Helical tomotherapy (HT) for the treatment of anal canal cancer: preliminary clinical results, and dosimetric comparison between HT and intensity-modulated or 3D conformal radiotherapy

Background: To report a single-center experience in 19 patients (pts) with anal canal cancer treated with helical tomotherapy (HT) and concurrent chemotherapy, and compare the dosimetric results with fixed-field intensitymodulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D RT). Materials and Methods: Between 2007 and 2008, 19 consecutive pts were treated with HT and concurrent CT for anal canal cancer. Median age was 59 years (range, 38−83), and female/male ratio was 14/5. The majority of the pts had T2 or T3 tumours (68.4%), and 52.6% had positive lymph nodes. In all 19 pts, pelvic and inguinal nodes, and tumour irradiation was given using HT upto a median dose of 36 Gy (1.8 Gy/fr) followed by a 1-week gap. A boost dose of 23.4 Gy (1.8 Gy/fr) was delivered to the tumour and involved nodes using 3DRT (n = 12), HT (n = 6), or IMRT (n = 1). Simultaneous integrated boost was used in none of the pts. All but one patient with a T1N0 tumour received concomitant mitomycin/5- fluorouracil (n = 12) or mitomycin/capecitabin (n = 7) CT. Toxicity was scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCICTCAE v3.0). HT plans and treatments were generated using Tomotherapy, Inc., software and hardware; and 3D or IMRT boost plans with the CMS treatment planning system (TPS), using 6−18 MV photons from a Siemens Primus accelerator. For dosimetric comparison, computed tomography data sets of 10 pts were imported into the TPS, and 3D and 5-field step-andshoot IMRT plans were generated for each case. Plans were optimized with the aim of assessing organs at risk (OAR) and healthy-tissue sparing while enforcing highly conformal target coverage, and evaluated by dose-volume histograms (DVH) of planning target volumes (PTV) and OAR. Results: With a median follow-up of 13 months (range, 3−18), all pts are alive and well; except one patient developing local recurrence at 12 months. No patient developed grade 3 or more acute toxicity. No unplanned treatment interruption was necessary because of toxicity. With 360-degree-of-freedom beam projection, HT showed an advantage over 3D or IMRT plans in terms of dose conformity around the PTV, and dose gradients were steeper outside the PTV, resulting in reduced doses to OARs. Using HT, acute toxicity was acceptable, and seemed to be better than historical standards. Conclusion: We conclude that HT combined with concurrent chemotherapy for anal canal cancer is effective and tolerable. Compared to 3DRT or 5-field IMRT, there is better conformity around the PTV, and OAR sparing