally advanced distal rectal cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 18: 1533033818824367, 2019. PMID: 30803368. DOI: 10.1177/1533033818824367
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Zhao J,
    2. Liu X,
    3. Wang W,
    4. Hu K,
    5. Zhang F,
    6. Hou X and
    7. Meng Q
    : Concomitant dose escalation with image-guided Tomotherapy in locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer: A single-center study. Cancer Manag Res 11: 1579-1586, 2019. PMID: 30863168. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S193657
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Lupattelli M,
    2. Matrone F,
    3. Gambacorta MA,
    4. Osti M,
    5. Macchia G,
    6. Palazzari E,
    7. Nicosia L,
    8. Navarria F,
    9. Chiloiro G,
    10. Valentini V,
    11. Aristei C and
    12. De Paoli A
    : Preoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost combined with Capecitabine in locally advanced rectal cancer: Short-term results of a multicentric study. Radiat Oncol 12(1): 139, 2017. PMID: 28830475. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0870-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Glynne-Jones R,
    2. Wyrwicz L,
    3. Tiret E,
    4. Brown G,
    5. Rödel C,
    6. Cervantes A,
    7. Arnold D and ESMO Guidelines Committee.
    : Rectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 28(suppl_4): iv22-iv40, 2017. PMID: 28881920. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx224
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Cancer Institute NSW
    : Colorectal rectum neoadjuvant EBRT chemoradiation pre-operative long course 2019. Available at: https://www.eviq.org.au/radiation-oncology/colorectal/1863-colorectal-rectum-neoadjuvant-ebrt-chemoradia; [Last Accessed on September 4, 2019]
  17. ↵
    1. DI Tommaso M,
    2. Rosa C,
    3. Caravatta L,
    4. Augurio A,
    5. Borzillo V,
    6. DI Santo S,
    7. Perrotti F,
    8. Taraborrelli M,
    9. Cianci R,
    10. Innocenti P,
    11. DI Sebastiano P,
    12. Colasante A,
    13. Angelucci D,
    14. Basti M,
    15. Sindici G,
    16. Mazzola L,
    17. Pizzicannella G,
    18. DI Bartolomeo N,
    19. Marchioni M,
    20. DI Nicola M and
    21. Genovesi D
    : Treatment intensification for locally advanced rectal cancer: Impact on pathological complete response and outcomes. In Vivo 34(3): 1223-1233, 2020. PMID: 32354913. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11896
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Cushman TR,
    2. Venigalla S,
    3. Brooks ED,
    4. Lin C and
    5. Verma V
    : Utilization of neoadjuvant intensity-modulated radiation therapy for rectal cancer in the United States. Anticancer Res 38(5): 2923-2927, 2018. PMID: 29715118. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.12540
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Hearn N,
    2. Atwell D,
    3. Cahill K,
    4. Elks J,
    5. Vignarajah D,
    6. Lagopoulos J and
    7. Min M
    : Neoadjuvant radiotherapy dose escalation in locally advanced rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of modern treatment approaches and outcomes. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 33(1): e1-e14, 2021. PMID: 32669228. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.06.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. MERCURY Study Group.
    : Extramural depth of tumor invasion at thin-section MR in patients with rectal cancer: results of the MERCURY study. Radiology 243(1): 132-139, 2007. PMID: 17329685. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2431051825
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Bhoday J,
    2. Balyasnikova S,
    3. Wale A and
    4. Brown G
    : How should imaging direct/orient management of rectal cancer? Clin Colon Rectal Surg 30(5): 297-312, 2017. PMID: 29184465. DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1606107
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Weiss E and
    2. Hess CF
    : The impact of gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) definition on the total accuracy in radiotherapy theoretical aspects and practical experiences. Strahlenther Onkol 179(1): 21-30, 2003. PMID: 12540981. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-003-0976-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Myerson RJ,
    2. Garofalo MC,
    3. El Naqa I,
    4. Abrams RA,
    5. Apte A,
    6. Bosch WR,
    7. Das P,
    8. Gunderson LL,
    9. Hong TS,
    10. Kim JJ,
    11. Willett CG and
    12. Kachnic LA
    : Elective clinical target volumes for conformal therapy in anorectal cancer: A radiation therapy oncology group consensus panel contouring atlas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74(3): 824-830, 2009. PMID: 19117696. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.070
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Joye I,
    2. Macq G,
    3. Vaes E,
    4. Roels S,
    5. Lambrecht M,
    6. Pelgrims A,
    7. Bussels B,
    8. Vancleef A,
    9. Stellamans K,
    10. Scalliet P,
    11. Weytjens R,
    12. Christian N,
    13. Boulanger AS,
    14. Donnay L,
    15. Van Brussel S,
    16. Moretti L,
    17. Van den Bergh L,
    18. Van Eycken E,
    19. Debucquoy A and
    20. Haustermans K
    : Do refined consensus guidelines improve the uniformity of clinical target volume delineation for rectal cancer? Results of a national review project. Radiother Oncol 120(2): 202-206, 2016. PMID: 27373910. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.06.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Valentini V,
    2. Gambacorta MA,
    3. Barbaro B,
    4. Chiloiro G,
    5. Coco C,
    6. Das P,
    7. Fanfani F,
    8. Joye I,
    9. Kachnic L,
    10. Maingon P,
    11. Marijnen C,
    12. Ngan S and
    13. Haustermans K
    : International consensus guidelines on clinical target volume delineation in rectal cancer. Radiother Oncol 120(2): 195-201, 2016. PMID: 27528121. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.07.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Wang Z,
    2. Zhou Z,
    3. Wang C,
    4. Zhao G,
    5. Chen Y,
    6. Gao H,
    7. Zheng X,
    8. Wang R and
    9. Chen D
    : Microscopic spread of low rectal cancer in regions of the mesorectum: Detailed pathological assessment with whole-mount sections. Int J Colorectal Dis 20(3): 231-237, 2005. PMID: 15614503. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-004-0674-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Nagtegaal ID and
    2. Quirke P
    : What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol 26(2): 303-312, 2008. PMID: 18182672. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.7027
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Beets-Tan RG,
    2. Beets GL,
    3. Vliegen RF,
    4. Kessels AG,
    5. Van Boven H,
    6. De Bruine A,
    7. von Meyenfeldt MF,
    8. Baeten CG and
    9. van Engelshoven JM
    : Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in prediction of tumour-free resection margin in rectal cancer surgery. Lancet 357(9255): 497-504, 2001. PMID: 11229667. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04040-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Brown G,
    2. Radcliffe AG,
    3. Newcombe RG,
    4. Dallimore NS,
    5. Bourne MW and
    6. Williams GT
    : Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in rectal cancer using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Surg 90(3): 355-364, 2003. PMID: 12594673. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4034
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Regini F,
    2. Gourtsoyianni S,
    3. Cardoso De Melo R,
    4. Charles-Edwards GD,
    5. Griffin N,
    6. Parikh J,
    7. Rottenberg G,
    8. Leslie M,
    9. Gaya A and
    10. Goh V
    : Rectal tumour volume (GTV) delineation using T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI: Implications for radiotherapy planning. Eur J Radiol 83(5): 768-772, 2014. PMID: 24646719. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Burbach JP,
    2. Kleijnen JP,
    3. Reerink O,
    4. Seravalli E,
    5. Philippens ME,
    6. Schakel T,
    7. van Asselen B,
    8. Raaymakers BW,
    9. van Vulpen M and
    10. Intven M
    : Inter-observer agreement of MRI-based tumor delineation for preoperative radiotherapy boost in locally advanced rectal cancer. Radiother Oncol 118(2): 399-407, 2016. PMID: 26700601. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.10.030
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Rosa C,
    2. Caravatta L,
    3. Delli Pizzi A,
    4. Di Tommaso M,
    5. Cianci R,
    6. Gasparini L,
    7. Perrotti F,
    8. Solmita J,
    9. Sartori S,
    10. Zecca IAL,
    11. Di Nicola M,
    12. Basilico R and
    13. Genovesi D
    : Reproducibility of rectal tumor volume delineation using diffusion-weighted MRI: Agreement on volumes between observers. Cancer Radiother 23(3): 216-221, 2019. PMID: 31109840. DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2018.10.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Ippolito E,
    2. Mertens I,
    3. Haustermans K,
    4. Gambacorta MA,
    5. Pasini D and
    6. Valentini V
    : IGRT in rectal cancer. Acta Oncol 47(7): 1317-1324, 2008. PMID: 18661433. DOI: 10.1080/02841860802256459
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Nijkamp J,
    2. Doodeman B,
    3. Marijnen C,
    4. Vincent A and
    5. van Vliet-Vroegindeweij C
    : Bowel exposure in rectal cancer IMRT using prone, supine, or a belly board. Radiother Oncol 102(1): 22-29, 2012. PMID: 21723637. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.076
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Rosa C,
    2. Caravatta L,
    3. Di Tommaso M,
    4. Fasciolo D,
    5. Gasparini L,
    6. Di Guglielmo FC,
    7. Augurio A,
    8. Vinciguerra A,
    9. Vecchi C and
    10. Genovesi D
    : Cone-beam computed tomography for organ motion evaluation in locally advanced rectal cancer patients. Radiol Med 126(1): 147-154, 2021. PMID: 32297096. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-020-01193-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Yamashita H,
    2. Takenaka R,
    3. Sakumi A,
    4. Haga A,
    5. Otomo K and
    6. Nakagawa K
    : Analysis of motion of the rectum during preoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy for rectal cancer using cone-beam computed tomography. Radiat Oncol 10: 2, 2015. PMID: 25566869. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-014-0311-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Gwynne S,
    2. Webster R,
    3. Adams R,
    4. Mukherjee S,
    5. Coles B and
    6. Staffurth J
    : Image-guided radiotherapy for rectal cancer: Α systematic review. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 24(4): 250-260, 2012. PMID: 21856136. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2011.07.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 41 (4)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 41, Issue 4
April 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Treatment Volume, Dose Prescription and Delivery Techniques for Dose-intensification in Rectal Cancer: A National Survey
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Treatment Volume, Dose Prescription and Delivery Techniques for Dose-intensification in Rectal Cancer: A National Survey
LUCIANA CARAVATTA, MARCO LUPATTELLI, GIOVANNA MANTELLO, MARIA ANTONIETTA GAMBACORTA, GIUDITTA CHILOIRO, MONICA DI TOMMASO, CONSUELO ROSA, LUCREZIA GASPARINI, ALESSIO GIUSEPPE MORGANTI, VINCENZO PICARDI, RITA MARINA NIESPOLO, MATTIA FALCHETTO OSTI, SABRINA MONTRONE, NICOLA SIMONI, CATERINA BOSO, FRANCESCA FACCHIN, MARIA ASSUNTA DEIDDA, CRISTINA PIVA, CESARE GUIDA, LUIGI ZICCARELLI, FERNANDO MUNOZ, GIOVANNI BATTISTA IVALDI, VANIA MARCHETTI, PAOLA FRANZONE, CORRADO SPATOLA, PIERFRANCESCO FRANCO, VITTORIO DONATO, DOMENICO GENOVESI, on behalf of Gastrointestinal Study Group of AIRO (Italian Association of Radiation Oncology and Clinical Oncology)
Anticancer Research Apr 2021, 41 (4) 1985-1995; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14966

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Treatment Volume, Dose Prescription and Delivery Techniques for Dose-intensification in Rectal Cancer: A National Survey
LUCIANA CARAVATTA, MARCO LUPATTELLI, GIOVANNA MANTELLO, MARIA ANTONIETTA GAMBACORTA, GIUDITTA CHILOIRO, MONICA DI TOMMASO, CONSUELO ROSA, LUCREZIA GASPARINI, ALESSIO GIUSEPPE MORGANTI, VINCENZO PICARDI, RITA MARINA NIESPOLO, MATTIA FALCHETTO OSTI, SABRINA MONTRONE, NICOLA SIMONI, CATERINA BOSO, FRANCESCA FACCHIN, MARIA ASSUNTA DEIDDA, CRISTINA PIVA, CESARE GUIDA, LUIGI ZICCARELLI, FERNANDO MUNOZ, GIOVANNI BATTISTA IVALDI, VANIA MARCHETTI, PAOLA FRANZONE, CORRADO SPATOLA, PIERFRANCESCO FRANCO, VITTORIO DONATO, DOMENICO GENOVESI, on behalf of Gastrointestinal Study Group of AIRO (Italian Association of Radiation Oncology and Clinical Oncology)
Anticancer Research Apr 2021, 41 (4) 1985-1995; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14966
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • DWI-MR and PET-CT Functional Imaging for Boost Tumor Volume Delineation in Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Treatment
  • Evaluation of Pre-radiotherapy Sleep Disorders in Patients With Rectal or Anal Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Efficacy of Pembrolizumab as Second or Third-line Therapy for Local Advanced and Metastatic Urothelial Cancer
  • End-of-life Androgen Deprivation Syndrome With Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Case Report
  • Effect of a Biweekly Dosing Schedule on Severe Neutropenia Induced by Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Colorectal Cancer
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • rectal cancer
  • dose intensification
  • intensity modulated radiotherapy
  • simultaneous integrated boost
  • gross tumor volume
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire