Golubicić I, Nikitović M, Bokun J, Gavrilović D, Radosević-Jelić Lj
Institute of Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Belgrade.
Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2000 May-Jun;128(5-6):172-8.
Over last decades with modern approach to combined treatment of soft tissue sarcoma in children and adolescents, with effective systemic chemotherapy and adequate local control most frequently with conservative surgery and radiotherapy, or radiotherapy alone, results of treatment from 20% of a three-year overall survival to 75% were improved significantly. Nevertheless, combined treatment involves risk of acute radiation reactions and late side effects, so there is a need for precise radiotherapy planning with optimal schedule of fractionating, adequate radiation volume and optimal tumour dose. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the results of combined treatment of soft tissue sarcoma, role of radiotherapy in local control use of the optimal tumour dose and assessment of acute radiation reactions in an examined group of patients. A retrospective clinical study involved 47 patients treated with radiotherapy at the Institute of Oncology and Radiology of Serbia over the period from 1990 to 1997. The most frequent tumour sites were the head and neck and the extremities. According to the IRS classification most patients were in CS III (21 patients). Forty patients had histological type--Rhabdomyosarcoma (Table 1). All patients were treated with chemotherapy, and local therapy were surgery and radiotherapy or radiotherapy alone. Thirty one patients were operated on. All 47 patients were treated with radiotherapy; in 37 patients as primary treatment and in 10 patients as therapy for local relapse. Radiotherapy was planned according to tumour size, tumour site, age of the patient and type of surgery. Tumour dose from 45 Gy to 60 Gy was given in cases with a residual tumour. Lower tumour doses were used in cases of postoperative microscopic disease, in certain cases of local relapse treatment or when the size of residual tumour and patient's age allowed no delivery of higher tumour doses. Standard fractionating regimen was given to all patients, with daily fractions from 150 cGy to 214 cGy, five times per week. The majority of patients (24) were treated on Linear Accelerator machine with X photons of 10 MeV energy and with X photons of 6 MeV energy (13 patients) (Table 2). Statistical data processing was made by the following methods: Kaplan-Meier for survival rate and Long-rang and Wilcox test for assessment of the statistical significance in survival difference. In our group of patients treated over the period from 1990 to 1997 a three-year overall survival was 59.15%, and disease free survival was 46.68% (Figure 1). There were 21 patients (44.7%) without signs of the disease, 12 patients had a local disease (25.5%), 9 patients had both local and metastatic disease (19.1%) and 5 patients had only metastatic disease (10.50%). In the group of 47 patients who received radiotherapy, 24 patients received a tumour dose from 45 Gy to 60 Gy and 23 patients a tumour dose from 32 Gy to 45 Gy. The group of patients treated without tumour dose more than 45 Gy had a significantly better overall survival rate (p = 0.002) (Figure 2). Although the obtained results are in agreement with data from literature, a critical analysis is necessary. Namely, in addition to the group irradiated with a tumour dose from 32 Gy to 45 Gy, because of the postoperative microscopic disease, certain number of patients was irradiated with a "lower" dose because of an objective impossibility to administer a "higher" dose or this dose was planned for palliative reasons. The tumour dose of 45 Gy was delivered to 6 of 10 patients treated for local relapse. The tumour dose of 45 Gy was also used in four patients in CS IV, in two subjects for local control and in two as a palliative treatment. Seven patients in CS III received a tumour dose of 45 Gy, because the age of children, tumour site and tumour size permitted no higher tumour doses. That is when planning an adequate local therapy one must have in mind the initial tumour size, type of administered systematic chemo
在过去几十年中,随着对儿童和青少年软组织肉瘤采用现代联合治疗方法,即有效的全身化疗以及最常采用的保守手术和放疗或单独放疗进行充分的局部控制,治疗结果从三年总生存率的20%显著提高到了75%。然而,联合治疗存在急性放射反应和晚期副作用的风险,因此需要精确的放疗计划,包括最佳的分割方案、足够的照射体积和最佳的肿瘤剂量。我们研究的目的是评估软组织肉瘤联合治疗的结果、放疗在局部控制中的作用、最佳肿瘤剂量的使用以及在一组受试患者中评估急性放射反应。一项回顾性临床研究纳入了1990年至1997年期间在塞尔维亚肿瘤与放射研究所接受放疗的47例患者。最常见的肿瘤部位是头颈部和四肢。根据IRS分类,大多数患者处于CS III期(21例患者)。40例患者的组织学类型为横纹肌肉瘤(表1)。所有患者均接受了化疗,局部治疗为手术和放疗或单独放疗。31例患者接受了手术。47例患者均接受了放疗;37例患者作为初始治疗,10例患者作为局部复发的治疗。放疗根据肿瘤大小、肿瘤部位、患者年龄和手术类型进行计划。对于有残留肿瘤的病例,给予45 Gy至60 Gy的肿瘤剂量。对于术后微小病变病例、某些局部复发治疗病例或当残留肿瘤大小和患者年龄不允许给予更高肿瘤剂量时,使用较低的肿瘤剂量。所有患者均采用标准分割方案,每天分割剂量为150 cGy至214 cGy,每周5次。大多数患者(24例)在直线加速器上接受治疗,使用10 MeV能量的X射线光子,13例患者使用6 MeV能量的X射线光子(表2)。采用以下方法进行统计数据处理:采用Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率,采用长程和Wilcox检验评估生存差异的统计学意义。在我们1990年至1997年期间治疗的患者组中,三年总生存率为59.15%,无病生存率为46.68%(图1)。有21例患者(44.7%)无疾病迹象,12例患者有局部疾病(25.5%),9例患者有局部和转移性疾病(19.1%),5例患者仅有转移性疾病(10.50%)。在接受放疗的47例患者组中,24例患者接受了45 Gy至60 Gy的肿瘤剂量,23例患者接受了32 Gy至45 Gy的肿瘤剂量。接受肿瘤剂量不超过45 Gy治疗的患者组总体生存率显著更高(p = 0.002)(图2)。尽管获得的结果与文献数据一致,但仍需要进行批判性分析。也就是说,除了因术后微小病变而接受32 Gy至45 Gy肿瘤剂量照射的组外,由于客观上无法给予“更高”剂量或出于姑息治疗原因计划给予该剂量,一定数量的患者接受了“较低”剂量照射。10例局部复发治疗患者中有6例接受了肿瘤剂量45 Gy。CS IV期的4例患者也接受了45 Gy的肿瘤剂量,2例用于局部控制,2例用于姑息治疗。CS III期的7例患者接受了45 Gy的肿瘤剂量,因为儿童年龄、肿瘤部位和肿瘤大小不允许给予更高的肿瘤剂量。也就是说,在规划适当的局部治疗时,必须考虑初始肿瘤大小、所给予的全身化疗类型