Urinary adverse effects of pelvic radiotherapy

Introduction

Cancers arising in the pelvis including the uterus, ovaries, cervix, rectum, urinary bladder and prostate account for 435,640 of the estimated number of new cancer cases in the United States in 2013. This represents 26% of all new cancers in 2013 in the United States (1). The development of radioactivity by Henri Becquerel in 1896 and the discovery of radium by Marie and Pierre Curie in 1898 led to a new period in medical technology (2). Pelvic radiotherapy (RT) now plays an important role in the management of these cancers. This treatment modality has been shown to have both early and late morbidity.

Pathophysiology of radiation-induced urinary tract injury

Radiation is an effective cancer treatment due to its direct and indirect interaction with living cells. The direct interaction induces immediate cell death by damaging DNA and/or tissue protein. The indirect interaction occurs by the formation of free radicals by ionizing radiation that interacts with enzymes leading to cell death and/or future mutation (3). These direct and indirect interactions lead to cellular injury by affecting division delay, reproductive failure and interphase arrest. All these consequences are more frequently encountered in rapidly dividing cells (4).

The radiation-induced damage to tissue architecture develops in a linear threshold model. Damage to the basement membranes of blood vessels can lead to occlusion, thrombosis and neovascularization. The atrophy and contraction of tissue results from increased proliferation of fibroblasts (5). All these changes have the potential to cause significant urinary tract injury. Bladder damage and loss of capacity can cause significant urinary symptoms. Neovascularization is an important factor for radiation cystitis and subsequent hemorrhagic cystitis. Replacement of the corpus spongiosum with fibrosis and subsequent occlusion of the urethral lumen is an important factor for the increased incidence of urethral strictures after RT (6).

Late urinary adverse effects (AEs) are usually graded using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) system, which grades AEs on a scale of 0-5. Grade 0 denotes no complications. Minor AEs like microscopic hematuria are labeled grade 1. Grade 2 AEs include moderate urinary frequency, generalized telangiectasia, or intermittent macroscopic hematuria. Grade 1 and 2 AEs are commonly managed with observation or medical therapy and have minimal impact on quality of life. Grade 3 and 4 AEs are considered severe. These are often managed with a procedure and have a significant impact on quality of life. Grade 3 AEs include severe frequency or dysuria, severe generalized telangiectasia (often with petechiae), frequent hematuria, or a reduction in bladder capacity to less than 150 cc. Severe hemorrhagic cystitis, reduction in bladder capacity to less than 100 cc, and necrosis are classified as grade 4. Any death resulting from late complications of radiation is considered grade 5.

Prostate cancer

RT for patient controlled analgesia (PCa) is a well-established treatment modality whose importance has been increasing in recent years (7-9). During the past decade there has been a decrease in AEs of RT due to improvements in RT planning as well as the introduction of newer modalities that reduce both acute and late toxicity (10-13). Examples of these technological improvements include IMRT as well as real time tracking of the target while RT is delivered (14-16).

A direct comparison of the urinary AEs after different types of RT for PCa is difficult to perform due to differences in baseline clinical characteristics as well as heterogeneous reporting of end points (17). Nonetheless, patient factors have been shown to affect urinary morbidity after RT for PCa. Specifically, worse comorbidities, pre-treatment urinary symptoms, larger prostate volume and prior TURP are well-established factors that affect the morbidity after RT (18-22).

External beam RT

The incidence of RTOG grade 1 and grade 2 urinary AEs after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is reported to be 20-43% and 7-19%, respectively, with a follow-up of up to 10 years (13,23-25). Mild symptoms can resolve either spontaneously or with treatment within 42 months after EBRT (24). Grade 3 urinary AEs occur at a rate of 5-13%. Radiation cystitis with gross macroscopic hematuria is the most common grade 3 AE of EBRT (25-27).

Peeters et al. randomized 669 patients to receive 68 and 78 Gy radiation doses by 3-D conformal radiotherapy (CRT) and compared early and late urinary AEs for both treatment arms. In their analysis there was no statistically significant difference between dose escalations with respect to urinary AEs (P=0.3). The 3-year cumulative risk for RTOG grade ≥2 urinary AEs was 28.5% for the 68 Gy arm and 30.2% for the 78 Gy arm. Nonetheless, patients experienced more early and late gastro-intestinal toxicity with higher radiation dose (27).

Harsolia et al. identified predictors for grade 2 and grade 3 chronic urinary toxicity secondary to 3-D CRT (28). In their prospective analysis they demonstrated that absolute bladder wall dose-volume endpoints and prostate volume >150 cm³ predict for the development of grade 2 and 3 late urinary AEs (all P≤0.001). Furthermore, grade 2 and grade 3 acute urinary AEs were strong predictors for the development of late AEs (P≤0.03).

Brachytherapy (BT)

Urinary AEs are one of the most significant side effects of BT for localized PCa and can follow a course from acute edema and radiation urethritis to chronic stricture. Evidence seems to suggest that acute symptoms improve with time in most men, once the initial edema has resolved. Early urinary retention (<12 months) has been reported in 7-25% of patients and irritative urinary symptoms were found in about 50% of patients (21,22,29). Urinary retention after a year post-implantation decreased significantly and has been reported by some to occur in as few as 1% of patients (22,30-32). Moreover, in an elaborate analysis of the literature relating functional outcomes and AEs of RT for PCa, Budäus et al. reported that the predominant urinary toxicity following BT was related to radiation urethritis. They reported a peak increase in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of 7-12 units above the baseline at 2-10 weeks post implantation. Symptoms then resolved in more than 75% of cases at one year (17).

Martens et al. retrospectively reviewed predictors of urinary retention in 207 BT patients. In their model, pre-implant peak flow rate and prostate volume were statistically significant predictors of post-implant urinary retention. They estimated that for every one-unit increase in peak flow rate the odds of catheterization decreased by 6% (33).

When analyzing predictors of acute toxicity (<6 months), Keyes et al. determined that a greater baseline IPSS (P<0.001), larger degree of post-implant edema (P<0.001) and a larger pre-implant prostate volume (P=0.02) increased the likelihood of acute RTOG grade 3 urinary AEs. When focusing on late grade≥2 urinary AEs, predictors included greater baseline IPSS, maximal post-implant IPSS, presence of acute toxicity and higher prostate V150 (volume of the prostate covered by 150% of the dose) (all P<0.05) (34).

The rate of urinary AEs at five years is reported to be 36%, 24%, 6.2% and 0.1% for RTOG grade 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively (34). Late grade 2 urinary AEs affects 19-41% of patients following BT. Symptoms include hematuria, and obstructive and irritative symptoms (35-37). Urethral strictures (grade 3) following BT occur in 1-12% of cases with an increased risk if combination therapy with EBRT is used (37,38).

There is a debate in the literature as to the optimal management of urinary retention following BT. Kollmeier et al. reviewed their population of patients undergoing TURP after BT for urinary retention. The rate of incontinence was 18%, ranging from minimal leakage to requiring greater than five pads daily (39). Conversely, Mabjeesh et al. analyzed a small subgroup of patients who underwent TURP for urinary retention following BT and found no cases of incontinence following this procedure (40).

In addition to detailing the rate of AEs, it is important to understand how these impact the patients’ quality of life (41-46). Sanda et al. prospectively identified the determinants of heath-related quality of life after primary treatment of PCa (42). Urinary AEs after BT were associated with urinary irritation/obstruction, and urinary incontinence (all P<0.001). The rate of urinary incontinence after BT was reported to be 4% and 6% of patients at one and two years after treatment, respectively. Eighteen percent of patients in the BT group and 11% of those in the external beam RT group reported having moderate or severe distress from overall urinary symptoms at 1 year. Large prostate size and hormonal treatment exacerbated urinary irritation after BT or RT (all P<0.03). Limitations of the study included its lack of randomization to treatment as well as its short follow-up of 2 years.

Compromised wound healing, distorted tissue planes and altered blood supply in irradiated prostate cancer patients can contribute to urethroplasty failure (47). Factors that contribute to urethroplasty failure include: complex nature of the stricture, difficult location and pronounced tissue damage secondary to radiation (48). The average stricture length after EBRT is estimated at 2 cm. Compared to BT, EBRT strictures are not commonly obliterative and can be less complicated to treat. Although anastomotic repair can be acceptable for very short strictures, most authors tend to suggest a patch repair with a flap as this is safer. Conversely, after both EBRT and BT, the average stricture length is longer (4 cm) and nearly half are obliterative. Recovery is slow and recurrence is significant (6).

Glass et al. retrospectively reviewed urethral stricture formation following RT for prostate cancer. In their cohort of 29 men, 76% underwent excision and primary anastomosis, while 17% underwent substitution urethroplasty. Although reporting an overall success rate of 90%, complications were not uncommon and at times required further surgical treatment (47). Incontinence after urethroplasty for radiation-induced stricture disease is reported to be as high as 50% (49).

Bladder cancer

Bladder conservation techniques using a combination of trans-urethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT), chemotherapy and RT have yielded favorable results (50-52). Several prospective studies have shown a 5-year overall survival ranging from 50-60% (53-55). Thus trimodal therapy or bladder conservation protocols are now a treatment option for selected patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (56-58). Radiation is rarely used in combination with radical cystectomy so most of the radiation-induced urinary AEs with respect to bladder cancer come from the bladder conservation literature using trimodal therapy.

Common acute radiation-induced AEs include transient cystitis and enteritis. The acute symptoms have been reported to resolve within two weeks after completion of chemo-RT (59). However, Fokdal et al. in their tolerability study using a modified protocol of trimodal therapy employing weekly cisplatin doses, reported that 45% of patients registered changes in their bladder habits. Furthermore, 14% reported a moderate to severe impact of the treatment on their function with a follow-up of 29 months (60). Urinary AEs were also reported by James et al. in their multicenter phase 3 trial comparing RT with or without synchronous chemotherapy. At 1 year they reported grade 3 or 4 urinary AEs in 1-3% of patients. There was no statistically significant reduction in bladder volume at 1 and 2 years from baseline (61). Other studies have reported that with a median follow-up of 5 years, 7-12% of patients experienced late urinary AEs as defined as RTOG grade 3 or more (62,63). Bladder toxicity more than RTOG grade 3 is very rare (54,64).

Rödel et al. reported their 18-year experience with bladder preservation protocols. Acute radiation-induced bladder toxicity was infrequent (2%) and easily managed by symptomatic treatment. At a median follow-up of 5 years, 10% of patients reported increased urinary frequency with nocturia, 3% of patients had a reduced bladder volume with less than 2-hour intervals of micturition. Two percent of their population underwent salvage cystectomy due to a contracted bladder (54). In a retrospective analysis of radical RT administered between 1975 and 1995, Majewski et al. demonstrated that T-stage (P=0.004) was the only statistically significant factor affecting bladder toxicity after RT (63).

In a retrospective review of long-term survivors in patients who underwent trimodal therapy, Zietman et al. reported urodynamic and quality of life data (65). Twenty-one percent of patients reported bladder hypersensitivity, involuntary detrusor contractions and incontinence. Of all women, 11% wore pads. Distress from urinary symptoms was half as common as prevalence. Despite higher rates of urinary symptoms, global health-related quality of life was high (65). In an older series with longer follow-up of patients who had radical RT for bladder cancer, 74% of patients reported little or no distress from symptoms related to their urinary tract (66).

Rectal cancer

An estimated 40,340 rectal cancers occurred in 2013, and 90% of cases are diagnosed in people over the age of 50 (1). Total mesorectal excision (TME), which consists of the removal of all mesorectal fat and lymph nodes, is the surgical standard of care in rectal cancer; still, 52% of patients undergo RT within six months of diagnosis (67,68). At more advanced stages of disease, many studies have demonstrated decreased local recurrence with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy when compared with surgery alone. Preoperative RT has been found to have fewer severe AEs of any system when compared with postoperative RT (27% vs. 40% acute and 14% vs. 24% late) and one study even found improved overall survival with preoperative treatment. Postoperative complications like anastomotic leakage, delayed wound healing, bleeding, and ileus were not significantly different between the two groups. Therefore, a preoperative course of neoadjuvant RT is recommended for rectal cancers that are T3 or have regional lymph node involvement (stage II or III) (69-71). RT is typically administered as CRT in 2 Gy fractions up to a total dose of 46-50 Gy over 20+ weeks, or in 5 Gy fractions up to 25 Gy over five days (67,69).

We expect to see urinary AEs following RT for rectal cancer due to the close proximity of the rectum to the bladder, as well as its blood and nerve supply. One trial reported urinary AEs such as frequency, cystitis, incontinence, urinary retention, and ureteral stricture. Severe late urinary AEs were rare (4%) but AEs were potentially severe, with one patient requiring daily catheterization for grade 3 urinary retention, one requiring nephroureterectomy for a grade 4 stricture, and two requiring urinary diversion for grade 4 incontinence (72). Another trial with a median follow-up of 85 months demonstrated incontinence at least twice weekly in 25% of patients (73). Surgery itself may play an important role in the development of urinary dysfunction due to autonomic nerve damage, still one study with a mean follow up of 15 years found that although urinary incontinence was common in both irradiated and non-irradiated patients, it was significantly more so in those who received RT (45% vs. 27%, P=0.023) (74). Additionally, a retrospective study of 535 patients compared TME + RT vs. TME only, and found all grades of urinary incontinence to be more common in the TME+RT group (36% vs. 24%, P=0.007) (75). Though most studies do not track urinary AEs in the setting of RT for rectal cancer, the studies do demonstrate that RT has a significant impact on urinary function with potentially severe AEs, although these are rare.

Cervical cancer

An estimated 12,340 new cases of invasive cervical cancer were diagnosed in 2013 in the United States. While incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer in women aged 50 and older have been declining in recent years, rates have remained stable in women under 50, the latter group making up 59% of new diagnoses (1). While RT and radical surgery are equivalent in stage IB to IIA disease, RT is integral to the treatment regimen for stages IIB and greater. Adjuvant RT in addition to surgery may also be indicated for patients with particular risk factors (e.g., high grade tumor, lymphovascular space involvement, positive margins, multiple positive nodes). Optimal RT consists of EBRT and intracavitary high dose rate-BT for a combined dose of 80-90 Gy (76). Overall, 53% of women receive RT within six months of diagnosis (68).

Sixty percent of urinary AEs due to RT develop more than two years following treatment, in contrast to bowel AEs, of which 80% develop within the first two years (77,78). Annual incidence rates for urinary AEs actually increase between years three and five post-RT, from 18% to 28%, respectively (77). Minor (grade 1 or 2) AEs are more common than major AEs; 44% develop acute (<90 days after RT) minor urinary AEs, and 7-9.5% develop late minor AEs (79-81).

The posterior bladder and insertion point of the ureters lie directly anterior to the cervix, making these areas most susceptible to injury. The most common major urinary AEs (grade 3 or above) are ureteral stenosis, vesicovaginal fistula, and hematuria (79). The risk of developing major urinary AEs is greatest in the first three years following treatment (0.7% per year) but there remains a constant actuarial risk of 0.25% per year for at least 25 years (79,82). In studies with more than three years of follow-up, risk of developing a major urinary AE ranges from 1.3-14.5% (80,83-85). The delay between RT and AEs can be substantial; ureteral stricture has been observed 29 years after RT for cervical cancer, and spontaneous bladder rupture has been reported as late as 30 years after (86,87). Risk of increasingly severe AEs following RT is significantly associated with larger doses of radiation and number of treatments (79,80,86). Though RT-induced urinary AEs can be seen long after treatment, a systematic review found that 14 of 17 trials of RT plus chemotherapy did not routinely record late AEs (88).

Post-RT ureteral strictures are difficult to manage, in contrast to the ureter injured during gynecologic surgery, which can be reimplanted into the bladder with success rates over 90% (89,90). The stenotic ureter after RT is typically managed with repeated stenting; reimplantation is often not possible due to an ischemic distal segment. Stents must be exchanged every three months under anesthesia and may cause infections, bladder pain, urinary frequency and urgency. When prolonged stenting is not tolerated, urinary diversion or nephrectomy may be required (91-93).

Endometrial cancer

An estimated 49,560 cases of uterine cancer occurred in 2013, most of which were in the endometrium (1). More than 90% of cases occur in women over the age of 50, with a median age of 63 (94). The initial approach to endometrial cancer is total hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy; but in 2006, 23% of patients with endometrial cancer also underwent RT within six months of diagnosis (68). The PORTEC-1, GOG99, and ASTEC-EN.5 trials demonstrated that RT following surgery for stage I disease reduces locoregional recurrence but does not improve overall or disease-specific survival, and is associated with increased AEs (95-98). Therefore, RT is indicated as adjuvant therapy in patients with features of high-intermediate risk (about 30% of endometrial cancers) or as salvage therapy in patients with recurrent disease (97,99) where there is a survival benefit to balance the increased risk of toxicity. RT is administered as either EBRT or vaginal BT for a total of 45-50 Gy to the target tissue. The PORTEC-2 trial demonstrated that BT is equally effective when compared to EBRT in preventing locoregional recurrence and improving survival, with fewer AEs (99).

The uterus resides within the peritoneum directly posterior to the bladder; thus, most AEs following RT involve the bladder and bowel. Contrary to RT for cervical cancer, ureteral stricture is rare and urinary AEs in general are much less common. Only one small series reported a 6% rate of grade 4 ureteral stricture with hydronephrosis after HDR-BT (100). The PORTEC-1 and 2 trials, with median follow-ups of 52 and 45 months, respectively, demonstrated no severe urinary AEs (96,99). Late AEs of any grade occurred in 25% of patients who underwent RT vs. 6% in patients who only received surgery (P<0.0001). GI AEs were most common, 68% of which were grade 1. Severe GI AEs occurred in about 2% of patients (96,99). Urinary AEs include minor incontinence, urinary frequency, or brief episodes of cystitis (96). The GOG99 trial, with a median follow up of 68 months, found minor urinary AEs in 30% of the RT group and in 8% of the non-RT group (P<0.001) (97). The patient-reported quality of life at a median follow up of 13 years in the PORTEC-1 trial cohort who underwent EBRT indicated a significantly worse quality of life with respect to urinary urgency, needing to remain close to a toilet, incontinence, and limitation of daily activities (101).

Conclusions

Radiation-induced injury of the urinary tract is a complex and debilitating complication and can lead to significant morbidity for the patient. There is a paucity of trials powered to reliably measure the rate of high-grade AEs after RT. Studies are limited by small sample size and short follow-up; this can underestimate RT morbidity, since this condition is relatively infrequent and its effects occur over a long time horizon. An improved understanding of RT AEs in general and late AEs in particular should aid patient-provider discussions of the risks and benefits of their treatment options and highlight areas for future research into ways to minimize these unintended consequences of care.

Acknowledgements

Funding: This work is sponsored in part by a grant from the American Cancer Society to Dr. Elliott: Award #RSG-12-217-01-CPHPS

Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Elliott is a consultant to American Medical Systems, Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, GT Urological, and PercuVision. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2013. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2013.
2. Dutreix J, Tubiana M, Pierquin B. The hazy dawn of brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 1998;49:223-32. [PubMed]
3. Ballek NK, Gonzalez CM. Reconstruction of radiation-induced injuries of the lower urinary tract. Urol Clin North Am 2013;40:407-19. [PubMed]
4. Bolus NE. Basic review of radiation biology and terminology. J Nucl Med Technol 2001;29:67-73; test 76-7.
5. Tibbs MK. Wound healing following radiation therapy: a review. Radiother Oncol 1997;42:99-106. [PubMed]
6. Mundy AR, Andrich DE. Posterior urethral complications of the treatment of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012;110:304-25. [PubMed]
7. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Actas urologicas espanolas. 2009;33:113-26. [PubMed]
8. Middleton RG, Thompson IM, Austenfeld MS, et al. Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel Summary report on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Urological Association. J Urol 1995;154:2144-8. [PubMed]
9. Jani AB, Johnstone PA, Liauw SL, et al. Prostate cancer modality time trend analyses from 1973 to 2004: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry analysis. Am J Clin Oncol 2010;33:168-72. [PubMed]
10. Vargas C, Martinez A, Kestin LL, et al. Dose-volume analysis of predictors for chronic rectal toxicity after treatment of prostate cancer with adaptive image-guided radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;62:1297-308. [PubMed]
11. Valdagni R, Rancati T, Ghilotti M, et al. To bleed or not to bleed. A prediction based on individual gene profiling combined with dose-volume histogram shapes in prostate cancer patients undergoing three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:1431-40. [PubMed]
12. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Starkschall G, et al. Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53:1097-105. [PubMed]
13. Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, et al. Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:1233-9. [PubMed]
14. Al-Mamgani A, Heemsbergen WD, Peeters ST, et al. Role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in reducing toxicity in dose escalation for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:685-91. [PubMed]
15. Matzinger O, Duclos F, van den Bergh A, et al. Acute toxicity of curative radiotherapy for intermediate- and high-risk localised prostate cancer in the EORTC trial 22991. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:2825-34. [PubMed]
16. Cozzarini C, Fiorino C, Di Muzio N, et al. Significant reduction of acute toxicity following pelvic irradiation with helical tomotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2007;84:164-70. [PubMed]
17. Budäus L, Bolla M, Bossi A, et al. Functional outcomes and complications following radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 2012;61:112-27. [PubMed]
18. Fiorino C, Valdagni R, Rancati T, et al. Dose-volume effects for normal tissues in external radiotherapy: pelvis. Radiother Oncol 2009;93:153-67. [PubMed]
19. Bittner N, Merrick GS, Wallner KE, et al. The impact of acute urinary morbidity on late urinary function after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2007;6:258-66. [PubMed]
20. Ohashi T, Yorozu A, Toya K, et al. Serial changes of international prostate symptom score following I-125 prostate brachytherapy. Int J Clin Oncol 2006;11:320-5. [PubMed]
21. Crook J, Lukka H, Klotz L, et al. Systematic overview of the evidence for brachytherapy in clinically localized prostate cancer. CMAJ 2001;164:975-81. [PubMed]
22. Williams SG, Millar JL, Duchesne GM, et al. Factors predicting for urinary morbidity following 125iodine transperineal prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2004;73:33-8. [PubMed]
23. Zelefsky MJ, Wallner KE, Ling CC, et al. Comparison of the 5-year outcome and morbidity of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy versus transperineal permanent iodine-125 implantation for early-stage prostatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:517-22. [PubMed]
24. Zelefsky MJ, Cowen D, Fuks Z, et al. Long term tolerance of high dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1999;85:2460-8. [PubMed]
25. Lawton CA, Won M, Pilepich MV, et al. Long-term treatment sequelae following external beam irradiation for adenocarcinoma of the prostate: analysis of RTOG studies 7506 and 7706. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:935-9. [PubMed]
26. Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PC, et al. Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1990-6. [PubMed]
27. Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, van Putten WL, et al. Acute and late complications after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results of a multicenter randomized trial comparing 68 Gy to 78 Gy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61:1019-34. [PubMed]
28. Harsolia A, Vargas C, Yan D, et al. Predictors for chronic urinary toxicity after the treatment of prostate cancer with adaptive three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy: dose-volume analysis of a phase II dose-escalation study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:1100-9. [PubMed]
29. Crook J, Patil N, Wallace K, et al. A phase III randomized trial of the timing of meloxicam with iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;77:496-501. [PubMed]
30. Williams SG, Zietman AL. Does radical treatment have a role in the management of low-risk prostate cancer? The place for brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy. World J Urol 2008;26:447-56. [PubMed]
31. Bottomley D, Ash D, Al-Qaisieh B, et al. Side effects of permanent I125 prostate seed implants in 667 patients treated in Leeds. Radiother Oncol 2007;82:46-9. [PubMed]
32. Crook J, McLean M, Catton C, et al. Factors influencing risk of acute urinary retention after TRUS-guided permanent prostate seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:453-60. [PubMed]
33. Martens C, Pond G, Webster D, et al. Relationship of the International Prostate Symptom score with urinary flow studies, and catheterization rates following 125I prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2006;5:9-13. [PubMed]
34. Keyes M, Miller S, Moravan V, et al. Predictive factors for acute and late urinary toxicity after permanent prostate brachytherapy: long-term outcome in 712 consecutive patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:1023-32. [PubMed]
35. Zelefsky MJ, Yamada Y, Cohen GN, et al. Five-year outcome of intraoperative conformal permanent I-125 interstitial implantation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:65-70. [PubMed]
36. Zelefsky MJ, Hollister T, Raben A, et al. Five-year biochemical outcome and toxicity with transperineal CT-planned permanent I-125 prostate implantation for patients with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:1261-6. [PubMed]
37. Chen AB, D’Amico AV, Neville BA, et al. Patient and treatment factors associated with complications after prostate brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5298-304. [PubMed]
38. Anderson JF, Swanson DA, Levy LB, et al. Urinary side effects and complications after permanent prostate brachytherapy: the MD Anderson Cancer Center experience. Urology 2009;74:601-5. [PubMed]
39. Kollmeier MA, Stock RG, Cesaretti J, et al. Urinary morbidity and incontinence following transurethral resection of the prostate after brachytherapy. J Urol 2005;173:808-12. [PubMed]
40. Mabjeesh NJ, Chen J, Stenger A, et al. Preimplant predictive factors of urinary retention after iodine 125 prostate brachytherapy. Urology 2007;70:548-53. [PubMed]
41. Pardo Y, Guedea F, Aguilo F, et al. Quality-of-life impact of primary treatments for localized prostate cancer in patients without hormonal treatment. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4687-96. [PubMed]
42. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1250-61. [PubMed]
43. Korfage IJ, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ, et al. Five-year follow-up of health-related quality of life after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 2005;116:291-6. [PubMed]
44. Potosky AL, Davis WW, Hoffman RM, et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1358-67. [PubMed]
45. Hoffman RM, Gilliland FD, Penson DF, et al. Cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons of health-related quality of life between patients with prostate carcinoma and matched controls. Cancer 2004;101:2011-9. [PubMed]
46. Litwin MS, Gore JL, Kwan L, et al. Quality of life after surgery, external beam irradiation, or brachytherapy for early-stage prostate cancer. Cancer 2007;109:2239-47. [PubMed]
47. Glass AS, McAninch JW, Zaid UB, et al. Urethroplasty after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Urology 2012;79:1402-5. [PubMed]
48. Marks LB, Carroll PR, Dugan TC, et al. The response of the urinary bladder, urethra, and ureter to radiation and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;31:1257-80. [PubMed]
49. Meeks JJ, Brandes SB, Morey AF, et al. Urethroplasty for radiotherapy induced bulbomembranous strictures: a multi-institutional experience. J Urol 2011;185:1761-5. [PubMed]
50. Gilbert SM, Wood DP, Dunn RL, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life outcomes in bladder cancer patients using the Bladder Cancer Index (BCI). Cancer 2007;109:1756-62. [PubMed]
51. Choueiri TK, Raghavan D. Chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy: persisting uncertainties. Nature clinical practice Oncology 2008;5:444-54. [PubMed]
52. Mak RH, Zietman AL, Heney NM, et al. Bladder preservation: optimizing radiotherapy and integrated treatment strategies. BJU international 2008;102:1345-53. [PubMed]
53. Kachnic LA, Kaufman DS, Heney NM, et al. Bladder preservation by combined modality therapy for invasive bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:1022-9. [PubMed]
54. Rödel C, Grabenbauer GG, Kuhn R, et al. Combined-modality treatment and selective organ preservation in invasive bladder cancer: long-term results. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3061-71. [PubMed]
55. Hussain SA, Stocken DD, Peake DR, et al. Long-term results of a phase II study of synchronous chemoradiotherapy in advanced muscle invasive bladder cancer. Br J Cancer 2004;90:2106-11. [PubMed]
56. Gakis G, Efstathiou J, Lerner SP, et al. ICUD-EAU International Consultation on Bladder Cancer 2012: Radical cystectomy and bladder preservation for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol 2013;63:45-57. [PubMed]
57. Smith ZL, Christodouleas JP, Keefe SM, et al. Bladder preservation in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC): a review of the literature and a practical approach to therapy. BJU international 2013;112:13-25. [PubMed]
58. Kaufman DS, Shipley WU, Feldman AS. Bladder cancer. Lancet 2009;374:239-49. [PubMed]
59. Koga F, Kihara K. Selective bladder preservation with curative intent for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a contemporary review. Int J Urol 2012;19:388-401. [PubMed]
60. Fokdal L, Høyer M, Meldgaard P, et al. Long-term bladder, colorectal, and sexual functions after radical radiotherapy for urinary bladder cancer. Radiother Oncol 2004;72:139-45. [PubMed]
61. James ND, Hussain SA, Hall E, et al. Radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1477-88. [PubMed]
62. Efstathiou JA, Bae K, Shipley WU, et al. Late pelvic toxicity after bladder-sparing therapy in patients with invasive bladder cancer: RTOG 89-03, 95-06, 97-06, 99-06. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4055-61. [PubMed]
63. Majewski W, Tarnawski R. Acute and late toxicity in radical radiotherapy for bladder cancer. Clinical oncology 2009;21:598-609. [PubMed]
64. Efstathiou JA, Spiegel DY, Shipley WU, et al. Long-term outcomes of selective bladder preservation by combined-modality therapy for invasive bladder cancer: the MGH experience. Eur Urol 2012;61:705-11. [PubMed]
65. Zietman AL, Sacco D, Skowronski U, et al. Organ conservation in invasive bladder cancer by transurethral resection, chemotherapy and radiation: results of a urodynamic and quality of life study on long-term survivors. J Urol 2003;170:1772-6. [PubMed]
66. Henningsohn L, Wijkström H, Dickman PW, et al. Distressful symptoms after radical radiotherapy for urinary bladder cancer. Radiother Oncol 2002;62:215-25. [PubMed]
67. Ramsey S, Tepper JE. Rectal cancer radiotherapy. Cancer J. 2007;13:204-9. [PubMed]
68. Elliott SP, Jarosek SA, Virnig BA. Unpublished analysis of SEER public use file. 1992-2006.
69. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1731-40. [PubMed]
70. Martling A, Holm T, Johansson H, et al. The Stockholm II trial on preoperative radiotherapy in rectal carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a population-based study. Cancer 2001;92:896-902. [PubMed]
71. Improved survival with preoperative radiotherapy in resectable rectal cancer. Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. N Engl J Med 1997;336:980-7. [PubMed]
72. Engels B, Tournel K, Everaert H, et al. Phase II study of preoperative helical tomotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83:142-8. [PubMed]
73. Brændengen M, Tveit KM, Bruheim K, et al. Late patient-reported toxicity after preoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in nonresectable rectal cancer: results from a randomized Phase III study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:1017-24. [PubMed]
74. Pollack J, Holm T, Cedermark B, et al. Late adverse effects of short-course preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2006;93:1519-25. [PubMed]
75. Bruheim K, Guren MG, Skovlund E, et al. Late side effects and quality of life after radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76:1005-11. [PubMed]
76. Colombo N, Carinelli S, Colombo A, et al. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2012;23 Suppl 7:vii27-32. [PubMed]
77. Georg P, Boni A, Ghabuous A, et al. Time course of late rectal- and urinary bladder side effects after MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2013;189:535-40. [PubMed]
78. Kapp KS, Stuecklschweiger GF, Kapp DS, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: analysis of complications after primary external beam radiation and Ir-192 HDR brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 1997;42:143-53. [PubMed]
79. Eifel PJ, Levenback C, Wharton JT, et al. Time course and incidence of late complications in patients treated with radiation therapy for FIGO stage IB carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;32:1289-300. [PubMed]
80. Lorvidhaya V, Tonusin A, Changwiwit W, et al. High-dose-rate afterloading brachytherapy in carcinoma of the cervix: an experience of 1992 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46:1185-91. [PubMed]
81. Pinn-Bingham M, Puthawala AA, Syed AM, et al. Outcomes of high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer: long-term results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;85:714-20. [PubMed]
82. Pötter R, Georg P, Dimopoulos JC, et al. Clinical outcome of protocol based image (MRI) guided adaptive brachytherapy combined with 3D conformal radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2011;100:116-23. [PubMed]
83. Tan LT, Zahra M. Long-term survival and late toxicity after chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer--the Addenbrooke’s experience. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2008;20:358-64. [PubMed]
84. Stehman FB, Ali S, Keys HM, et al. Radiation therapy with or without weekly cisplatin for bulky stage 1B cervical carcinoma: follow-up of a Gynecologic Oncology Group trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:503.e1-6.
85. Takeshi K, Katsuyuki K, Yoshiaki T, et al. Definitive radiotherapy combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy for Stage III carcinoma of the uterine cervix: retrospective analysis of prognostic factors concerning patient characteristics and treatment parameters. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;41:319-27. [PubMed]
86. McIntyre JF, Eifel PJ, Levenback C, et al. Ureteral stricture as a late complication of radiotherapy for stage IB carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cancer 1995;75:836-43. [PubMed]
87. Nishimura T, Suzuki K, Iijima M, et al. Spontaneous rupture of bladder diverticulum after postoperative radiotherapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a case report. Radiat Med 2000;18:261-5. [PubMed]
88. Green JA, Kirwan JM, Tierney JF, et al. Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2001;358:781-6. [PubMed]
89. Rafique M, Arif MH. Management of iatrogenic ureteric injuries associated with gynecological surgery. Int Urol Nephrol 2002;34:31-5. [PubMed]
90. Williams SK, Leveillee RJ. Expanding the horizons: robot-assisted reconstructive surgery of the distal ureter. J Endourol 2009;23:457-61. [PubMed]
91. Maier U, Ehrenbock PM, Hofbauer J. Late urological complications and malignancies after curative radiotherapy for gynecological carcinomas: a retrospective analysis of 10,709 patients. J Urol 1997;158:814-7. [PubMed]
92. Parliament M, Genest P, Girard A, et al. Obstructive ureteropathy following radiation therapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 1989;33:237-40. [PubMed]
93. Gellrich J, Hakenberg OW, Oehlschlager S, et al. Manifestation, latency and management of late urological complications after curative radiotherapy for cervical carcinoma. Onkologie 2003;26:334-40. [PubMed]
94. Colombo N, Preti E, Landoni F, et al. Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2011;22 Suppl 6:vi35-9. [PubMed]
95. Kong A, Johnson N, Kitchener HC, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for stage I endometrial cancer: an updated Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:1625-34. [PubMed]
96. Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, et al. Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet 2000;355:1404-11. [PubMed]
97. Keys HM, Roberts JA, Brunetto VL, et al. A phase III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2004;92:744-51. [PubMed]
98. Blake P, Swart AM, Orton J, et al. Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy in the treatment of endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC and NCIC CTG EN.5 randomised trials): pooled trial results, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Lancet 2009;373:137-46. [PubMed]
99. Nout RA, Smit VT, Putter H, et al. Vaginal brachytherapy versus pelvic external beam radiotherapy for patients with endometrial cancer of high-intermediate risk (PORTEC-2): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet 2010;375:816-23. [PubMed]
100. Nguyen TV, Petereit DG. High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy for Medically Inoperable Stage I Endometrial Cancer. Gynecologic Oncology 1998;71:196-203. [PubMed]
101. Nout RA, van de Poll-Franse LV, Lybeert ML, et al. Long-term outcome and quality of life of patients with endometrial carcinoma treated with or without pelvic radiotherapy in the post operative radiation therapy in endometrial carcinoma 1 (PORTEC-1) trial. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1692-700. [PubMed]