Folkert Michael R, Singer Samuel, Brennan Murray F, Kuk Deborah, Qin Li-Xuan, Kobayashi Wendy K, Crago Aimee M, Alektiar Kaled M
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Oct 10;32(29):3236-41. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.9452. Epub 2014 Sep 2.
The use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity is increasing, but no large-scale direct comparison has been reported between conventional external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and IMRT.
Between January 1996 and December 2010, 319 consecutive adult patients with primary nonmetastatic extremity STS were treated with limb-sparing surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) at a single institution. Conventional EBRT was used in 154 patients and IMRT in 165 with similar dosing schedules. Median follow-up time for the cohort was 58 months.
Treatment groups were comparable in terms of tumor location, histology, tumor size, depth, and use of chemotherapy. Patients treated with IMRT were older (P = .08), had more high-grade lesions (P = .05), close (< 1 mm) or positive margins (P = .04), preoperative radiation (P < .001), and nerve manipulation (P = .04). Median follow-up was 90 months for patients treated with conventional EBRT and 42 months for patients treated with IMRT. On multivariable analysis adjusting for patient age and tumor size, IMRT retained significance as an independent predictor of reduced LR (hazard ratio = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.89; P = .02).
Despite a preponderance of higher-risk features (especially close/positive margin) in the IMRT group, IMRT was associated with significantly reduced local recurrence compared with conventional EBRT for primary STS of the extremity.
调强放射治疗(IMRT)在肢体软组织肉瘤(STS)治疗中的应用日益增加,但传统外照射放疗(EBRT)与IMRT之间尚未见大规模直接比较的报道。
1996年1月至2010年12月期间,一家机构对319例连续性成年原发性非转移性肢体STS患者进行了保肢手术及辅助放疗(RT)。154例患者采用传统EBRT,165例采用IMRT,剂量方案相似。该队列的中位随访时间为58个月。
治疗组在肿瘤位置、组织学、肿瘤大小、深度及化疗使用方面具有可比性。接受IMRT治疗的患者年龄较大(P = 0.08),高级别病变更多(P = 0.05),切缘接近(< 1 mm)或阳性(P = 0.04),术前放疗(P < 0.001)及神经处理(P = 0.04)。接受传统EBRT治疗的患者中位随访时间为90个月,接受IMRT治疗的患者为42个月。在对患者年龄和肿瘤大小进行多变量分析调整后,IMRT作为局部复发降低的独立预测因素仍具有显著意义(风险比 = 0.46;95% CI,0.24至0.89;P = 0.02)。
尽管IMRT组中高风险特征(尤其是切缘接近/阳性)占优势,但与传统EBRT相比,IMRT与肢体原发性STS的局部复发显著降低相关。