Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Dec 1;84(5):1078-85. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.02.015. Epub 2012 Aug 3.
Although 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is the worldwide standard for the treatment of esophageal cancer, intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) improves dose conformality and reduces the radiation exposure to normal tissues. We hypothesized that the dosimetric advantages of IMRT should translate to substantive benefits in clinical outcomes compared with 3D-CRT.
An analysis was performed of 676 nonrandomized patients (3D-CRT, n=413; IMRT, n=263) with stage Ib-IVa (American Joint Committee on Cancer 2002) esophageal cancers treated with chemoradiotherapy at a single institution from 1998-2008. An inverse probability of treatment weighting and inclusion of propensity score (treatment probability) as a covariate were used to compare overall survival time, interval to local failure, and interval to distant metastasis, while accounting for the effects of other clinically relevant covariates. The propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression analysis.
A fitted multivariate inverse probability weighted-adjusted Cox model showed that the overall survival time was significantly associated with several well-known prognostic factors, along with the treatment modality (IMRT vs 3D-CRT, hazard ratio 0.72, P<.001). Compared with IMRT, 3D-CRT patients had a significantly greater risk of dying (72.6% vs 52.9%, inverse probability of treatment weighting, log-rank test, P<.0001) and of locoregional recurrence (P=.0038). No difference was seen in cancer-specific mortality (Gray's test, P=.86) or distant metastasis (P=.99) between the 2 groups. An increased cumulative incidence of cardiac death was seen in the 3D-CRT group (P=.049), but most deaths were undocumented (5-year estimate, 11.7% in 3D-CRT vs 5.4% in IMRT group, Gray's test, P=.0029).
Overall survival, locoregional control, and noncancer-related death were significantly better after IMRT than after 3D-CRT. Although these results need confirmation, IMRT should be considered for the treatment of esophageal cancer.
虽然三维适形放疗(3D-CRT)是治疗食管癌的全球标准,但调强放疗(IMRT)可提高剂量适形性并降低对正常组织的辐射暴露。我们假设与 3D-CRT 相比,IMRT 的剂量学优势应该转化为临床结果的实质性益处。
对 1998 年至 2008 年在一家机构接受放化疗治疗的 676 例非随机分期 Ib-IVa(美国癌症联合委员会 2002 年)食管癌患者(3D-CRT,n=413;IMRT,n=263)进行了分析。采用逆概率治疗加权和纳入倾向评分(治疗概率)作为协变量,比较总生存时间、局部失败时间和远处转移时间,同时考虑其他临床相关协变量的影响。采用逻辑回归分析估计倾向评分。
拟合的多变量逆概率加权调整后的 Cox 模型显示,总生存时间与几个众所周知的预后因素以及治疗方式(IMRT 与 3D-CRT,风险比 0.72,P<.001)显著相关。与 IMRT 相比,3D-CRT 患者死亡风险显著增加(72.6%对 52.9%,逆概率治疗加权,对数秩检验,P<.0001),局部区域复发风险也显著增加(P=.0038)。两组之间的癌症特异性死亡率(Gray 检验,P=.86)或远处转移率(P=.99)无差异。3D-CRT 组心脏死亡的累积发生率增加(P=.049),但大多数死亡未记录(5 年估计值,3D-CRT 组为 11.7%,IMRT 组为 5.4%,Gray 检验,P=.0029)。
与 3D-CRT 相比,IMRT 后总生存率、局部区域控制率和非癌症相关死亡率显著提高。尽管这些结果需要进一步证实,但 IMRT 应考虑用于治疗食管癌。