The treatment of cancer of the anal canal has changed significantly over the past several decades. Although the abdominoperineal resection (APR) was the historical standard of care, a therapeutic paradigm shift occurred with the seminal work of Nigro, who reported that anal canal cancer could be treated with definitive chemoradiation, with APR reserved for salvage therapy only. This remains an attractive approach for patients and physicians alike and the standard of care in this disease. Now, nearly four decades later, a similar approach continues to be utilized, albeit with higher radiation doses; however, this strategy remains fraught with considerable treatment-related morbidities. With the advent of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), many oncologists are beginning to utilize this technology in the treatment of anal cancer in order to decrease these toxicities while maintaining similar treatment efficacy. This article reviews the relevant literature leading up to the modern treatment of anal canal cancer, and discusses IMRT-related toxicity and disease-related outcomes in the context of outcomes of conventionally treated anal cancer.
Cancer of the anal canal is an uncommon malignancy, with an estimated 5,290 cases diagnosed in the United States in 2009; however, its incidence has been increasing over the past several decades (www.cancer.gov). Historically, first-line therapy was an abdominoperineal resection (APR), resulting in a permanent colostomy. Long-term cure rates following resection alone have varied in the literature, but results as high as 71% have been reported. For most patients, however, avoidance of radical resection and permanent colostomy placement are highly desirable.
Nigro and colleagues at Wayne State University pioneered the non-operative treatment paradigm for anal canal cancers.[2,3] Their initial investigation consisted of three patients treated with approximately 30 Gy radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and mitomycin C (MMC). Two patients underwent planned APR with no residual disease demonstrated by pathologic assessment and the third patient declined surgical intervention, with no disease relapse in follow-up. This important preliminary data spawned numerous investigations of non-operative management of anal canal cancer.
Randomized Trials of Chemoradiotherapy
Two simultaneously conducted randomized phase III trials from Europe established the superiority of chemoradiation to radiation therapy alone.[4,5] The larger of these was conducted by the United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research (UKCCCR), and included 585 patients (ACT I trial). This trial randomized patients to treatment with radiotherapy alone versus radiotherapy with concomitant 5FU and MMC. Similar to the UKCCCR trial, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial randomized 110 patients to treatment with radiotherapy alone (45 Gy) versus radiotherapy (45 Gy) with concomitant 5FU and MMC. Both trials mandated a treatment break prior to an additional “boost” dose of radiation (15-20 Gy), based on tumor response. In both cases, an improvement in local control (LC) and colostomy-free survival (CFS) with combined modality therapy was reported, with no significant difference in overall survival (OS), although the risk of death from anal cancer was reduced by 29% (P = .02) in the UKCCCR trial. Locoregional failure (LRF) decreased from 50% to 32% with the addition of chemotherapy to radiation in the EORTC trial.
Recently, the UKCCCR updated their results with a median follow-up of 13 years. The LRF rate was 32% at five years with the use of combined modality therapy versus 57% in patients treated with radiation therapy only. These results highlight that concurrent chemotherapy has an important role in the treatment of anal canal cancer, but that local failure occurs frequently, even with definitive chemoradiotherapy.
Acute and significant toxicities were reported in both trials (Table 1). Although no differences in acute gastrointestinal (GI) or dermatologic side effects were reported between the two treatment groups in the EORTC trial, higher rates of late anal ulceration were observed in the combined modality group. There were two grade 4-5 hematologic toxicities reported with the addition of chemotherapy. In contrast, the UKCCCR reported significantly more acute hematologic, GI, dermatologic, and genitourinary (GU) toxicities with addition of 5FU/MMC, but no increase in late morbidity.
Different Chemotherapy Regimens
MMC contributes significantly to the acute toxicity profile of combined-modality therapy in anal cancer, and studies have been undertaken to examine its potential role in this treatment program.[7-9] A trial by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) randomized patients to receive radiotherapy and 5FU, with or without MMC (RTOG 87-04). Even though OS was similar in both groups, disease-free and colostomy-free survivals were inferior in patients treated with radiation therapy and 5FU without MMC versus patients treated with radiation therapy, 5FU and MMC. These results justified the use of MMC as an important therapeutic element. While there was no reported difference in acute non-hematologic toxicities between the two groups, 26% of patients receiving MMC (versus 8% who received 5FU alone) experienced grade 4-5 hematologic toxicity.
The RTOG conducted another study (RTOG 98-11), which randomized patients to both induction/concurrent CDDP and 5FU with radiation versus concurrent chemoradiation (45 Gy plus a 10-14 Gy boost) using 5FU and MMC (without induction chemotherapy). It is important to note that this trial was not a direct comparison of 5FU and MMC vs 5FU and cisplatin (CDDP). Complicating the analysis of the trial were the following considerations in the CDDP arm of the trial: (1) the added total length of time of therapy; (2) the initiation of chemotherapy alone followed by chemoradiation; and (3) the toxicity of chemoradiation. Importantly, it was unknown at the time of the design of the trial whether induction chemotherapy was even beneficial, or whether chemoradiation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy was a more effective strategy. Five-year OS rates were not significantly different between the two treatment arms—at 70% in the CDDP-based arm and at 75% in the MMC-based arm, with locoregional recurrence rates of 33% in the CDDP-based arm and 25% in the MMC-based arm, respectively
(P = NS). However, patients receiving CDDP/5FU experienced a statistically higher colostomy rate of 19%, versus 10% (P = .02) in patients randomized to 5FU and MMC. Still, it is unknown whether the increased colostomy rate was instead influenced either by time under therapy or the delay in chemoradiation due to the use of induction chemotherapy. This is especially unclear given the influence of time under therapy in previous trials and the unproved efficacy of induction chemotherapy in anal cancer. Toxicity was substantial, with 74% of both groups experiencing acute grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity. Significantly, acute grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity occurred in 61% percent of the patients receiving MMC, versus 42% of those receiving CDDP, despite the more prolonged course of chemotherapy in the CDDP arm (P < .001). However, this did not translate into differences in the rate of long-term toxicities (11% versus 10%).
A phase III trial of 950 anal canal patients by the UKCCCR (ACT II) was recently reported in abstract form. In this trial, patients were randomized to the same radiotherapy regimen (50.4 Gy, in 1.8-Gy fractions) with either concurrent 5FU and CDDP versus 5FU and MMC—followed by a second randomization to receive two cycles of 5FU/CDDP—or no further therapy following the completion of chemoradiation. With a median follow-up of three years, there were no differences in the rates of complete response, recurrence-free survival, OS, or colostomy requirements. Acute grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity rates were higher in patients receiving MMC (25%) versus CDDP (13%) (P = <.001). Preliminary results demonstrate no significant differences in recurrence-free or OS for patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy versus those who did not. Although no statistical difference was seen in rates of high-grade, acute non-hematologic toxicities between treatment arms (61% versus 65%), these figures remained high.
1. Boman BM, Moertel CG, O’Connell MJ, et al: Carcinoma of the anal canal: A clinical and pathologic study of 188 cases. Cancer 54:114-125, 1984.
2. Nigro ND, Vaitkevicius VK, Considine B, Jr: Combined therapy for cancer of the anal canal: a preliminary report. Dis Colon Rectum 17:354-356, 1974.
3. Buroker TR, Nigro N, Bradley G, et al: Combined therapy for cancer of the anal canal: a follow-up report. Dis Colon Rectum 20:677-678, 1977.
4. Epidermoid anal cancer: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial of radiotherapy alone versus radiotherapy, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin. UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial Working Party. UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research. Lancet 348:1049-1054, 1996.
5. Bartelink H, Roelofsen F, Eschwege F, et al: Concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced anal cancer: results of a phase III randomized trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiotherapy and Gastrointestinal Cooperative Groups. J Clin Oncol 15:2040-2049, 1997.
6. Northover J, Glynne-Jones R, Sebag-Montefiore D, et al: Chemoradiation for the treatment of epidermoid anal cancer: 13-year follow-up of the first randomised UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I). Br J Cancer 102:1123-1128, 2010.
7. Flam M, John M, Pajak TF, et al: Role of mitomycin in combination with fluorouracil and radiotherapy, and of salvage chemoradiation in the definitive nonsurgical treatment of epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal: results of a phase III randomized intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 14:2527-2539, 1996.
8. Ajani JA, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, et al: Fluorouracil, mitomycin, and radiotherapy vs fluorouracil, cisplatin, and radiotherapy for carcinoma of the anal canal: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299:1914-1921, 2008
9. James R, Wan S, Glynne-Jones R, et al: A randomized trial of chemoradiation using mitomycin or cisplatin, with or without maintenance cisplating/5FU in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (ACTII). J Clin Oncol 27:170s, 2009.
10. Huang K, Haas-Kogan D, Weinberg V, et al: Higher radiation dose with a shorter treatment duration improves outcome for locally advanced carcinoma of anal canal. World J Gastroenterol 13:895-900, 2007.
11. Constantinou EC, Daly W, Fung CY, et al: Time-dose considerations in the treatment of anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 39:651-657, 1997.
12. Widder J, Kastenberger R, Fercher E, et al: Radiation dose associated with local control in advanced anal cancer: retrospective analysis of 129 patients. Radiother Oncol 87:367-375, 2008.
13. Hughes LL, Rich TA, Delclos L, et al: Radiotherapy for anal cancer: experience from 1979-1987. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17:1153-1160, 1989.
14. Conroy T, Ducreux M, Lemanski C, et al: Treatment intensification by induction chemotherapy (ICT) and radiation dose escalation in locally advanced squamous cell anal carcinoma (LAA): definitive analysis of the intergroup ACCORD 03 trial. J Clin Oncol 27,p 176s, abstract 4033, 2009.
15. Papillon J, Montbarbon J: Epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal: A series of 276 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 30:324-333, 1987.
16. Wagner J, Mahe M, Romestaing P, et al: Radiation therapy in the conservative treatment of carcinoma of the anal canal. Int J Rad Onc Biol Phys 29:17-23, 1994.
17. Deniaud-Alexandre E, Touboul E, Tiret E, et al: Results of definitive irradiation in a series of 305 epidermoid carcinomas of the anal canal. Int J Rad Onc Biol Phys 56:1259-1273, 2003.
18 Chapet O, Gerard J, Riche B, et al: Prognostic value of tumor regression evaluated after a first course of radiotherapy for anal canal cancer. Int J Rad Onc Biol Phys 63: 1316-1324, 2005.
19. Brenner D: Accelerated repopulation during radiotherapy: quantitative evidence for delayed onset. Radiother Oncol Invest 1:167-172, 1993.
20. Ben-Josef E, Moughan J, Ajani J, et al: The impact of overall treatment time on survival and local control in anal cancer patients: a pooled data analysis of RTOG trials 8704 and 9811. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75, 2009.
21. Roohipour R, Patil S, Goodman KA, et al: Squamous-cell carcinoma of the anal canal: predictors of treatment outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 51:147-153, 2008.
22. Graf R, Wust P, Hildebrandt B, et al: Impact of overall treatment time on local control of anal cancer treated with radiochemotherapy. Oncology 65:14-22, 2003.
23. Saarilahti K, Arponen P, Vaalavirta L, et al: The effect of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and high dose rate brachytherapy on acute and late radiotherapy-related adverse events following chemoradiotherapy of anal cancer. Radiother Oncol 87:383-390, 2008.
24. Hung A, Crane C, Delclos M: Cisplatin-based combined modality therapy for anal carcinoma: a wider therapeutic index. Cancer 1;97:1195-1202, 2003.
25. Lee N, Xia P, Quivey JM, et al: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an update of the UCSF experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:12-22, 2002.
26. Kam MK, Leung SF, Zee B, et al: Prospective randomized study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on salivary gland function in early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol 25:4873-4879, 2007.
27. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Happersett L, et al: Clinical experience with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 55:241-249, 2000.
28. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, et al: High-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: early toxicity and biochemical outcome in 772 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:1111-1116, 2002.
29. Brabbins D, Martinez A, Yan D, et al: A dose-escalation trial with the adaptive radiotherapy process as a delivery system in localized prostate cancer: analysis of chronic toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:400-408, 2005.
30. Chen YJ, Liu A, Tsai PT, et al: Organ sparing by conformal avoidance intensity-modulated radiation therapy for anal cancer: dosimetric evaluation of coverage of pelvis and inguinal/femoral nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:274-281, 2005.
31. Nordal R, Wood T, Posey J: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with concurrent chemotherapy for anal cancers: acute toxicity profile and avoidance of a treatment break. J Clin Oncol 26, 2008.
32. Lin A, Ben-Josef E.: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of anal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 6:716-719, 2007.
33. Kachnic L, Tsai H, Willins J, et al: Early clinical outcome in patients treated for anal canal cancer using dose-painted intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72, 2008.
34. Hodges JC, Das P, Eng C, et al: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of squamous cell anal cancer with para-aortic nodal involvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75:791-794, 2009.
35. Dubois J, Vieillot S, Moscardo C, et al: A planning study to compare plans using volumetric modulated arc therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of anal canal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75, 2009.
36. Stieler F, Wolff D, Lohr F, et al: Conformal anal cancer pelvis radiotherapy treatment with VMAT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72:s542-543, 2008.
37. Salama JK, Mell LK, Schomas DA, et al: Concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for anal canal cancer patients: a multicenter experience. J Clin Oncol 25:4581-4586, 2007.
38. Pepek J, Willett C, Wu Q, et al: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for anal malignancies: a preliminary toxicity and disease outcomes analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1-10, 2010.
39. Kachnic L, Winter KA, Myerson R, et al: RTOG 0529: a phase II study of dose-painted IMRT (DP-IMRT), 5-flourouracil, and mitomycin-C for the reduction of acute morbidity in anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75:s5, 2009.
40. MacDonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J, et al: Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med 345:725–730, 2001.
41. Lujan AE, Mundt AJ, Yamada SD, et al: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy as a means of reducing dose to bone marrow in gynecologic patients receiving whole pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57:516-521, 2003.
42. Brixey CJ, Roeske JC, Lujan AE, et al: Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on acute hematologic toxicity in women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:1388-1396, 2002.
43. Mell LK, Schomas DA, Salama JK, et al: Association between bone marrow dosimetric parameters and acute hematologic toxicity in anal cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:1431-1437, 2008.
44. Milano MT, Jani AB, Farrey KJ, et al: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of anal cancer: toxicity and clinical outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:354-361, 2005.
45. Devisetty K, Mell LK, Salama JK, et al: A multi-institutional acute gastrointestinal toxicity analysis of anal cancer patients treated with concurrent intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and chemotherapy. Radiother Oncol 93:298-301, 2009.
46. Baglan KL, Frazier RC, Yan D, et al: The dose-volume relationship of acute small bowel toxicity from concurrent 5-FU-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:176-183, 2002.
47. Tho LM, Glegg M, Paterson J, et al: Acute small bowel toxicity and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: investigating dose-volume relationships and role for inverse planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:505-513, 2006.
48. Wright J, Patil S, Temple LK, et al: Squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal: patterns and predictors of failure and implications for intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1-9, 2010.
49. Myerson RJ, Garofalo MC, El Naqa I, et al: Elective clinical target volumes for conformal therapy in anorectal cancer: a radiation therapy oncology group consensus panel contouring atlas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74:824-830, 2009.
50. DeFoe S, Beriwal S, Jones H, et al: Outcome analysis of intensity modulated radiation therapy and concurrent chemoradiation therapy for anal carcinoma in NCI-designated integrated cancer center network. Proceedings American Radium Society 28, 2010.