A systematic review comparing radiation toxicity after various endorectal techniques

dc.contributor.authorVERRIJSSEN, AN-SOFIEpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorOPBROEK, THIRZApt_BR
dc.contributor.authorBELLEZZO, MURILLOpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorFONSECA, GABRIEL P.pt_BR
dc.contributor.authorVERHAEGEN, FRANKpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorGERARD, JEAN-PIERREpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorMYINT, ARTHUR S.pt_BR
dc.contributor.authorLIMBERGEN, EVERT J.V.pt_BR
dc.contributor.authorBERBEE, MAAIKEpt_BR
dc.coverageInternacionalpt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-09T14:24:26Z
dc.date.available2019-08-09T14:24:26Z
dc.date.issued2019pt_BR
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: A clinical complete response is seen after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal tumors in 15%e20% of patients. These patients can potentially be spared mutilating total mesorectal excision surgery through a watch-and-wait policy. Recent studies show that dose escalation by a radiation boost increases the clinical complete response rate. The boost dose to the tumor can be administered through external beam radiotherapy or through internal radiotherapy using techniques like contact therapy, low-dose-rate or high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT). However, limited information is available concerning treatment-related toxicity of these techniques. With this systematic review, we aim to summarize and compare published data concerning acute and late toxicity after contact X-ray therapy (CXT) and BT for rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS/RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies reporting toxicity after endorectal radiation techniques for rectal cancer were included, resulting in 3682 patients for analysis. Direct comparison of toxicity by the different radiation modes was hampered by various combinations of endorectal techniques, a lack of clear reporting of toxicity scores, dose prescription, technique used, and treated volumes. $ Grade 3 rectal toxicity was reported in 2.9% of patients having received only CXT; 6.3% of patients who received only BT had Grade 3 rectal toxicity, and BT also caused Grade 3 urinary toxicity in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: All techniques reported some$Grade 3 toxicity. Toxicity after CXTwas confined to the rectum, whereas after BT, urogenital toxicity and skin toxicity were seen as well. Unfortunately, few specific conclusions could be drawn regarding the dose-related risk of toxicity for the various techniques due to nonuniform reporting strategies and missing information. To enable future comparisons and improvements, the endorectal radiation field urgently needs consensus guidelines on dose reporting, dose prescription, treatment volume specification, and toxicity reporting. 2018 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.pt_BR
dc.format.extent71-86pt_BR
dc.identifier.citationVERRIJSSEN, AN-SOFIE; OPBROEK, THIRZA; BELLEZZO, MURILLO; FONSECA, GABRIEL P.; VERHAEGEN, FRANK; GERARD, JEAN-PIERRE; MYINT, ARTHUR S.; LIMBERGEN, EVERT J.V.; BERBEE, MAAIKE. A systematic review comparing radiation toxicity after various endorectal techniques. <b>Brachytherapy</b>, v. 18, n. 1, p. 71-86, 2019. DOI: <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2018.10.001">10.1016/j.brachy.2018.10.001</a>. Disponível em: http://repositorio.ipen.br/handle/123456789/30067.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.brachy.2018.10.001pt_BR
dc.identifier.fasciculo1pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn1538-4721pt_BR
dc.identifier.percentilfi24.141pt_BR
dc.identifier.percentilfiCiteScore53.00
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.ipen.br/handle/123456789/30067
dc.identifier.vol18pt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofBrachytherapypt_BR
dc.rightsopenAccesspt_BR
dc.subjectchemotherapy
dc.subjectbrachytherapy
dc.subjectneoplasms
dc.subjectrectum
dc.subjectradiation doses
dc.subjecttoxicity
dc.subjectintestines
dc.titleA systematic review comparing radiation toxicity after various endorectal techniquespt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dspace.entity.typePublication
ipen.autorMURILLO BELLEZZO
ipen.codigoautor10246
ipen.contributor.ipenauthorMURILLO BELLEZZO
ipen.date.recebimento19-08
ipen.identifier.fi1.853pt_BR
ipen.identifier.fiCiteScore3.4
ipen.identifier.ipendoc25706pt_BR
ipen.identifier.iwosWoSpt_BR
ipen.identifier.ods3
ipen.observacoesCorrigendum anexado. Brachytherapy, v. 18, p. 427, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2019.03.010
ipen.range.fi1.500 - 2.999
ipen.range.percentilfi0.00 - 24.99
ipen.type.genreArtigo
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationfbb6d3c2-9f6b-43d0-947e-d4de7792bee3
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryfbb6d3c2-9f6b-43d0-947e-d4de7792bee3
sigepi.autor.atividadeBELLEZZO, MURILLO:10246:420:Npt_BR

Pacote Original

Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
25706.pdf
Tamanho:
468.87 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:
Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
25706b.pdf
Tamanho:
82.88 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:

Licença do Pacote

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
license.txt
Tamanho:
1.71 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descrição:

Coleções