Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangzhou, China.
Cancer Res Treat. 2020 Jan;52(1):31-40. doi: 10.4143/crt.2018.624. Epub 2019 Apr 30.
The purpose of this study was to compare the survival and toxicities in cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CESCC) treated by concurrent chemoradiothrapy with either three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques.
A total of 112 consecutive CESCC patients were retrospectively reviewed. 3D-CRT and IMRT groups had been analyzed by propensity score matching method, with sex, age, Karnofsky performance status, induction chemotherapy, and tumor stage well matched. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were used for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Toxicities were compared between two groups by Fisher exact test.
With a median follow-up time of 34.9 months, the 3-year OS (p=0.927) and PFS (p=0.859) rate was 49.6% and 45.8% in 3D-CRT group, compared with 54.4% and 42.8% in IMRT group. The rates of grade ≥ 3 esophagitis, grade ≥ 2 pneumonitis, esophageal stricture, and hemorrhage were comparable between two groups, while the rate of tracheostomy dependence was much higher in IMRT group than 3D-CRT group (14.3% vs.1.8%, p=0.032). Radiotherapy technique (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01 to 0.79) and pretreatment hoarseness (HR, 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.70) were independently prognostic of tracheostomy dependence.
No survival benefits had been observed while comparing IMRT versus 3D-CRT in CESCC patients. IMRT with fraction dose escalation and pretreatment hoarseness were considered to be associated with a higher risk for tracheostomy dependence. Radiation dose escalation beyond 60 Gy should be taken into account carefully when using IMRT with hypofractionated regimen.
本研究旨在比较三维适形放疗(3D-CRT)和调强放疗(IMRT)技术在治疗颈段食管鳞癌(CESCC)中的生存和毒性。
回顾性分析了 112 例连续的 CESCC 患者。通过倾向评分匹配法对 3D-CRT 和 IMRT 组进行了分析,两组的性别、年龄、卡氏功能状态、诱导化疗和肿瘤分期均匹配良好。采用 Kaplan-Meier 法和 Cox 比例风险模型比较总生存(OS)和无进展生存(PFS)。采用 Fisher 确切检验比较两组间的毒性。
中位随访时间为 34.9 个月,3D-CRT 组的 3 年 OS(p=0.927)和 PFS(p=0.859)率分别为 49.6%和 45.8%,IMRT 组分别为 54.4%和 42.8%。两组间≥3 级食管炎、≥2 级肺炎、食管狭窄和出血的发生率相当,而 IMRT 组依赖气管切开术的发生率明显高于 3D-CRT 组(14.3% vs.1.8%,p=0.032)。放疗技术(风险比[HR],0.09;95%置信区间[CI],0.01 至 0.79)和治疗前声音嘶哑(HR,0.12;95%CI 0.02 至 0.70)是气管切开术依赖的独立预后因素。
在 CESCC 患者中,与 3D-CRT 相比,IMRT 并未显示出生存获益。在接受分次剂量递增和治疗前声音嘶哑的 IMRT 治疗时,考虑到气管切开术依赖的风险较高。在使用低分割方案的调强放疗时,应慎重考虑将剂量递增至 60Gy 以上。