高级检索
当前位置: 首页 > 详情页

Comparative Outcomes After Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Using Proton Beam Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective, Single-Institutional Analysis

文献详情

资源类型:

收录情况: ◇ EI

机构: [1]Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Unit 97,1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030 USA; [2]Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Thorac & Cardiovasc Surg, Houston, TX 77030 USA; [3]Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Gastrointestinal Med Oncol, Houston, TX 77030 USA; [4]Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Pathol, Houston, TX 77030 USA; [5]Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Gastroenterol, Houston, TX 77030 USA; [6]Sun Yat Sen Univ, Collaborat Innovat Ctr Canc Med, State Key Lab Oncol South China, Canc Ctr,Dept Radiat Oncol, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China; [7]Chinese Acad Med Sci, Peking Union Med Coll, Canc Hosp & Inst, Dept Radiat Oncol, Beijing, Peoples R China
出处:
ISSN:

摘要:
Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes between proton beam therapy (PBT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Methods and Materials: From 2007 through 2014, 343 EC patients who received definitive CRT with either PBT (n = 132) or IMRT (n = 211) were retrospectively analyzed. Survival, recurrence, and treatment toxicity were compared between groups. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was performed to test the association between patient/treatment variables and survival. Results: Patient/treatment variables were overall well balanced, except for age and race. Compared with IMRT, PBT had significantly better overall survival (OS; P = .011), progression-free survival (PFS; P = .001), distant metastasisefree survival (DMFS; P = .031), as well as marginally better locoregional failureefree survival (LRFFS; P = .075). No significant differences in rates of treatment-related toxicities were observed between groups. On multivariate analysis, IMRT had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.454; P = .01), PFS (HR 1.562; P = .001), and LRFFS (HR 1.461; P = .041) than PBT. Subgroup analysis by clinical stage revealed considerably higher 5-year OS (34.6% vs 25.0%, P = .038) and PFS rates (33.5% vs 13.2%, P = .005) in the PBT group for patients with stage III disease. However, no significant intergroup differences in survival were identified for stage I/II patients. Conclusions: Compared with IMRT, PBT might be associated with improved OS, PFS, and LRFFS, especially in EC patients with locally advanced disease. These results need confirmation by prospective studies. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

基金:
语种:
被引次数:
WOS:
中科院(CAS)分区:
出版当年[2017]版:
大类 | 2 区 医学
小类 | 2 区 肿瘤学 2 区 核医学
最新[2023]版:
大类 | 1 区 医学
小类 | 2 区 肿瘤学 2 区 核医学
第一作者:
第一作者机构: [1]Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Unit 97,1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030 USA; [6]Sun Yat Sen Univ, Collaborat Innovat Ctr Canc Med, State Key Lab Oncol South China, Canc Ctr,Dept Radiat Oncol, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China; [7]Chinese Acad Med Sci, Peking Union Med Coll, Canc Hosp & Inst, Dept Radiat Oncol, Beijing, Peoples R China
通讯作者:
通讯机构: [1]Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Unit 97,1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030 USA;
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
APA:
MLA:

资源点击量:43377 今日访问量:0 总访问量:3120 更新日期:2024-09-01 建议使用谷歌、火狐浏览器 常见问题

版权所有©2020 四川省肿瘤医院 技术支持:重庆聚合科技有限公司 地址:成都市人民南路四段55号