Postby roadrunner » Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:19 pm
Claudine:
IMO this may be a very high-leverage point in your husband’s treatment. There are lots of options with lots of different implications. I can’t address everything here, but I will point at some issues:
(1) Type of RT: ERBT (wide field) used to be the way this was done, and I believe it still is in many places. It can be effective, but has more side effects and does not allow for optimal dose in many cases. Healthy tissue and structures receive more radiation than in other approaches, and the side effects can be significant and permanent (some include radiation proctitis, sexual side effects, urinary side effects, and immune issues (the pelvic bones are large)). IMRT is a better option, as it spares more healthy tissues and carries fewer side effects. Especially with an engaged, talented, caring radiation oncologist at the helm. Dave is right that proton beam therapy is a great option if available—it might well be the next SOC, but it sounds like it might be a challenge for you to access. I did IMRT and it worked very well. I have limited side effects (a few interesting bathroom experiences and a little lingering chronic radiation proctitis), and I achieved a near-complete clinical response (nCCR). YMMV, of course, but from what I’ve read, I’d want at least IMRT for this.
(2) Length of RT: The options are short-course (SC) or long-course (LC). LC was SOC to achieve greater response, with SC offered to folks who were frail or were unlikely to achieve a large response, but I believe that’s changing (at least in Europe), with some recent studies showing equivalent if not better results with fewer side effects for SC (but that’s just an impression on my part). I’d certainly ask about this though, or research it. LC is the 28 fractions referred to above in this discussion, SC is I think 5 or 6 fractions. Dose is also key: higher is better to achieve a complete response, but can increase side effects and complicate surgery if the rad onc doesn’t get it right. I did a max dose LC with IMRT, boosting with targeting at the end of treatment.
(3) Result/treatment plan. Usually chemorad is done to shrink tumors before resection (often TME). In recent years, a “watch & wait” (no removal of the rectum) protocol for complete responders has been developed, and is used in some places. Generally, you need a complete clinical response (CCR) to be put into that protocol, even if the center follows it. A small minority of patients achieve this (I think it’s around 15%, but I could be a bit off there). Results of this protocol are very good for those who qualify, and it avoids the often very significant side effects of surgery. (But note that surgical outcome itself depends on location of tumor (higher is better), skill of surgeon, and the approach to radiation, as well as biology.) Note also that if there is significant response it may continue to increase for a while after treatment, so interval before surgery should also be discussed.
Overall, you and your radiation oncologist should be aligned with your surgeon on your long-term treatment plan now, at the outset of chemorad, so you are all shooting for the same goal. (Choices made now matter.)
A caveat is that your husband had chemo before and may (I can’t tell) still have active disease beyond the rectum. I’m not sure how that would get folded in here, but I would discuss it with your team in connection with the above points.
Finally, chemorad is usually done with Xeloda regardless of prior treatment I believe.
7/19: RC: Staged IIIA, T2N1M0
approx 4.25 cm, low/mid rectum, mod. well diff.; lung micronodule
8/19-10/19 4 rds.FOLFOX neoadjuvant, 3 w/Oxiplatin (reduced 70-75%)
neoadjuvant chemorad 11/19
4 rounds FOLFOX July-August 2020
ncCR 10/20; biopsies neg
TAE 11/20, tumor cells removed
Chest CT 3/30/21 growth in 2 nodules (3 and 5mm)
VATS 12/8/21 sub-pleural met 7mm.
SBRT nodule 1/22
6/20/22 TAE rectal polyp benign)
NED from 3/22 - 3/23
4 cycles FOLFIRI
LUL VATS lobectomy for radio resistant met 7/7/23