Klinikum der Universität München-Campus Grosshadern, München, Germany.
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Jun;11(6):561-70. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70071-1. Epub 2010 Apr 29.
BACKGROUND: The optimum treatment for high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) in adults is unclear. Regional hyperthermia concentrates the action of chemotherapy within the heated tumour region. Phase 2 studies have shown that chemotherapy with regional hyperthermia improves local control compared with chemotherapy alone. We designed a parallel-group randomised controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of regional hyperthermia with chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients were recruited to the trial between July 21, 1997, and November 30, 2006, at nine centres in Europe and North America. Patients with localised high-risk STS (> or = 5 cm, Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer [FNCLCC] grade 2 or 3, deep to the fascia) were randomly assigned to receive either neo-adjuvant chemotherapy consisting of etoposide, ifosfamide, and doxorubicin (EIA) alone, or combined with regional hyperthermia (EIA plus regional hyperthermia) in addition to local therapy. Local progression-free survival (LPFS) was the primary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT 00003052. FINDINGS: 341 patients were enrolled, with 169 randomly assigned to EIA plus regional hyperthermia and 172 to EIA alone. All patients were included in the analysis of the primary endpoint, and 332 patients who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy were included in the safety analysis. After a median follow-up of 34 months (IQR 20-67), 132 patients had local progression (56 EIA plus regional hyperthermia vs 76 EIA). Patients were more likely to experience local progression or death in the EIA-alone group compared with the EIA plus regional hyperthermia group (relative hazard [RH] 0.58, 95% CI 0.41-0.83; p=0.003), with an absolute difference in LPFS at 2 years of 15% (95% CI 6-26; 76% EIA plus regional hyperthermia vs 61% EIA). For disease-free survival the relative hazard was 0.70 (95% CI 0.54-0.92, p=0.011) for EIA plus regional hyperthermia compared with EIA alone. The treatment response rate in the group that received regional hyperthermia was 28.8%, compared with 12.7% in the group who received chemotherapy alone (p=0.002). In a pre-specified per-protocol analysis of patients who completed EIA plus regional hyperthermia induction therapy compared with those who completed EIA alone, overall survival was better in the combined therapy group (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.98, p=0.038). Leucopenia (grade 3 or 4) was more frequent in the EIA plus regional hyperthermia group compared with the EIA-alone group (128 of 165 vs 106 of 167, p=0.005). Hyperthermia-related adverse events were pain, bolus pressure, and skin burn, which were mild to moderate in 66 (40.5%), 43 (26.4%), and 29 patients (17.8%), and severe in seven (4.3%), eight (4.9%), and one patient (0.6%), respectively. Two deaths were attributable to treatment in the combined treatment group, and one death was attributable to treatment in the EIA-alone group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomised phase 3 trial to show that regional hyperthermia increases the benefit of chemotherapy. Adding regional hyperthermia to chemotherapy is a new effective treatment strategy for patients with high-risk STS, including STS with an abdominal or retroperitoneal location. FUNDING: Deutsche Krebshilfe, Helmholtz Association (HGF), European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology (ESHO), and US National Institute of Health (NIH).
背景:成人高危软组织肉瘤(STS)的最佳治疗方法尚不清楚。区域热疗可使化疗药物在加热的肿瘤区域内集中作用。Ⅱ期研究表明,与单纯化疗相比,化疗联合区域热疗可提高局部控制率。我们设计了一项平行组随机对照试验,以评估区域热疗联合化疗的安全性和疗效。
方法:1997 年 7 月 21 日至 2006 年 11 月 30 日,在欧洲和北美的 9 个中心招募了患者。局部高危 STS(>5cm,Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer[FNCLCC]分级 2 或 3,筋膜深部)患者被随机分配接受新辅助化疗(依托泊苷、异环磷酰胺和多柔比星[EIA])单独治疗,或在局部治疗的基础上联合区域热疗(EIA 加区域热疗)治疗。局部无进展生存率(LPFS)是主要终点。通过意向治疗进行疗效分析。该试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上注册,编号为 NCT 00003052。
结果:共纳入 341 例患者,169 例随机分配至 EIA 加区域热疗组,172 例分配至 EIA 组。所有患者均纳入主要终点分析,至少接受一个周期化疗的 332 例患者纳入安全性分析。中位随访 34 个月(IQR 20-67)后,132 例患者发生局部进展(EIA 加区域热疗组 56 例,EIA 组 76 例)。与 EIA 组相比,EIA 加区域热疗组患者发生局部进展或死亡的风险更低(相对危险度[RH]0.58,95%CI 0.41-0.83;p=0.003),2 年 LPFS 的绝对差异为 15%(95%CI 6-26;EIA 加区域热疗组 76%,EIA 组 61%)。对于无病生存率,EIA 加区域热疗组的相对危险度为 0.70(95%CI 0.54-0.92,p=0.011)。接受区域热疗组的治疗反应率为 28.8%,而单独接受化疗组的治疗反应率为 12.7%(p=0.002)。在完成 EIA 加区域热疗诱导治疗的患者与仅完成 EIA 治疗的患者之间进行的预先指定的方案分析中,联合治疗组的总生存率更好(HR 0.66,95%CI 0.45-0.98,p=0.038)。与 EIA 组相比,EIA 加区域热疗组的白细胞减少(3 或 4 级)更为常见(EIA 加区域热疗组 165 例中的 128 例,EIA 组 167 例中的 106 例,p=0.005)。与 EIA 组相比,区域热疗相关的不良事件为疼痛、推注压力和皮肤灼伤,66 例(40.5%)、43 例(26.4%)和 29 例(17.8%)为轻度至中度,7 例(4.3%)、8 例(4.9%)和 1 例(0.6%)为重度。两组中各有 2 例死亡与治疗相关,EIA 组有 1 例死亡与治疗相关。
结论:据我们所知,这是第一项随机 III 期试验,表明区域热疗增加了化疗的益处。将区域热疗联合化疗用于高危 STS 患者,包括腹部或腹膜后位置的 STS,是一种新的有效治疗策略。
资金来源:德国癌症援助协会、亥姆霍兹协会(HGF)、欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织(EORTC)、欧洲热疗肿瘤学会(ESHO)和美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)。
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2002-5
Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2025-8
Sensors (Basel). 2025-7-14
J Funct Biomater. 2025-6-1
Curr Oncol Rep. 2025-5
Chirurgie (Heidelb). 2025-6
Eur J Cancer. 2008-11
J Clin Oncol. 2007-3-10
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2007-2
N Engl J Med. 2005-8-18
Curr Opin Oncol. 2005-7
J Clin Oncol. 2005-5-1
CA Cancer J Clin. 2004