Citation: Alam N, et al. High Dose Rate Intraluminal Brachytherapy (HDRILBT) as a Boost to External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT) in Advanced Inoperable Carcinoma Esophagus. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2018;8:48-51

This open-access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits reuse, distribution and reproduction of the article, provided that the original work is properly cited and the reuse is restricted to noncommercial purposes. For commercial reuse, contact reprints@pulsus.com

Abstract

Aim of study: In certain clinical situations HDRILBT may be an effective alternative modality as a boost to external beam radiation therapy in advanced inoperable carcinoma esophagus. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility, complications and short term response of HDRILBT used as a boost after completion of 40 Gy EBRT with curative intent in inoperable advance stage esophageal cancer. Materials and Methods: After 40 Gy EBRT, 28 patients who could be intubated with 16 F Levine’s tube was given high dose rate (HDRILBT) and formed the study group. The prescription point was at 1 cm from the central axis of the oesophageal catheter. A total dose of 10 Gy in 2 fractions at weekly intervals was prescribed. Results: Treatment result was analysed after 3 months of completion of treatment. It was consisted of clinical evaluation, endoscopic evaluation and contrast enhanced CT scan thorax of the patients. Grade 1 & 2 oesophagitis was seen in 21 patients. 3 patients had Grade 3 & 4 oesophagitis (RTOG scale). Stricture formation was seen in 3 patients. In one patient, tracheoesophageal fistula was developed 3 months after treatment. Complete Response was seen in 20 patients (71%). Partial response was seen in 4 patients (14%). Stationary and progressive disease was seen in 4 patients (14%). Relief in dysphagia was seen in 22 (78%) patients. Conclusion: In selected cases use of HDRILBT as a boost to EBRT is a feasible option to obtain a higher dose for improved local control with acceptable complications.

Keywords

Inoperable advance stage esophageal cancer; High dose rate intraluminal brachytherapy

Introduction

Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer deaths in the world. [1] In India most of the patients present in advanced and inoperable stage. They usually present in a nutritionally compromised state and mostly have poor performance status. The survival rate of these patients remains very poor.

In the curative setting primary treatment options for patients with locally advanced disease include preoperative chemoradiation, definitive chemoradiation and rarely preoperative chemotherapy. [2,3] Preoperative chemoradiation is preferred over preoperative chemotherapy for patients with adenocarcinoma (ACC) of the distal esophagus or esophgeogastric junction. [4] Definitive chemoradiation therapy has been demonstrated as the curative approach for patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the esophagus whereas chemoradiation followed by surgery is the standard of treatment for adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus or esophageogastric junction. [5] The current standard of care for inoperable esophageal cancer is concurrent chemoradiation with 50.4 [6] Gy radiotherapy and cisplatin/ 5-FU–based chemotherapy. [7]

However, in most of these cases, only the palliation of symptoms is possible. The various available options are palliative bypass surgery, endoscopic laser therapy, concomitant chemoradition therapy, intraluminal plastic tubes and the insertion of selfexpandable stents. [8] High dose rate intraluminal brachytherapy (HDRILBT) is also an effective method for palliation of dysphagia. [9]

During definitive chemoradiation treatment, after the completion of 40 Gy external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), further dose escalation may take either of the two approaches to boost the primary tumour volume. One is use of three-dimensional conformal EBRT (3DCRT) and another is HDRILBT. While 3DCRT may help to conform the high dose region to the tumour volume, they are expensive, time consuming and not readily available in Indian scenario. HDRILBT offer a simple, inexpensive method of conformal radiation therapy. HDRILBT allows the escalation of dose to the oesophagus while protecting dose-limiting structure such as lung, heart and spinal cord. It is found in the literature that in certain clinical situations HDRILBT may be an effective alternative modality both as sole radiation therapy and as a boost to EBRT. [10-13] As a result of its many advantages such as dose conformity, short treatment duration, and out-patient treatment, HDRILBT could be a feasible option for dose escalation to improve the survival. [14-16]

In this study, we have evaluated the feasibility, complications and short term response of HDRILBT employed as a boost after completion of 40 Gy EBRT with curative intent in inoperable advanced stage esophageal cancer.

Methods and Patients

Patients having histologically proven SCC or ACC of the thoracic esophagus with stage 2 & 3 disease (advanced stage) were included. 52 patients with inoperable carcinoma esophagus were selected for chemoradiation treatment between January 2012 and September 2013 at our centre. They were inoperable due to local extension, old age or concomitant disease. Exclusion criteria included cervical esophageal cancers, extension of tumor to gastroesophageal junction, involvement of supraclavicular or more distant lymph node groups, and invasion of the tracheobronchial tree.

They were treated by chemoradiation as a primary treatment of modality. Patient’s characteristics are shown in Table 1. The study was approved by local Research and Ethical Committee. Study was explained and written consent was taken from individual patient before the execution of treatment.

Table 1: Patient characteristics.

Initial treatment

These patients were given EBRT with the dose of 40 Gy/22 fractions by anteroposterior field with Co60 teletherapy machine. A fraction of 200cGy was given daily, five days per week. Patients were started on EBRT with a treatment volume covering the primary tumour with generous proximal and distal margins (5 cm margins above and below the tumour and mediastinal lymph nodes). Both portals were treated daily with patient in the supine position. Concurrent chemotherapy was given with Cisplatinum 75 mg/m² Day 1 and 5-FU 750 mg/m² Days 1-4 during weeks 1 and 4 of EBRT. Patients were weekly followed for acute toxicities of chemoradiation and were managed accordingly. After EBRT completion patients were evaluated for treatment response. Surgical opinion was taken for middle and lower 1/3 oesophageal disease. Patients who were still inoperable but well responded to radiotherapy were selected and planned for further radiation treatment.

Study design

After a total dose of 40 Gy with EBRT, further dose escalation was done by using HDRILBT. 28 patients in which intubation in esophagus with 16 F Levine’s tube was feasible were selected for the delivery of HDRILBT.

2 patients in which intubation was not possible, were excluded from the final evaluation. In these patients dose escalation was done employing 3DCRT with three-field arrangement consisting of an anterior field and two posterior oblique fields to minimize the dose to spinal cord. A total dose of 50 Gy by EBRT was given in these patients.

HDRILBT

The prescription point was at 1 cm from the central axis of the oesophageal catheter. A total dose of 10 Gy in 2 fractions at weekly intervals was prescribed. The tumour length is determined using available information from the barium oesophagogram, computed tomography scans and endoscopy. The treatment length usually includes the entire tumour length at presentation with a margin of 2 cm on either side.

A graduated nasogastric tube was inserted to position the distal end of the tube at the distal end of the planned treatment length. During intubation local anaesthesia was produced by using Xylocaine spray. After verification that the tube is in the oesophagus and not in the airway, a dummy source was placed in the nasogastric tube and pushed up to its distal end. Radiographs were taken to verify the location of the nasogastric tube and check that its distal end is appropriately positioned to treat the desired segment of the oesophagus.

Computerized treatment planning was used to calculate the dwell time of the source at various positions along the oesophagus. The treatment time was calculated to deliver the prescribed dose at a uniform distance from the source. The tube in the patient was then connected to the remote afterloader and the HDRILBT was delivered using a remote afterloading unit with an Ir-192 source. These patients were evaluated for feasibility, complications and short term treatment response.

Results

In this study the mean age of the patients was 59 year. Male to female ratio was 2:1. Middle one third of the oesophagus was the commonest site and SCC was the commonest histopathology (78%). Treatment results were analysed after 3 months of completion of treatment. Response evaluation was done using clinical examination, endoscopic examinationn and contrast enhanced CT scan thorax of the patients.

Complications of the treatment are described in Table 2. After treatment completion grades 1 and 2 esophagitis was seen in 21 patients. 3 patients had Grades 3 and 4 esophagitis (RTOG scale). Stricture formation was seen in 3 patients. In one patient, tracheoesophageal fistula was developed after the 3 months of treatment.

Table 2: Complications of treatment.

Response to treatment is described in Table 3. The Complete Response (CR), defined as no tumour seen on oesophagoscopy, was seen in 20 patients (71%). Partial response (PR) which is defined as <50% decrease in tumour growth on esophagoscopy, was seen in 4 patients (14%). Stationary and progressive disease was present in 4 patients (14%). Relief in dysphagia was present in 22 (78%) patients.

Table 3: Results of radical treatment in terms of response.

Discussion

The current standard of care for inoperable esophageal cancer is concurrent chemoradiation with 50.4 Gy radiotherapy and cisplatin/ 5-FU–based chemotherapy. Further dose escalation to improve the outcome is limited critical surrounding structures. HDRILBT offers a simple, inexpensive method of conformal radiation therapy in this context of dose escalation with minimum morbidity. HDRILBT allows the escalation of dose to the oesophagus while protecting dose-limiting structure which is not possible even with the most conformal method of EBRT.

In the definitive chemoradiation treatment of carcinoma oesophagus, role of brachytherapy remains unclear and investigational. Most of the studies are single centre experiences and done in palliative setting to relieve dysphagia.

According to the American brachytherapy society (ABS) guidelines [17] HDRILBT may be given in unifocal, localised SCC or ACC of thoracic esophagus, ≤ 10 cm in length. Cervical oesophagus location, tracheal or bronchial involvement and stenosis that cannot be bypassed are the contraindications for HDRILBT. HDRILBT in the palliative setting may be given in thoracic esophagus carcinoma with distant metastases, unresectable local disease progression and/or recurrence after definitive radiation treatment.

The esophageal brachytherapy applicator should have an external diameter of 6-10 mm. If 5FU-based chemotherapy and 45-50-Gy external beam are used, recommended dose of HDRILBT is 10 Gy in two weekly fractions of 5 Gy each. Dose should be prescribed at 1 cm from the midsource or mid-dwell position. Brachytherapy should follow and should not be given concurrently with chemotherapy. In palliative setting, 30 Gy EBRT followed by 10-14 Gy HDRILBT in one or two fractions is the recommendation of ABS. [17]

The use of HDRILBT with EBRT has been reported in a very few studies. [18-20] Hishikawa et al. reported a higher local control rate, 62% versus 20%, and higher two-year survival in stages 1 and 2, 44% versus 9%, when ILBT was added to EBRT as compared to EBRT alone. [15] There are two randomized trials supporting the use of HDRILBT as an adjunct to EBRT in cases treated with curative intent. From china, Wei-bo Yin [12] reported a statistically significant improvement in survival in 100 patients treated with 50Gy EBRT followed by 19-26Gy HDRILBT in 3-4 fractions (78% at one year) when compared to 100 patients treated with 70Gy EBRT alone (56% at one year, P<0.01). Sur et al. reported similar results from India in a smaller group of patients. [18] In our study Complete Response rate was 71% and Partial response rate was 14%. Stationary and progressive disease was seen in 4 patients (14%).

Various single centre experiences [21-25] of HDRILBT in palliative setting suggested that HDRILBT is a safe and feasible option in selected patients for the control of dysphagia. These studies reported dysphagia control in 50-80% of patients with acceptable toxicities. Homs et al. in their study compared HDRILBT with stent placement and concluded that singledose HDRILBT gave better long-term relief of dysphagia and associated with fewer complications. [9] In our study percentage reduction of dysphagia was 78%.

RTOG 92-07 trial was a multiinstitutional prospective study, designed to determine the feasibility and toxicity of chemotherapy, EBRT and oesophageal brachytherapy with curative intent in ACC or SCC of the oesophagus. In this trial although swallowing function after EBRT and concurrent chemotherapy is satisfactory in most surviving patients (92%), incidence of fistulas was higher (12% within 7 month). Authors suggested cautious use of brachytherapy particularly when used in conjunction with chemotherapy. [26,27]

Esophagitis, stricture formation ulceration and fistula formation are the possible complications with HDRILBT. [19] Considerable variations are seen in complication rate reported in the previous studies because of variability in dosing schedules, fraction size and applicator size in these studies. [20] The most common complication reported with oesophageal radiation therapy is an esophageal stricture. This may occur in 17-43% of patients. [28] In our study grade 1&2 oesophagitis was seen in 21 (75%) patients. 3 patients had Grade 3 & 4 oesophagitis (14%). Stricture formation was seen in 3 patients (14%). In one patient, tracheoesophageal fistula was developed 3 months after treatment. We have found a lower complication rates as compared to other studies. The treatment was very well tolerated, with only one patient developing fistula following treatment. This shows the feasibility and better outcome of our HDRILBT dose fractionation schedule.

Patient’s compliance was found to be a limitation in delivering HDRILBT as excessive gag reflex during intubation was very cumbersome in some patients.

Conclusion

This study did not aim to compare the HDRILBT with 3D conformal EBRT but result of this study show that in selected cases use of HDRILBT with EBRT is a feasible option to obtain a higher dose for improved local control and acceptable complications. HDRILBT is feasible, effective, better tolerated and safe but patient compliance is needed. Long term follow up is required to comment on survival rates. Further research is necessary to determine the appropriate dose fractionation schemes and schedules for integration with EBRT.

Conflict of Interest

All authors disclose that there was no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 74-108
2. Swisher SG, Hofstetter W, Komaki R, Correa AM, Erasmus J, Lee JH et al. Improved long-term outcome with chemoradiotherapy strategies in esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90: 892-898.
3. Gaast AV, Van Hagen P, Hulshof M, Richel D, Van Berge Henegouwen MI, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, et al. Effect of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy on survival of patients with resectable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer: Results from a multicenter randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2010; 28: 4004
4. Stahl M, Walz MK, Stuschke M, Lehmann N, Meyer HJ, Jorge RK, et al. Phase III comparison of preoperative chemotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 851-856.
5. Kleinberg L, Forastiere AA. Chemoradiation in the management of esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 4110-4117
6. Minsky BD, Pajak TF, Ginsberg RJ, Pisansky TM, Martenson J, Komaki R, et al. INT 0123 (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 94-05) phase III trial of combined-modality therapy for esophageal cancer: high-dose versus standard-dose radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 1167-1174.
7. Yang GY, McClosky SA, Khushalani NI. Principles of modern radiation techniques for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers. Gastrointest Cancer Res 2009; 3: 6-10.
8. Cwikiel M, Cwikiel W, Albertsson M. Palliation of dysphagia in patients with malignant esophageal strictures: Comparison of results of radiotherapy, chemotherapy and esophageal stent treatment. Acta Oncol 1996; 35: 75-79.
9. Homs MY, Steyerberg EW, Eijkenboom WM, Tilanus HW, Stalpers LJ, Bartelsman JF, et al. Single-dose brachytherapy versus metal stent placement for the palliation of dysphagia from oesophageal cancer: multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 1497-1504.
10. Hishikawa Y, Kurisu K, Taniguchi M, Kamikonya N, Miura T. Small superficial esophageal carcinoma treated with high dose rate intracavitary irradiation only. Radiology 1989; 172: 267-270.
11. Okawa T, Dokiya T, Nishio M, Hishikawa Y, Morita K. Multi institutional randomized trial of external radiotherapy with and without intraluminal brachytherapy for esophageal cancer in Japan. Japanese Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (JASTRO) Study Group Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45: 623-628.
12. Yin W. Brachytherapy of carcinoma of the oesophagus in China 1970-1974 and 1982-1984. In: Brachytherapy HDR and LDR: Proceeding of the Brachytherapy Meeting, "Remote Afterloading: State of the Art", Dearborn, MI, USA; 1989. p. 52-6. Martinez AA, Orton CG, Mould RF, editors. Nucletron Corp: Columbia, USA; 1990.
13. Gaspar LE, Barnett R, Kocha WI. High dose rate esophageal brachytherapy: Initial experience. Endocuriether/Hypertherm Oncol 1992; 8: 5-10.
14. Hishikawa Y, Kuriso K, Taniguchi M, Kamikonya N, Miura T. High-dose-rate intraluminal brachytherapy for esophageal cancer: 10 years’ experience in Hyogo college of medicine. Radiother Oncol 1991; 21: 107-114.
15. Hishikawa Y, Kamikonya N, Tanaka S, Miura T. Radiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma: The role of high dose rate intracavitary irradiation. Radiother Oncol 1987; 9: 13-20.
16. Hishikawa Y, Kurisu K, Taniguchi M, Kamikonya N, Miura T. High dose-rate intraluminal brachytherapy for esophageal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21: 1133-1135.
17. Gasper LE, Nag S, Herskovic A, Mantravadi R, Speiser B. American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) consensus guidelines for brachytherapy of esophageal cancer. Clinical Research Committee, American Brachytherapy Society, Philadelphia, PA. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 38: 127-132.
18. Sur RK, Singh DP, Sharma SC, Singh MT, Kochhar R, Negi PS, et al. Radiation therapy of esophageal cancer: role of high dose rate brachytherapy. Int J Radiate Oncol Biol Phys 1992; 22: 1043-1046.
19. Flores AD, Rowland CG, Yin WB. High dose rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the esophagus. In: Nag S, editor. High dose rate brachytherapy: A textbook. Armonk, NY: Future Publishing Co; 1994; 275-284.
20. Khurana R, Dimri K, Lal P, Rastogi N, Joseph K, Das M, et al. Factors influencing the development of ulcers and strictures in carcinoma of the esophagus treated with radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy. J Can Res Ther 2007; 3: 2-7.
21. Ghosh S, Sau S, Mitra S, Manna A, Ghosh K. Palliation of dysphagia in advanced, metastatic or recurrent carcinoma oesophagus with high dose rate intraluminal brachytherapy--an eastern Indian experience of 35 cases. J Indian Med Assoc 2012;110: 449-452.
22. Bhatt L, Tirmazy S, Sothi S. Intraluminal high-dose-rate brachytherapy for palliation of dysphagia in cancer of the esophagus: Initial experience at a single UK center. Dis Esophagus 2013; 1: 57-60.
23. Kapoor R, Bansal A, Kochhar R, Kumar P, Sharma SC. Effectiveness of two high-dose-rate intraluminal brachytherapy schedules for symptom palliation in carcinoma esophagus: A tertiary care center experience. Indian J Palliat Care 2012; 1: 34-39.
24. Bergquist H, Johnsson E, Nyman J, Rylander H, Hammerlid E, Friesland S, et al. Combined stent insertion and single high-dose brachytherapy in patients with advanced esophageal cancer--results of a prospective safety study. Dis Esophagus 2012; 5: 410-415.
25. Frobe A, Jones G, Jaksic B, Bokulic T, Budanec M, Iva M, et al. Intraluminal brachytherapy in the management of squamous carcinoma of the esophagus. Dis Esophagus 2009; 22: 513-518.
26. Gasper LE, Winter K, Kocha WI, Coia LR, Herskovic A, Graham M. A phase I/II study of external beam radiation, brachytherapy, and concurrent chemotherapy for patients with localized carcinoma of the esophagus (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Study 9207): final report. Cancer 2000; 88: 988-995.
27. Gasper LE, Winter K, Kocha WI, Pinover WH, Herskovic A, Graham M et al. Swallowing function and weight change observed in a phase I/II study of external-beam radiation, brachytherapy and concurrent chemotherapy in localized cancer of the esophagus (RTOG 9207). Cancer J 2001; 5: 388-394.
28. Moni J, Nori D. The pitfalls and complications of radiation therapy for esophageal carcinoma. Chest Surg Clin N Am 1994; 7: 565-585.