Blanchard Pierre, Garden Adam S, Gunn G Brandon, Rosenthal David I, Morrison William H, Hernandez Mike, Crutison Joseph, Lee Jack J, Ye Rong, Fuller C David, Mohamed Abdallah S R, Hutcheson Kate A, Holliday Emma B, Thaker Nikhil G, Sturgis Erich M, Kies Merrill S, Zhu X Ronald, Mohan Radhe, Frank Steven J
Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Jul;120(1):48-55. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.05.022. Epub 2016 Jun 21.
Owing to its physical properties, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) used for patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma has the ability to reduce the dose to organs at risk compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) while maintaining adequate tumor coverage. Our aim was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two treatment modalities.
We performed a 1:2 matching of IMPT to IMRT patients. Our study cohort consisted of IMPT patients from a prospective quality of life study and consecutive IMRT patients treated at a single institution during the period 2010-2014. Patients were matched on unilateral/bilateral treatment, disease site, human papillomavirus status, T and N status, smoking status, and receipt of concomitant chemotherapy. Survival analyzes were performed using a Cox model and binary toxicity endpoints using a logistic regression analysis.
Fifty IMPT and 100 IMRT patients were included. The median follow-up time was 32months. There were no imbalances in patient/tumor characteristics except for age (mean age 56.8years for IMRT patients and 61.1years for IMPT patients, p-value=0.010). Statistically significant differences were not observed in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR)=0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12-2.50, p-value=0.44) or in progression-free survival (HR=1.02; 95% CI: 0.41-2.54; p-value=0.96). The age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for the presence of a gastrostomy (G)-tube during treatment for IMPT vs IMRT were OR=0.53; 95% CI: 0.24-1.15; p-value=0.11 and OR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.16-1.17; p-value=0.10 at 3months after treatment. When considering the pre-planned composite endpoint of grade 3 weight loss or G-tube presence, the ORs were OR=0.44; 95% CI: 0.19-1.0; p-value=0.05 at 3months after treatment and OR=0.23; 95% CI: 0.07-0.73; p-value=0.01 at 1year after treatment.
Our results suggest that IMPT is associated with reduced rates of feeding tube dependency and severe weight loss without jeopardizing outcome. Prospective multicenter randomized trials are needed to validate such findings.
由于其物理特性,用于口咽癌患者的调强质子治疗(IMPT)与调强放射治疗(IMRT)相比,有能力在维持足够的肿瘤覆盖范围的同时,降低对危及器官的剂量。我们的目的是比较这两种治疗方式的临床结果。
我们对IMPT患者与IMRT患者进行了1:2匹配。我们的研究队列包括来自一项前瞻性生活质量研究的IMPT患者以及2010年至2014年期间在单一机构接受治疗的连续IMRT患者。患者在单侧/双侧治疗、疾病部位、人乳头瘤病毒状态、T和N状态、吸烟状态以及同步化疗的接受情况方面进行匹配。使用Cox模型进行生存分析,使用逻辑回归分析进行二元毒性终点分析。
纳入了50例IMPT患者和100例IMRT患者。中位随访时间为32个月。除年龄外,患者/肿瘤特征没有不平衡(IMRT患者的平均年龄为56.8岁,IMPT患者的平均年龄为61.1岁,p值 = 0.010)。在总生存期(风险比(HR)= 0.55;95%置信区间(CI):0.12 - 2.50,p值 = 0.44)或无进展生存期(HR = 1.02;95% CI:0.41 - 2.54;p值 = 0.96)方面未观察到统计学上的显著差异。IMPT与IMRT治疗期间胃造口术(G)管存在情况的年龄调整优势比(OR)分别为OR = 0.53;95% CI:0.24 - 1.