Suppr超能文献

前列腺癌幸存者中先进的外部束放射治疗对第二种血液系统癌症风险的影响。

Impact of Advanced External Beam Radiotherapy on Second Haematological Cancer Risk in Prostate Cancer Survivors.

机构信息

Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2023 Apr;35(4):e278-e288. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2023.01.005. Epub 2023 Jan 20.

Abstract

AIMS

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) has rapidly advanced over the years. Advanced techniques with altered dose distributions may have an impact on second haematological cancer (SHC) risks. We assessed SHC risk after EBRT for PCa and explored whether this risk has changed over the years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with a T1-T3 PCa between 1990 and 2015 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients treated with EBRT were assigned to EBRT eras based on the date of diagnosis. These eras represented two-dimensional radiotherapy (2D-RT; 1991-1996), three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT; 1998-2005) or advanced EBRT (2008-2015). Standardised incidence ratios (SIR) and absolute excess risks (AER) were calculated overall and by EBRT era. Sub-hazard ratios (sHRs) were calculated for the comparison of EBRT versus radical prostatectomy and active surveillance.

RESULTS

PCa patients with EBRT as the primary treatment (n = 37 762) had an increased risk of developing a SHC (SIR = 1.20; 95% confidence interval 1.13-1.28) compared with the Dutch male general population. Estimated risks were highest for the 2D-RT era (SIR = 1.32; 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.67) compared with the 3D-CRT era (SIR = 1.16; 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.27) and the advanced EBRT era (SIR = 1.21; 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.36). AER were limited, with about five to six extra cases per 10 000 person-years. Relative risk analysis (EBRT versus radical prostatectomy/active surveillance) showed significant elevation with EBRT versus active surveillance (sHR = 1.17; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.33; P = 0.017), but not for EBRT versus radical prostatectomy (sHR = 1.08; 95% confidence interval 0.94-1.23; P = 0.281).

CONCLUSION

Increased SHC risks after EBRT for PCa cancer were observed for all EBRT eras compared with the general Dutch male population. Excess risks for EBRT versus other PCa treatment groups were found for only EBRT versus active surveillance.

摘要

目的

前列腺癌(PCa)的外照射放射治疗(EBRT)近年来迅速发展。改变剂量分布的先进技术可能会对第二血液系统癌症(SHC)风险产生影响。我们评估了 PCa 患者接受 EBRT 后的 SHC 风险,并探讨了该风险是否随着时间的推移而发生变化。

材料和方法

从荷兰癌症登记处中选择了 1990 年至 2015 年间诊断为 T1-T3PCa 的患者。接受 EBRT 治疗的患者根据诊断日期被分配到 EBRT 时代。这些时代代表二维放疗(2D-RT;1991-1996 年)、三维适形放疗(3D-CRT;1998-2005 年)或先进的 EBRT(2008-2015 年)。总体和按 EBRT 时代计算了标准化发病比(SIR)和绝对超额风险(AER)。计算了 EBRT 与根治性前列腺切除术和主动监测的风险比(sHR)。

结果

接受 EBRT 作为主要治疗的 PCa 患者(n=37762)与荷兰男性一般人群相比,SHC 的发病风险增加(SIR=1.20;95%置信区间 1.13-1.28)。与 3D-CRT 时代(SIR=1.16;95%置信区间 1.05-1.27)和先进的 EBRT 时代(SIR=1.21;95%置信区间 1.07-1.36)相比,2D-RT 时代的估计风险最高(SIR=1.32;95%置信区间 1.14-1.67)。AER 有限,每 10000 人年约有五到六例额外病例。相对风险分析(EBRT 与根治性前列腺切除术/主动监测)显示,EBRT 与主动监测相比显著升高(sHR=1.17;95%置信区间 1.03-1.33;P=0.017),但 EBRT 与根治性前列腺切除术相比无显著差异(sHR=1.08;95%置信区间 0.94-1.23;P=0.281)。

结论

与荷兰男性一般人群相比,所有 EBRT 时代的 PCa 患者接受 EBRT 后均观察到 SHC 风险增加。仅在 EBRT 与主动监测之间发现 EBRT 与其他 PCa 治疗组之间的超额风险。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验