Lesnicar H
Institute of Oncology, Ljubijana, Slovenia.
Neoplasma. 1997;44(1):19-24.
Thirty-one patients with loco-regional advanced tumors accessible for local thermoradiotherapy were treated at the Institute of Oncology in Ljubljana, between 1989-1993. There were six primary inoperable and 25 recurrent or residual tumors after previous radiotherapy. In 13 patients treatment consisted of combined interstitial water hyperthermia and brachyradiotherapy, in 5 patients combination of interstitial hyperthermia and percutaneous radiotherapy was used, and percutaneous microwave hyperthermia with percutaneous irradiation was employed in remaining 13 patients. Complete response (CR) was achieved in 17/31 (55%) of all treated patients. Among various tumoral and therapeutic parameters tested significant influence on complete response rate was found for tumor volume (p = 0.047), minimum intratumoral temperature (p = 0.004), time interval between hyperthermia and radiotherapy (p = 0.02), and fraction-size of immediate radiotherapy (p = 0.002). More than one hyperthermia treatment and total tumor dose of irradiation > 45 Gy did not significantly improve local control rate in our patients. For all 31 patients treated with thermoradiotherapy 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) of 41% was achieved. For the group of 9 patients in whom the interval between hyperthermia and irradiation exceeded 1 hour, RFS of 18% compared to 53% for 22 patients treated with "synchronous" thermoradiotherapy was achieved, however the difference between the groups was not significant (log rank p = 0.17). In 25 patients in whom minimum intratumoral temperature (Tmin50) exceeded 42.5 degrees C significant difference in RFS between the subgroups of 19 patients treated synchronously and 6 patients in whom time interval between the two modalities was longer than 1 hour, i.e. 65% vs. 25% respectively, was found (log rank p = 0.048). However, most favorable RFS of 81% was achieved in the subgroup of 15 patients in whom good hyperthermia treatment (Tmin50 > or = 42.5 degrees C) was followed by an immediate irradiation using fraction size > or = 3 Gy (p = 0.015). Treatment related toxicity was acceptable and did not correlate with response rate. Our conclusion is that thermoradiotherapy is more effective when somewhat larger fraction-size of radiotherapy than conventional, i.e. 3-5 Gy, are employed in synchronous combination of both treatment modalities.
1989年至1993年间,卢布尔雅那肿瘤研究所对31例局部区域晚期肿瘤患者进行了局部热放疗,这些肿瘤可进行局部热疗。其中6例为原发性无法手术切除的肿瘤,25例为先前放疗后的复发或残留肿瘤。13例患者接受了间质水热疗和近距离放疗联合治疗,5例患者采用了间质热疗和经皮放疗联合治疗,其余13例患者采用了经皮微波热疗和经皮照射。所有接受治疗的患者中,17/31(55%)达到完全缓解(CR)。在测试的各种肿瘤和治疗参数中,发现肿瘤体积(p = 0.047)、肿瘤内最低温度(p = 0.004)、热疗与放疗的时间间隔(p = 0.02)以及即刻放疗的分次剂量(p = 0.002)对完全缓解率有显著影响。在我们的患者中,多次热疗和总照射剂量> 45 Gy并未显著提高局部控制率。接受热放疗的所有31例患者的3年无复发生存率(RFS)为41%。对于热疗与照射间隔超过1小时的9例患者组,RFS为18%,而接受“同步”热放疗的22例患者组的RFS为53%,然而两组之间的差异不显著(对数秩检验p = 0.17)。在25例肿瘤内最低温度(Tmin50)超过42.5℃的患者中,发现同步治疗的19例患者亚组与两种治疗方式时间间隔超过1小时的6例患者亚组之间的RFS有显著差异,分别为65%和25%(对数秩检验p = 0.048)。然而,在15例患者亚组中,热疗效果良好(Tmin50≥42.5℃)后立即采用分次剂量≥3 Gy的照射,获得了最有利的RFS,为81%(p = 0.015)。治疗相关毒性是可接受的,且与缓解率无关。我们的结论是,当在两种治疗方式的同步联合中采用比传统放疗稍大的分次剂量,即3 - 5 Gy时,热放疗更有效。