口腔癌和口咽癌术后放疗后的预后和口干症。

Head & Neck Pub Date : 2014-10-01 Epub Date: 2014-01-13 DOI:10.1002/hed.23488
Zhong-He Wang, Chao Yan, Zhi-Yuan Zhang, Chen-Ping Zhang, Hai-Sheng Hu, Wen-Yong Tu, Jessica Kirwan, William M Mendenhall
{"title":"口腔癌和口咽癌术后放疗后的预后和口干症。","authors":"Zhong-He Wang,&nbsp;Chao Yan,&nbsp;Zhi-Yuan Zhang,&nbsp;Chen-Ping Zhang,&nbsp;Hai-Sheng Hu,&nbsp;Wen-Yong Tu,&nbsp;Jessica Kirwan,&nbsp;William M Mendenhall","doi":"10.1002/hed.23488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We compared outcomes and xerostomia grade after postoperative intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy (RT) in patients with oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-eight patients with oral cavity (n = 77) and oropharyngeal (n = 11) carcinoma underwent postoperative IMRT (n = 44) or conventional RT (n = 44). Outcomes, failure patterns, volume, doses, salivary gland V30, and xerostomia grade were evaluated. The median follow-up was 53 months (range, 48-58 months). The median interval from surgery to RT was 4 weeks (range, 3-6 weeks).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one patients (7 and 14 for the IMRT and conventional RT groups, respectively) experienced local-regional failure. For the IMRT group, all 7 local-regional failures occurred in the high-dose target volumes. For the conventional RT group, there were 12 in-field failures, 1 at the margin, and 1 out-of-field. Nine patients experienced distant failure (5 and 4 for the IMRT and conventional RT groups, respectively). The 4-year local-regional control, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and distant-metastasis rates for the IMRT and conventional RT groups were 84.1% versus 68.2% (p = .055), 68.2% versus 52.3% (p = .091), 70.5% versus 56.8% (p = .124), and 11.4% versus 9.1% (p = .927), respectively. Xerostomia grade after RT was lower for IMRT compared to conventional RT (p < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Postoperative IMRT for oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma significantly improves mean dose, salivary gland V30, and xerostomia grade when compared to conventional RT. The predominant failure pattern was local. No differences were found in survival outcomes between both groups. There was a marginal difference in local-regional control.</p>","PeriodicalId":501638,"journal":{"name":"Head & Neck","volume":" ","pages":"1467-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/hed.23488","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes and xerostomia after postoperative radiotherapy for oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma.\",\"authors\":\"Zhong-He Wang,&nbsp;Chao Yan,&nbsp;Zhi-Yuan Zhang,&nbsp;Chen-Ping Zhang,&nbsp;Hai-Sheng Hu,&nbsp;Wen-Yong Tu,&nbsp;Jessica Kirwan,&nbsp;William M Mendenhall\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hed.23488\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We compared outcomes and xerostomia grade after postoperative intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy (RT) in patients with oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-eight patients with oral cavity (n = 77) and oropharyngeal (n = 11) carcinoma underwent postoperative IMRT (n = 44) or conventional RT (n = 44). Outcomes, failure patterns, volume, doses, salivary gland V30, and xerostomia grade were evaluated. The median follow-up was 53 months (range, 48-58 months). The median interval from surgery to RT was 4 weeks (range, 3-6 weeks).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one patients (7 and 14 for the IMRT and conventional RT groups, respectively) experienced local-regional failure. For the IMRT group, all 7 local-regional failures occurred in the high-dose target volumes. For the conventional RT group, there were 12 in-field failures, 1 at the margin, and 1 out-of-field. Nine patients experienced distant failure (5 and 4 for the IMRT and conventional RT groups, respectively). The 4-year local-regional control, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and distant-metastasis rates for the IMRT and conventional RT groups were 84.1% versus 68.2% (p = .055), 68.2% versus 52.3% (p = .091), 70.5% versus 56.8% (p = .124), and 11.4% versus 9.1% (p = .927), respectively. Xerostomia grade after RT was lower for IMRT compared to conventional RT (p < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Postoperative IMRT for oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma significantly improves mean dose, salivary gland V30, and xerostomia grade when compared to conventional RT. The predominant failure pattern was local. No differences were found in survival outcomes between both groups. There was a marginal difference in local-regional control.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501638,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Head & Neck\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1467-73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/hed.23488\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Head & Neck\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.23488\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2014/1/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Head & Neck","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.23488","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

背景:我们比较了口腔和口咽癌患者术后调强放疗(IMRT)和常规放疗(RT)后的预后和口干程度。方法:88例口腔癌(77例)和口咽癌(11例)术后分别行IMRT(44例)和常规RT(44例)治疗。评估结果、失败模式、体积、剂量、唾液腺V30和口干症等级。中位随访时间为53个月(范围48-58个月)。从手术到RT的中位间隔为4周(范围3-6周)。结果:21例患者(IMRT和常规RT组分别为7例和14例)出现局部区域失败。对于IMRT组,所有7个局部-区域失败都发生在高剂量靶体积中。对于常规RT组,有12次现场失败,1次边缘失败,1次场外失败。9例患者出现远端治疗失败(IMRT组5例,常规RT组4例)。IMRT组和常规RT组的4年局部-区域控制率、无病生存率(DFS)、总生存率(OS)和远处转移率分别为84.1%对68.2% (p = 0.055)、68.2%对52.3% (p = 0.091)、70.5%对56.8% (p = 0.124)和11.4%对9.1% (p = 0.927)。与常规放疗相比,IMRT术后口干程度较低(p < 0.001)。结论:与常规放疗相比,口腔和口咽癌术后IMRT治疗显著提高了平均剂量、唾液腺V30和口干等级。两组患者的生存结果无差异。在局部-区域控制方面存在边际差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes and xerostomia after postoperative radiotherapy for oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma.

Background: We compared outcomes and xerostomia grade after postoperative intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy (RT) in patients with oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma.

Methods: Eighty-eight patients with oral cavity (n = 77) and oropharyngeal (n = 11) carcinoma underwent postoperative IMRT (n = 44) or conventional RT (n = 44). Outcomes, failure patterns, volume, doses, salivary gland V30, and xerostomia grade were evaluated. The median follow-up was 53 months (range, 48-58 months). The median interval from surgery to RT was 4 weeks (range, 3-6 weeks).

Results: Twenty-one patients (7 and 14 for the IMRT and conventional RT groups, respectively) experienced local-regional failure. For the IMRT group, all 7 local-regional failures occurred in the high-dose target volumes. For the conventional RT group, there were 12 in-field failures, 1 at the margin, and 1 out-of-field. Nine patients experienced distant failure (5 and 4 for the IMRT and conventional RT groups, respectively). The 4-year local-regional control, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and distant-metastasis rates for the IMRT and conventional RT groups were 84.1% versus 68.2% (p = .055), 68.2% versus 52.3% (p = .091), 70.5% versus 56.8% (p = .124), and 11.4% versus 9.1% (p = .927), respectively. Xerostomia grade after RT was lower for IMRT compared to conventional RT (p < .001).

Conclusion: Postoperative IMRT for oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma significantly improves mean dose, salivary gland V30, and xerostomia grade when compared to conventional RT. The predominant failure pattern was local. No differences were found in survival outcomes between both groups. There was a marginal difference in local-regional control.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信