Suppr超能文献

放射治疗与第三代化疗

Radiation and third-generation chemotherapy.

作者信息

Chen Yuhchyau, Okunieff Paul

机构信息

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester Medical Center, 600 Elmwood Avenue, Box 647, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.

出版信息

Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2004 Feb;18(1):55-80. doi: 10.1016/s0889-8588(03)00145-x.

Abstract

All of the third-generation chemotherapeutic agents reviewed in this article are independently active against NSCLC, although the agents differ significantly in their cellular and molecular mechanisms of cytotoxicity. All have also been shown to potentiate radiation effects, and thus are promising in exerting further cytotoxicity when used in combination chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced NSCLC. Although the toxicity to normal tissue varies among these agents when used alone, phase I/II clinical results consistently demonstrated higher risk and severity of esophagitis and pneumonitis when these agents were administered concurrently with thoracic radiation. These results were consistent with the radiosensitization properties of all these agents. Nonetheless, most chemoradiation combinations have been made feasible through careful phase I studies that establish safe doses of these agents given concurrently with radiation. Indeed, phase I outcomes consistently have demonstrated the need for dose reduction compared with doses applied in the stage IV, metastatic disease setting (see Tables 1 and 2). There have been many different dose schedules in phase I/II studies for stage III NSCLC, and most have yielded improved response rates with these agents. For all these agents discussed, multiagent chemoradiation increased toxicity when compared with single agent chemoradiation, particularly in the risk of neutropenia, and the tumor response rates were no better than single-agent chemoradiation. Most studies have not reached an adequate interval for survival endpoint to assess the impact on survival using multiagent chemoradiation. A few earlier studies using paclitaxel chemoradiation, in fact, showed that the significant improvement in tumor response rate resulted in only a small gain in survival outcome. Despite much preclinical research conducted with these agents, the optimal sequence and dose of drug and the optimal schedule for combining the two modalities remain unknown. Optimal sequencing of the chemoradiation regimens may improve distant disease control and primary tumor control, as was seen in studies that administered both full-dose induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiation at reduced drug dose and in studies that administered consolidative, full-dose chemotherapy after chemoradiation. Strategically altering the treatment schedule may also enhance the radiosensitizing effects while keeping toxicity low, such as was seen in the pulsed low-dose paclitaxel chemoradiation reported by Chen et al . This pulsed low-dose schedule resulted in superior tumor response (100%) and durable primary tumor control while keeping the toxicity low. Other methods to minimize normal tissue injury and to deliver higher radiation doses, such as conformal three-dimensional radiotherapy that excludes nontarget tissues from the radiation field, are under investigation. Marks and colleagues were able to deliver radiation to 80 Gy using accelerated hyperfractionation radiation after induction chemotherapy. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy is expected to revolutionize the targeting of tumor and exclusion of normal tissues from the high-dose radiation volume in the future. Integrating biologic response modifiers, radioprotectors, and molecular targeting strategies also are being investigated. It remains unclear which agent among the third-generation drugs performs better for combination chemoradiation. The CALGB 9431 study reported by Vokes et al provided some preliminary information, in that it was a randomized phase II study of a three-arm comparison of cisplatin-containing, two-drug combination chemoradiation with one of the third-generation agents. Although direct statistical comparison between the treatment arms was not valid for a phase II setting, such an analysis did indeed reveal similar overall response rates for these three arms. Chemoradiation using third-generation chemotherapeutic agents has improved local tumor response rates, with enhanced radiation toxicity such as esophagitis and pneumonitis. The challenge of targeting distant disease control for locally advanced NSCLC continues.

摘要

本文中所综述的所有第三代化疗药物对非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)均具有独立的活性,尽管这些药物在细胞毒性和分子毒性机制方面存在显著差异。所有药物均已显示出能增强放疗效果,因此在用于局部晚期NSCLC的同步放化疗时,有望发挥进一步的细胞毒性作用。尽管这些药物单独使用时对正常组织的毒性各不相同,但I/II期临床结果一致表明,当这些药物与胸部放疗同时使用时,食管炎和肺炎的风险及严重程度更高。这些结果与所有这些药物的放射增敏特性相符。尽管如此,通过精心设计的I期研究确定了与放疗同时使用这些药物的安全剂量,使得大多数同步放化疗方案变得可行。实际上,I期研究结果始终表明,与用于IV期转移性疾病的剂量相比,需要降低剂量。在I/II期研究中,针对III期NSCLC有许多不同的剂量方案,大多数方案使用这些药物后反应率有所提高。对于所有讨论的这些药物,与单药同步放化疗相比,联合放化疗会增加毒性,尤其是中性粒细胞减少的风险,且肿瘤反应率并不优于单药同步放化疗。大多数研究尚未达到足够的生存终点时间间隔来评估联合放化疗对生存的影响。事实上,一些早期使用紫杉醇同步放化疗的研究表明,肿瘤反应率的显著提高仅使生存结果略有改善。尽管对这些药物进行了大量临床前研究,但药物的最佳顺序和剂量以及两种治疗方式联合的最佳方案仍不清楚。放化疗方案的最佳顺序可能会改善远处疾病控制和原发肿瘤控制,如在给予全剂量诱导化疗以及同步放化疗时降低药物剂量的研究中,以及在放化疗后给予巩固性全剂量化疗的研究中所见。从策略上改变治疗方案也可能增强放射增敏效果,同时保持低毒性,如Chen等人报道的脉冲低剂量紫杉醇同步放化疗。这种脉冲低剂量方案导致了卓越的肿瘤反应(100%)和持久的原发肿瘤控制,同时保持了低毒性。其他使正常组织损伤最小化并给予更高放射剂量的方法,如将非靶组织排除在放射野之外的适形三维放疗,正在研究中。Marks及其同事在诱导化疗后使用加速超分割放疗能够给予80 Gy的放射剂量。强度调制放疗有望在未来彻底改变肿瘤靶向以及将正常组织排除在高剂量放射体积之外的方式。整合生物反应调节剂、放射防护剂和分子靶向策略也正在研究中。目前尚不清楚在联合放化疗中第三代药物中哪种药物表现更佳。Vokes等人报道的CALGB 9431研究提供了一些初步信息,该研究是一项随机II期研究,对含顺铂的两药联合放化疗与其中一种第三代药物进行了三臂比较。尽管对于II期研究而言,各治疗组之间的直接统计学比较无效,但这样的分析确实揭示了这三个组的总体反应率相似。使用第三代化疗药物的同步放化疗提高了局部肿瘤反应率,但增加了如食管炎和肺炎等放射毒性。对于局部晚期NSCLC,实现远处疾病控制的挑战依然存在。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验