Suppr超能文献

新辅助放化疗与根治性放化疗治疗局部晚期食管癌:结局和失败模式。

Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer : Outcomes and patterns of failure.

机构信息

Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

出版信息

Strahlenther Onkol. 2018 Feb;194(2):116-124. doi: 10.1007/s00066-017-1211-0. Epub 2017 Sep 15.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Randomized trials examining neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection (nCRT-S) and definitive CRT (dCRT) for esophageal cancer (EC) patients are hampered by use of nonstandard treatment paradigms. Outcomes of nCRT-S versus dCRT in a more common patient population are lacking. We investigated local control and survival, evaluated clinical factors associated with endpoints, and assessed patterns of failure between these cohorts.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 130 patients with locally advanced EC receiving either dCRT or nCRT-S at our institution from 2000-2012. Inclusion criteria were curatively treated nonmetastatic EC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and receipt of concomitant CRT. Patients were excluded if receiving <41 Gy neoadjuvantly or <50 Gy definitively. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate local recurrence (LR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling addressed factors associated with outcomes. Patterns of failure were enumerated as local, regional, or distant.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 34.2 months. The 3‑year LR was 10.8% in the nCRT-S group and 21.5% in the dCRT group (p = 0.266). Median PFS were 15.6 and 14.9 months, respectively (p = 0.549). Median OS were 20.6 and 25.9 months, respectively (p = 0.81). On univariate and multivariate analysis, none of the investigated factors was associated with outcomes, although node-positive disease showed a trend for worse OS and PFS. Most common failures in both groups were distant (dCRT 31.2% vs. nCRT-S 21.6%) followed by local in-field recurrences (dCRT 26.9% vs. nCRT-S 10.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this institutional analysis, no significant differences regarding outcomes and patterns of failure were observed between nCRT-S and dCRT.

摘要

目的

由于采用了非标准治疗模式,检查新辅助放化疗(nCRT-S)联合手术切除与根治性放化疗(dCRT)治疗食管癌(EC)患者的随机试验受到阻碍。在更为常见的患者人群中,nCRT-S 与 dCRT 的结果尚不清楚。我们研究了局部控制和生存情况,评估了与终点相关的临床因素,并评估了这两组之间的失败模式。

方法

我们回顾性分析了 2000 年至 2012 年在我院接受 dCRT 或 nCRT-S 治疗的 130 例局部晚期 EC 患者。纳入标准为可治愈治疗的非转移性 EC、卡氏功能状态评分≥70%,并接受同步放化疗。如果接受的新辅助放疗<41Gy 或根治性放疗<50Gy,则排除患者。Kaplan-Meier 分析用于评估局部复发(LR)、无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)。单变量和多变量 Cox 比例风险模型分析了与结局相关的因素。失败模式被列举为局部、区域或远处。

结果

中位随访时间为 34.2 个月。nCRT-S 组的 3 年 LR 为 10.8%,dCRT 组为 21.5%(p=0.266)。中位 PFS 分别为 15.6 和 14.9 个月(p=0.549)。中位 OS 分别为 20.6 和 25.9 个月(p=0.81)。在单变量和多变量分析中,没有一个研究因素与结局相关,尽管淋巴结阳性疾病显示出 OS 和 PFS 较差的趋势。两组中最常见的失败模式是远处(dCRT 31.2% vs. nCRT-S 21.6%),其次是局部区域内复发(dCRT 26.9% vs. nCRT-S 10.8%)。

结论

在这项机构分析中,nCRT-S 与 dCRT 之间在结局和失败模式方面没有观察到显著差异。

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