• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sat, 20.04.24

Original Articles


Toxicity of Treatment for Anal Carcinoma: 2D versus 3D Planning

Click on the icon on the upper right hand side for the article written by Fadi Atrash MD, Orit Kaidar-Person MD and Salem Billan MD

IMAJ 2015: 17: July: 414-417
Abstract

Background: Anal cancer is a relatively uncommon disease, accounting for only 4% of cancers of the lower gastrointestinal tract. 

Objectives: To summarize the single-center experience in the treatment of anal carcinoma using various radiation techniques.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of consecutive patients who were treated for anal cancer between the years 2002 and 2011. The data extracted included demographics, type of radiation technique, treatment-associated acute toxicity, and patterns of failure and survival. For statistical analysis purposes, the patients were divided into two groups according to radiotherapy technique: 2D (group A) and 3D (group B).

Results: A total of 42 patients – 25 (59.5%) females and 17 males (40.5%) – underwent definitive chemo-radiation treatment (CRT) for anal cancer. Group A comprised 26 patients and group B 14 patients. Toxicity did not differ significantly between the groups, only in grade 1-2 skin toxicity which was more common in group B. There were significant differences in the unplanned interruptions in treatment, in both the number of patients who needed a treatment break and the number of days needed (more in group A). There were no differences in treatment response and patterns of failure between these two techniques, or in overall survival between the two groups. 

Conclusions: Our study results are consistent with reported large randomized trials, indicating that current treatments for anal carcinomas are associated with high grade acute toxicity that may result in significant treatment interruptions. The 2D technique was associated with significantly more treatment interruptions, but did not differ from 3D with regard to treatment efficacy. 



 


Download PDF Print
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel