Browsing by Author "Joseph, Kurian"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
- ItemOpen AccessExercise during and after neoadjuvant rectal cancer treatment (the EXERT trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial(2018-01-12) Morielli, Andria R; Usmani, Nawaid; Boulé, Normand G; Severin, Diane; Tankel, Keith; Nijjar, Tirath; Joseph, Kurian; Fairchild, Alysa; Courneya, Kerry SAbstract Background Standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer includes 5–6 weeks of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) followed by total mesorectal excision 6–8 weeks later. NACRT improves local disease control and surgical outcomes but also causes side effects including fatigue, diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and physical deconditioning that may impede quality of life (QoL), treatment completion, treatment response, and long-term prognosis. Interventions to improve treatment outcomes and manage side effects that are safe, tolerable and low-cost are highly desirable. Exercise has been shown to improve some of these outcomes in other cancer patient groups but no study to date has examined the potential benefits (and harms) of exercise training during and after NACRT for rectal cancer. Methods/design The Exercise During and After Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Treatment (EXERT) trial is a single-center, prospective, two-armed, phase II randomized controlled trial designed to test the preliminary efficacy of exercise training in this clinical setting and to further evaluate its feasibility and safety. Participants will be 60 rectal cancer patients scheduled to receive long-course NACRT followed by total mesorectal excision. Participants will be randomly assigned to exercise training or usual care. Participants in the exercise training group will be asked to complete three supervised, high-intensity interval training sessions/week during NACRT and ≥ 150 min/week of unsupervised, moderate-to-vigorous-intensity, continuous exercise training after NACRT prior to surgery. Participants in the usual care group will be asked not to increase their exercise from baseline. Assessments will be completed pre NACRT, post NACRT, and pre surgery. The primary endpoint will be cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 peak) at the post-NACRT time point assessed by a graded exercise test. Secondary endpoints will include functional fitness assessed by the Senior’s Fitness Test, QoL assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer, and symptom management assessed by the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Exploratory clinical endpoints will include treatment toxicities, treatment completion, treatment response, and surgical complications. Discussion If the preliminary findings of EXERT are positive, additional research will be warranted to confirm whether exercise is an innovative treatment to maintain QoL, manage side effects, and/or improve treatment outcomes in rectal cancer patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03082495 . Registered on 9 February, 2017.
- ItemOpen AccessIntensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) vs Helical Tomotherapy (HT) in Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for Patients with Anal Canal Carcinoma (ACC): an analysis of dose distribution and toxicities(Radiation Oncology, 2015-04-17) Yeung, Rosanna; McConnell, Yarrow; Warkentin, Heather; Graham, Darren; Warkentin, Brad; Joseph, Kurian; Doll, Corinne MPurpose Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) have been adopted for radiotherapy treatment of anal canal carcinoma (ACC) due to better conformality, dose homogeneity and normal-tissue sparing compared to 3D-CRT. To date, only one published study compares dosimetric parameters of IMRT vs HT in ACC, but there are no published data comparing toxicities. Our objectives were to compare dosimetry and toxicities between these modalities. Methods and materials This is a retrospective study of 35 ACC patients treated with radical chemoradiotherapy at two tertiary cancer institutions from 2008–2010. The use of IMRT vs HT was primarily based on center availability. The majority of patients received fluorouracil (5-FU) and 1–2 cycles of mitomycin C (MMC); 2 received 5-FU and cisplatin. Primary tumor and elective nodes were prescribed to ≥54Gy and ≥45Gy, respectively. Patients were grouped into two cohorts: IMRT vs HT. The primary endpoint was a dosimetric comparison between the cohorts; the secondary endpoint was comparison of toxicities. Results 18 patients were treated with IMRT and 17 with HT. Most IMRT patients received 5-FU and 1 MMC cycle, while most HT patients received 2 MMC cycles (p < 0.01), based on center policy. HT achieved more homogenous coverage of the primary tumor (HT homogeneity and uniformity index 0.14 and 1.02 vs 0.29 and 1.06 for IMRT, p = 0.01 and p < 0.01). Elective nodal coverage did not differ. IMRT achieved better bladder, femoral head and peritoneal space sparing (V30 and V40, p ≤ 0.01), and lower mean skin dose (p < 0.01). HT delivered lower bone marrow (V10, p < 0.01) and external genitalia dose (V20 and V30, p < 0.01). Grade 2+ hematological and non-hematological toxicities were similar. Febrile neutropenia and unscheduled treatment breaks did not differ (both p = 0.13), nor did 3-year overall and disease-free survival (p = 0.13, p = 0.68). Conclusions Chemoradiotherapy treatment of ACC using IMRT vs HT results in differences in dose homogenity and normal-tissue sparing, but no significant differences in toxicities.