Suppr超能文献

辅助治疗对pN3期阴茎癌的影响。

Impact of Adjuvant Treatment in pN3 Penile Cancer.

作者信息

Khurud P, Krishnatry R, Telkhade T, Patil A, Prakash G, Joshi A, Pal M, Noronha V, Menon S, Bakshi G, Prabhash K, Murthy V

机构信息

Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

出版信息

Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2022 Mar;34(3):172-178. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.10.005. Epub 2021 Oct 31.

Abstract

AIMS

Due to the lack of high-quality evidence and consensus on adjuvant treatment for locoregionally advanced penile cancer, we reviewed the outcomes of pN3 patients to determine the suitable adjuvant treatment options.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All consecutive pN3 penile cancer patients treated at our institution between January 2010 and December 2018 were reviewed to assess the impact of demographical, pathological and treatment factors on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival. The DFS and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and association was tested using the Cox regression model (two-sided test with P < 0.05 considered significant).

RESULTS

Of 128 patients, 31 (24%) had pelvic nodal involvement. Twenty-six patients (20.3%) received no adjuvant treatment, 40 (31.3%) received single modality adjuvant treatment and 62 (48.4%) received multimodality adjuvant treatment (a combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy). At a median follow-up of 22 months, the DFS and overall survival were 55.4 and 62%, respectively. The best DFS and overall survival was noted with chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation (C-CTRT; 93% each). On multivariate analysis, both DFS and overall survival were worse with pelvic node involvement (2.2 [1.3-4], P = 0.027 and 2.2 [1.3-4], P = 0.027, respectively) and better with any adjuvant treatment (single modality: 3 [1.5-5.5], P < 0.001; multimodality: 3.1 [1.6-6], P < 0.001). C-CTRT was associated with improved DFS over chemotherapy alone (0.17 [0.4-0.78], P = 0.02) but not over radiotherapy alone (0.35 [0.07-1.6], P = 0.19). In patients with no pelvic nodes involved, chemotherapy and radiotherapy as single modalities were associated with similar DFS and overall survival. In patients with pelvic nodes, multimodality treatment was associated with better DFS than single modality treatment (0.3 [0.1-1], P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

pN3 penile cancer is a diverse prognostic group with poorer outcomes associated with pelvic nodes. Single modality adjuvant treatment may be adequate in inguinal nodes with extranodal extension, but multimodality treatment should be given in patients with pelvic nodal involvement.

摘要

目的

由于缺乏关于局部晚期阴茎癌辅助治疗的高质量证据和共识,我们回顾了pN3患者的治疗结果,以确定合适的辅助治疗方案。

患者与方法

回顾了2010年1月至2018年12月在我院接受治疗的所有连续性pN3阴茎癌患者,以评估人口统计学、病理学和治疗因素对无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期的影响。采用Kaplan-Meier法估计DFS和总生存期,并使用Cox回归模型检验相关性(双侧检验,P<0.05认为有统计学意义)。

结果

128例患者中,31例(24%)有盆腔淋巴结受累。26例患者(20.3%)未接受辅助治疗,40例(31.3%)接受单一模式辅助治疗,62例(48.4%)接受多模式辅助治疗(化疗与放疗联合)。中位随访22个月时,DFS和总生存期分别为55.4%和62%。化疗后序贯同步放化疗(C-CTRT)的DFS和总生存期最佳(均为93%)。多因素分析显示,盆腔淋巴结受累者DFS和总生存期均较差(分别为2.2[1.3 - 4],P = 0.027和2.2[1.3 - 4],P = 0.027),而接受任何辅助治疗者则较好(单一模式:3[1.5 - 5.5],P<0.001;多模式:3.1[1.6 - 6],P<0.001)。与单纯化疗相比,C-CTRT与DFS改善相关(0.17[0.4 - 0.78],P = 0.02),但与单纯放疗相比无差异(0.35[0.07 - 1.6],P = 0.19)。在无盆腔淋巴结受累的患者中,化疗和放疗作为单一模式与相似的DFS和总生存期相关。在有盆腔淋巴结的患者中,多模式治疗的DFS优于单一模式治疗(0.3[0.1 - 1],P = 0.05)。

结论

pN3阴茎癌是一个预后多样的群体,盆腔淋巴结受累者预后较差。对于有结外侵犯的腹股沟淋巴结,单一模式辅助治疗可能足够,但对于有盆腔淋巴结受累的患者应给予多模式治疗。

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