Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy vs. 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Anal Canal.

Michael D Chuong, Jessica M Freilich, Sarah E Hoffe, William Fulp, Jill M Weber, Khaldoun Almhanna, William Dinwoodie, Nikhil Rao, Kenneth L Meredith, Ravi Shridhar
{"title":"Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy vs. 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Anal Canal.","authors":"Michael D Chuong,&nbsp;Jessica M Freilich,&nbsp;Sarah E Hoffe,&nbsp;William Fulp,&nbsp;Jill M Weber,&nbsp;Khaldoun Almhanna,&nbsp;William Dinwoodie,&nbsp;Nikhil Rao,&nbsp;Kenneth L Meredith,&nbsp;Ravi Shridhar","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We compared our institutional experience using 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) vs. IMRT (intensity-modulated radiation therapy) for anal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a single-institution retrospective review of all patients with squamous cell carcinoma anal cancer treated from September 2000 through September 2011, using definitive chemoradiation with curative intent.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 89 consecutive patients (37 3DCRT, 52 IMRT). Median follow-up for all patients, IMRT patients alone, and CRT patients alone was 26.5 months (range, 3.5-133.6), 20 months (range, 3.5-125.5), and 61.9 months (range, 7.6-133.6), respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC), and colostomy-free survival (CFS) were 91.1%, 82.3%, 90.8%, and 91.3% in the IMRT cohort and 86.1%, 72.5%, 91.9%, and 93.7% in the 3DCRT group (all P > .1). More patients in the 3DCRT group required a treatment break (11 vs. 4; P = .006), although the difference in median treatment break duration was not significant (12.2 vs. 8.0 days; P = .35). Survival did not differ based on whether a treatment break was needed (all P > .1). Acute grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicity was decreased in the IMRT cohort (21.1 vs. 59.5%; P < .0001). Acute grade ≥3 skin toxicity was worse in the 3DCRT group (P < .0001), whereas an improvement in late grade ≥3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed in the IMRT patients (P = .012).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study is the largest thus far to compare 3DCRT and IMRT for definitive treatment of anal cancer. Although long-term outcomes did not significantly differ based on RT technique, a marked decrease in adverse effects and the need for a treatment break was achieved with IMRT.</p>","PeriodicalId":12695,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal cancer research : GCR","volume":"6 2","pages":"39-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3674462/pdf/gcr39.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal cancer research : GCR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We compared our institutional experience using 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) vs. IMRT (intensity-modulated radiation therapy) for anal cancer.

Methods: We performed a single-institution retrospective review of all patients with squamous cell carcinoma anal cancer treated from September 2000 through September 2011, using definitive chemoradiation with curative intent.

Results: This study included 89 consecutive patients (37 3DCRT, 52 IMRT). Median follow-up for all patients, IMRT patients alone, and CRT patients alone was 26.5 months (range, 3.5-133.6), 20 months (range, 3.5-125.5), and 61.9 months (range, 7.6-133.6), respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC), and colostomy-free survival (CFS) were 91.1%, 82.3%, 90.8%, and 91.3% in the IMRT cohort and 86.1%, 72.5%, 91.9%, and 93.7% in the 3DCRT group (all P > .1). More patients in the 3DCRT group required a treatment break (11 vs. 4; P = .006), although the difference in median treatment break duration was not significant (12.2 vs. 8.0 days; P = .35). Survival did not differ based on whether a treatment break was needed (all P > .1). Acute grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicity was decreased in the IMRT cohort (21.1 vs. 59.5%; P < .0001). Acute grade ≥3 skin toxicity was worse in the 3DCRT group (P < .0001), whereas an improvement in late grade ≥3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed in the IMRT patients (P = .012).

Conclusions: This study is the largest thus far to compare 3DCRT and IMRT for definitive treatment of anal cancer. Although long-term outcomes did not significantly differ based on RT technique, a marked decrease in adverse effects and the need for a treatment break was achieved with IMRT.

调强放射治疗与三维适形放射治疗肛管鳞状细胞癌的比较。
目的:我们比较了我们的机构使用三维适形放射治疗(3DCRT)和IMRT(调强放射治疗)治疗肛门癌的经验。方法:我们对2000年9月至2011年9月期间接受治疗的所有鳞状细胞癌肛门癌患者进行了单机构回顾性研究,使用了具有治愈目的的明确放化疗。结果:本研究纳入89例连续患者(3DCRT 37例,IMRT 52例)。所有患者、单独IMRT患者和单独CRT患者的中位随访时间分别为26.5个月(范围3.5-133.6)、20个月(范围3.5-125.5)和61.9个月(范围7.6-133.6)。IMRT组3年总生存率(OS)、无进展生存率(PFS)、局部区域对照(LRC)和无结肠造口生存率(CFS)分别为91.1%、82.3%、90.8%和91.3%,3DCRT组为86.1%、72.5%、91.9%和93.7%(均P > 0.1)。3DCRT组更多患者需要治疗间隙(11 vs. 4;P = 0.006),但中位治疗中断时间差异不显著(12.2天vs 8.0天;P = .35)。生存率没有因是否需要中断治疗而差异(均P > 1)。急性≥3级非血液学毒性在IMRT队列中降低(21.1 vs. 59.5%;P < 0.0001)。3DCRT组急性≥3级皮肤毒性加重(P < 0.0001),而IMRT组晚期≥3级胃肠道(GI)毒性改善(P = 0.012)。结论:本研究是迄今为止最大规模的比较3DCRT和IMRT对肛门癌最终治疗的研究。尽管放疗技术的长期结果没有显著差异,但IMRT显著减少了不良反应,并且需要中断治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信