Is there more than one proctitis syndrome? A revisitation using data from the TROG 96.01 trial

Capp, Anne; Inostroza-Ponta, Mario; Bill, Dana; Moscato, Pablo; Lai, Chi-Kong; Christie, David; Lamb, David; Turner, Sandra; Joseph, David; Matthews, John; Atkinson, Callum; North, J. B.; Poulsen, Michael; Spry, Nigel; Tai, Keen Hun; Wynne, Chris; Duchesne, Gillian; Steigler, Allison; Denham, James W.

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2008.09.019

Cited by 67 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this tool is not in common use among oncologist or radiographers, we have previously shown that it is more sensitive than commonly used scoring systems in characterizing symptoms associated with both phases (11,12). It incorporates questions that others have found are important but lacking in more commonly used tools (frequency, urgency, and diarrhea) (13) and symptoms that we have found important to patients (anorectal symptoms and excessive flatus) (14), which are ignored by most scoring tools. Our findings support those that have suggested a predictive association between the occurrence of acute and late effects, with those experiencing moderate to severe acute effects being at least twice as likely to experience late effects (1,3,7,9).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Predicting Late Effects of Pelvic Radiotherapy: Is There a Better Approach?

Wedlake

Thomas

Lalji

et al. 2010

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Predicting Late Effects of Pelvic Radiotherapy: Is There a Better Approach?

Wedlake

Thomas

Lalji

et al. 2010

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Conversely, fecal incontinence gradually increased up to 1.6% at 4.5 years, which corresponds to the proportion of 27% among symptoms of grade 2 and 3 rectal toxicity. Capp et al 17 analyzed data from self-assessment questionnaires collected from patients who were treated within the randomized trial of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and radiation therapy for prostate cancer. They observed a minor prevalence peak of moderate or severe symptoms at 4-5 years after radiotherapy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time course of late rectal toxicity after radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Odrážka

Doležel

Vaňásek³

et al. 2009

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rectum and bladder are the crucial organs at risk for curative radiation therapy of localized prostate cancer. We analyzed the incidence, profile and time course of late rectal radiation toxicity. A total of 320 patients with T1-3 prostate cancer were treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). The prescription dose was 70 Gy for T1 and T2 patients (n ¼ 230) and 74 Gy for patients with locally advanced T3 tumors (n ¼ 90). Late rectal toxicity was graded according to the Fox Chase modification of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force (LENT) criteria. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years (range 0.2-10.7 years). At 5 years, the risk for the development of grade 2 and 3 rectal toxicities was 15.6 and 7.0%, respectively. All new cases of grade 2 and 3 rectal toxicities were observed within 5 years after treatment. Prevalence of grade 2 and 3 rectal symptoms showed fluctuation with maximum at 1.5 years and the minor peak at 4.5 years. Toxicity profile changed significantly over time. The proportion of rectal bleeding within grade 2 and 3 toxicity decreased from 85% at 1.5 years to 46% at 4.5 years. Conversely, the proportion of fecal incontinence among grade 2 and 3 rectal symptoms gradually increased (0% at 1.5 years vs 27% at 4.5 years). Late rectal radiation toxicity represents a dynamic process. Rectal bleeding decreases and fecal incontinence increases over time.

show abstract

“…It can imprison clinicians and scientists into ways of thinking which do no service to the patient or to research. For example, it may encourage the erroneous belief that radiation-induced toxicity cannot be improved or prevented and to attempt to do so is futile [21,22], that manipulating the radiation dose will solve all problems, completely ignoring the real nature of normal tissue injury [23][24][25] or that worst of all, it is not terribly important to measure it accurately [25][26][27][28].…”

Section: Imprecise Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“Pelvic radiation disease”: New understanding and new solutions for a new disease in the era of cancer survivorship

Andreyev

Wotherspoon

Denham

et al. 2010

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology

Self Cite

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity is bedeviled by inappropriate terminology, causing confusion, and myth which legitimizes inappropriate clinical behavior. We must address honestly the uncomfortable reality that doctors, sometimes do harm. Not to do so in an era where survivorship is a reality, will deny millions often with severe symptoms from "pelvic radiation disease", the care which will help them.

show abstract

Is there more than one proctitis syndrome? A revisitation using data from the TROG 96.01 trial

Cited by 67 publications

References 18 publications

Predicting Late Effects of Pelvic Radiotherapy: Is There a Better Approach?

Predicting Late Effects of Pelvic Radiotherapy: Is There a Better Approach?

Time course of late rectal toxicity after radiation therapy for prostate cancer

“Pelvic radiation disease”: New understanding and new solutions for a new disease in the era of cancer survivorship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About