Maria Concetta Campisi, Valentina Lancellotta, Bruno Fionda, Martina De Angeli, Stefania Manfrida, Patrizia Cornacchione, Gabriella Macchia, Alessio Giuseppe Morganti, Gian Carlo Mattiucci, Maria Antonietta Gambacorta, Roberto Iezzi, Luca Tagliaferri
{"title":"关于介入放射治疗在肛门鳞状细胞癌治疗中的作用的系统综述：多模式和多学科治疗方法。","authors":"Maria Concetta Campisi, Valentina Lancellotta, Bruno Fionda, Martina De Angeli, Stefania Manfrida, Patrizia Cornacchione, Gabriella Macchia, Alessio Giuseppe Morganti, Gian Carlo Mattiucci, Maria Antonietta Gambacorta, Roberto Iezzi, Luca Tagliaferri","doi":"10.1007/s11547-024-01896-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Aim was to compare the efficacy of interventional radiotherapy (IRT) boost vs. external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost after chemoradiation (CCRT) in patients with anal cancer (AC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The P.I.C.O. framework was: in patients with AC [P], is IRT boost [I] superior to EBRT boost [C] in terms of local control (LC), cancer specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), distant meta-static free Survival (DMFS), colostomy free survival (CFS) and toxicity [O]?</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>651 patients were analyzed. The median 5-year locoregional control rates was 87.8% in the IRT boost group versus 72.8% in the EBRT boost group. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 91% in the IRT boost group versus 78% in the EBRT boost group. 5-years overall survival was 74.6% in IRT boost versus 67.7% in the EBRT boost. 5-years disease metastasis-free survival rate was 92.9% in IRT boost group vs. 85.6% for the EBRT boost group. Cancer-free survival rate was 76.8% in the IRT group vs. 63.1% in the EBRT boost group. Acute toxicity above grade 2 was less common in the IRT boost group while chronic toxicity was similar between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IRT boost after CCRT could lead to better outcomes than EBRT boost in treating AC.</p>","PeriodicalId":20817,"journal":{"name":"Radiologia Medica","volume":" ","pages":"1739-1750"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review on the role of interventional radiotherapy for treatment of anal squamous cell cancer: multimodal and multidisciplinary therapeutic approach.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Concetta Campisi, Valentina Lancellotta, Bruno Fionda, Martina De Angeli, Stefania Manfrida, Patrizia Cornacchione, Gabriella Macchia, Alessio Giuseppe Morganti, Gian Carlo Mattiucci, Maria Antonietta Gambacorta, Roberto Iezzi, Luca Tagliaferri\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11547-024-01896-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Aim was to compare the efficacy of interventional radiotherapy (IRT) boost vs. external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost after chemoradiation (CCRT) in patients with anal cancer (AC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The P.I.C.O. framework was: in patients with AC [P], is IRT boost [I] superior to EBRT boost [C] in terms of local control (LC), cancer specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), distant meta-static free Survival (DMFS), colostomy free survival (CFS) and toxicity [O]?</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>651 patients were analyzed. The median 5-year locoregional control rates was 87.8% in the IRT boost group versus 72.8% in the EBRT boost group. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 91% in the IRT boost group versus 78% in the EBRT boost group. 5-years overall survival was 74.6% in IRT boost versus 67.7% in the EBRT boost. 5-years disease metastasis-free survival rate was 92.9% in IRT boost group vs. 85.6% for the EBRT boost group. Cancer-free survival rate was 76.8% in the IRT group vs. 63.1% in the EBRT boost group. Acute toxicity above grade 2 was less common in the IRT boost group while chronic toxicity was similar between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IRT boost after CCRT could lead to better outcomes than EBRT boost in treating AC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiologia Medica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1739-1750\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiologia Medica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-024-01896-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiologia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-024-01896-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
A systematic review on the role of interventional radiotherapy for treatment of anal squamous cell cancer: multimodal and multidisciplinary therapeutic approach.
Background: Aim was to compare the efficacy of interventional radiotherapy (IRT) boost vs. external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost after chemoradiation (CCRT) in patients with anal cancer (AC).
Methods: The P.I.C.O. framework was: in patients with AC [P], is IRT boost [I] superior to EBRT boost [C] in terms of local control (LC), cancer specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), distant meta-static free Survival (DMFS), colostomy free survival (CFS) and toxicity [O]?
Results: 651 patients were analyzed. The median 5-year locoregional control rates was 87.8% in the IRT boost group versus 72.8% in the EBRT boost group. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 91% in the IRT boost group versus 78% in the EBRT boost group. 5-years overall survival was 74.6% in IRT boost versus 67.7% in the EBRT boost. 5-years disease metastasis-free survival rate was 92.9% in IRT boost group vs. 85.6% for the EBRT boost group. Cancer-free survival rate was 76.8% in the IRT group vs. 63.1% in the EBRT boost group. Acute toxicity above grade 2 was less common in the IRT boost group while chronic toxicity was similar between both groups.
Conclusion: IRT boost after CCRT could lead to better outcomes than EBRT boost in treating AC.
期刊介绍：
Felice Perussia founded La radiologia medica in 1914. It is a peer-reviewed journal and serves as the official journal of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM). The primary purpose of the journal is to disseminate information related to Radiology, especially advancements in diagnostic imaging and related disciplines. La radiologia medica welcomes original research on both fundamental and clinical aspects of modern radiology, with a particular focus on diagnostic and interventional imaging techniques. It also covers topics such as radiotherapy, nuclear medicine, radiobiology, health physics, and artificial intelligence in the context of clinical implications. The journal includes various types of contributions such as original articles, review articles, editorials, short reports, and letters to the editor. With an esteemed Editorial Board and a selection of insightful reports, the journal is an indispensable resource for radiologists and professionals in related fields. Ultimately, La radiologia medica aims to serve as a platform for international collaboration and knowledge sharing within the radiological community.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
