4.7 Article

STUDY TO DETERMINE ADEQUATE MARGINS IN RADIOTHERAPY PLANNING FOR ESOPHAGEAL CARCINOMA BY DETAILING PATTERNS OF RECURRENCE AFTER DEFINITIVE CHEMORADIOTHERAPY

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.062

Keywords

Esophageal cancer; Chemoradiotherapy; Relapse patterns; Radiotherapy margins

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To ascertain the adequacy of radiotherapy (RT) margins by studying the relapse patterns after definitive chemoradiotherapy for carcinoma of the esophagus. Methods and Materials: We performed a retrospective study assessing the first site of disease relapse after definitive chemoradiotherapy that included four 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil, with conformal RT (50 Gy in 25 fractions) concurrent with Cycles 3 and 4. The RT planning target volume was the endoscopic ultrasonography/computed tomography-defined gross tumor volume with 1.5-cm lateral and 3-cm superoinferior margins. Results: A total of 145 patients were included. Their average age was 65.4 years, 45% had adenocarcinoma, 61% bad lower third esophageal tumors, and 75% had Stage III-IVA disease. After RT, of 142 patients, 85 (60%) had evidence of relapse at a median follow-up of 18 months. The relapse was local (within the RT field) in 55; distant (metastatic) in 13, and a combination of local and distant in 14. The local relapse rates were not influenced by tumor stage, lymph node status, or disease length. Three patients developed a relapse in regions adjacent to the RT fields; however, it is unlikely that larger field margins would have been clinically acceptable or effective in these cases. The median overall survival was 15 months. Conclusion: The gross tumor volume-planning target volume margins in this study appeared adequate. Future efforts to improve outcomes using definitive chemoradiotherapy should be directed toward reducing the high rates of in-field and distant relapses. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available