Description
Radiation therapy may be administered externally (i.e., a beam of radiation is directed into the body) or internally (i.e., a radioactive source is placed inside the body, near a tumor). External radiotherapy (RT) techniques include 'conventional' or 2-dimensional (2D) RT, 3-dimensional (3D) conformal RT, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).
Conventional External-Beam Radiotherapy
Methods to plan and deliver RT have evolved that permit more precise targeting of tumors with complex geometries. Conventional 2D treatment planning utilizes X-ray films to guide and position radiation beams. Bony landmarks bones visualized on X-ray are used to locate a tumor and direct the radiation beams. The radiation is typically of uniform intensity.
Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy
Radiation treatment planning has evolved to use 3D images, usually from computed tomography (CT) scans, to more precisely delineate the boundaries of the tumor and to discriminate tumor tissue from adjacent normal tissue and nearby organs at risk for radiation damage. Three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) involves initially scanning the individual in the position that will be used for the radiation treatment. The tumor target and surrounding normal organs are then outlined in 3D on the scan.
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
IMRT is the more recent development in external radiation. Treatment planning and delivery are more complex, time-consuming, and labor-intensive for IMRT than for 3D-CRT. Similar to 3D-CRT, the tumor and surrounding normal organs are outlined in 3D by a scan and multiple radiation beams are positioned around the individual for radiation delivery. In IMRT, radiation beams are divided into a grid-like pattern, separating a single beam into many smaller 'beamlets'.
Summary of Evidence
For individuals who have gastrointestinal (GI) tract cancers who receive IMRT, the evidence includes nonrandomized comparative studies, retrospective series, and a systematic review. Relevant outcomes are overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival, recurrence, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. IMRT has been compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for the treatment of stomach, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic cancers. Evidence has been inconsistent with the outcome of survival, with some studies reporting increased survival among individuals receiving IMRT compared with individuals receiving 3D-CRT, and other studies reporting no difference between groups. However, most studies found that individuals receiving IMRT experienced significantly less GI toxicity compared with individuals receiving 3D-CRT. The available comparative evidence, together with dosimetry studies of organs at risk, would suggest that IMRT decreases toxicity compared with 3D-CRT in individuals who had GI cancers. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
For individuals who have gynecologic cancers who receive IMRT, the evidence includes a systematic review, five (5) RCTs, and nonrandomized comparative studies. Relevant outcomes are OS, disease-specific survival, recurrence, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. There is limited comparative evidence on survival outcomes following IMRT or 3D-CRT. However, results are generally consistent that IMRT reduces GI and genitourinary toxicity. Based on evidence with other cancers of the pelvis and abdomen that are proximate to organs at risk, it is expected that OS with IMRT would be at least as good as 3D-CRT, with a decrease in toxicity. A reduction in GI toxicity is likely to improve the quality of life in individuals with gynecologic cancer. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
For individuals who have anorectal cancer who receive IMRT, the evidence includes a small RCT (N=20), nonrandomized comparative studies, and case series. Relevant outcomes are OS, disease-specific survival, recurrence, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Survival outcomes have not differed significantly between individuals receiving IMRT and 3D-CRT. However, studies have found that individuals receiving IMRT plus chemotherapy for the treatment of anal cancer experience fewer acute and late adverse events than individuals receiving 3D-CRT plus chemotherapy, primarily in GI toxicity. A reduction in GI toxicity is likely to improve the quality of life in individuals with anorectal cancer. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
For individuals who have esophageal cancer who receive IMRT, the evidence includes a systematic review and nonrandomized comparative studies. Relevant outcomes are OS, disease-specific survival, recurrence, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Survival outcomes have been mixed with some studies concluding that IMRT is associated with a significant improvement in OS, progression-free survival, or distant-metastases-free survival versus 3D-CRT and others reporting no difference between the radiotherapy techniques. IMRT appears to be associated with a reduced dose for organs at risk and may result in less radiation-induced toxicity. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
