A systematic review comparing radiation toxicity after various endorectal techniques
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 29, 2025
Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2022
An-Sofie Verrijssen1, Thirza Opbroek2, Murillo Bellezzo3
1Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Purpose:
A clinical complete response is seen after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal tumors in 15%-20% of patients. These patients can potentially be spared mutilating total mesorectal excision surgery through a watch-and-wait policy. Recent studies show that dose escalation by a radiation boost increases the clinical complete response rate. The boost dose to the tumor can be administered through external beam radiotherapy or through internal radiotherapy using techniques like contact therapy, low-dose-rate or high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT). However, limited information is available concerning treatment-related toxicity of these techniques. With this systematic review, we aim to summarize and compare published data concerning acute and late toxicity after contact X-ray therapy (CXT) and BT for rectal cancer.
Methods And Materials/Results:
Thirty-eight studies reporting toxicity after endorectal radiation techniques for rectal cancer were included, resulting in 3682 patients for analysis. Direct comparison of toxicity by the different radiation modes was hampered by various combinations of endorectal techniques, a lack of clear reporting of toxicity scores, dose prescription, technique used, and treated volumes. ≥ Grade 3 rectal toxicity was reported in 2.9% of patients having received only CXT; 6.3% of patients who received only BT had Grade 3 rectal toxicity, and BT also caused Grade 3 urinary toxicity in 1 patient.
Conclusion:
All techniques reported some ≥ Grade 3 toxicity. Toxicity after CXT was confined to the rectum, whereas after BT, urogenital toxicity and skin toxicity were seen as well. Unfortunately, few specific conclusions could be drawn regarding the dose-related risk of toxicity for the various techniques due to nonuniform reporting strategies and missing information. To enable future comparisons and improvements, the endorectal radiation field urgently needs consensus guidelines on dose reporting, dose prescription, treatment volume specification, and toxicity reporting.
