Br J Radiol. 1986 May;59(701):429-40. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-59-701-429.
Because of apparent inconsistencies in the two trials of neutron therapy carried out under its auspices, the MRC in 1982 requested a comparative review of the data in the Hammersmith and Edinburgh trials in so far as the clinical material allowed of such comparison. It was clear that the two trials were not only not contemporaneous (Hammersmith 1971-75; Edinburgh 1977-82) but that they differed in site and stage of disease as well as in the parameters of radiation dosage. Only a fraction of the patients were comparable and this review, which sets out the differences in design and conduct of the two trials, focuses on squamous-cell carcinoma in the four sites--oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx and hypopharynx--which were common in both. The first 120 patients entered into the Edinburgh trial have been compared with the 95 patients selected from 161 in the Hammersmith trial who would have been eligible at Edinburgh by reason of the site of disease and histology. Thus, Hammersmith patients with tumours of salivary glands, sinuses and neck nodes were, of necessity, excluded. Within such limitations the data on case distribution, tumour size and stage, the parameters of radiation dosage and the outcome in terms of tumour control, survival and treatment morbidity have been subjected to rigorous assessment and analysis. The important aspects in which the two investigations had differed included the stage of disease (more advanced at Hammersmith, with 63% of patients having fixed nodes, compared with 27% at Edinburgh); radiation dosage (the median neutron dose being 5% lower at Edinburgh than at Hammersmith while the median photon dose was l0% higher at Edinburgh); the "photon arm" of the Edinburgh trial being on site whereas that at Hammersmith had been at multiple centres; and the years in which the trials had been carried out. The two series are comparable in terms of treatment failure (local recurrence or late radiation death) following local tumour control. The results are also consistent in associating an increased incidence of late severe radiation morbidity and of intercurrent deaths with neutron therapy. In three other respects the results of the two series differ. At Edinburgh there was advantage to the photon-treated patients in terms of overall mortality, whereas at Hammersmith the advantage was to those treated with neutrons. The incidence of tumour regression for patients randomised to photons was much lower in the Hammersmith trial than for neutrons, whereas in Edinburgh the two modalities gave similar results.
由于在其主持下进行的两项中子治疗试验存在明显不一致之处,医学研究委员会于1982年要求对哈默史密斯试验和爱丁堡试验的数据进行比较性审查,只要临床资料允许进行这种比较。很明显,这两项试验不仅不是同期进行的(哈默史密斯试验为1971 - 1975年;爱丁堡试验为1977 - 1982年),而且在疾病部位和阶段以及放射剂量参数方面也存在差异。只有一小部分患者具有可比性,本审查阐述了两项试验在设计和实施方面的差异,重点关注两个试验中均常见的四个部位——口腔、口咽、喉和下咽——的鳞状细胞癌。已将爱丁堡试验纳入的前120名患者与从哈默史密斯试验的161名患者中挑选出的95名患者进行了比较,这些哈默史密斯试验的患者因疾病部位和组织学在爱丁堡试验中符合入选条件。因此,哈默史密斯试验中患有唾液腺、鼻窦和颈部淋巴结肿瘤的患者必然被排除。在这些限制条件下,对病例分布、肿瘤大小和阶段、放射剂量参数以及肿瘤控制、生存和治疗并发症方面的结果数据进行了严格评估和分析。两项研究存在差异的重要方面包括疾病阶段(哈默史密斯试验中疾病阶段更晚,63%的患者有固定淋巴结,而爱丁堡试验中这一比例为27%);放射剂量(爱丁堡试验中中子剂量中位数比哈默史密斯试验低5%,而光子剂量中位数比哈默史密斯试验高10%);爱丁堡试验的“光子组”在当地进行,而哈默史密斯试验的“光子组”在多个中心进行;以及试验进行的年份。在局部肿瘤得到控制后的治疗失败(局部复发或晚期放射死亡)方面,这两个系列具有可比性。两项研究结果还一致表明,中子治疗会增加晚期严重放射并发症和并发死亡的发生率。在其他三个方面,这两个系列的结果存在差异。在爱丁堡试验中,接受光子治疗的患者在总死亡率方面具有优势,而在哈默史密斯试验中,接受中子治疗的患者具有优势。在哈默史密斯试验中,随机分配接受光子治疗的患者的肿瘤消退发生率远低于接受中子治疗的患者,而在爱丁堡试验中,两种治疗方式的结果相似。