4.4 Article

Multicenter, Phase III Trial Comparing Selenium Supplementation With Observation in Gynecologic Radiation Oncology: Follow-Up Analysis of the Survival Data 6 Years After Cessation of Randomization

期刊

INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 463-467

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1534735414541963

关键词

long-term data; selenium supplementation; gynecologic radiation oncology; overall survival; disease-free survival

资金

  1. pharmaceutical company biosyn-Arzneimittel GmbH Fellbach, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. In 2010, we reported that selenium (Se) supplementation during radiation therapy (RT) is effective for increasing blood Se levels in Se-deficient cervical and uterine cancer patients, and reduced the number of episodes and severity of RT-induced diarrhea. In the current study, we examine whether of Se supplementation during adjuvant RT affects long-term survival of these patients. Patients and Methods. Former patients were identified and questioned with respect to their health and well-being. Results. A total of 81 patients were randomized in the initial supplementation study, 39 of whom received Se (selenium group, SeG) and 42 of whom served as controls (control group, CG). When former patients were reidentified after a median follow-up of 70 months (range = 0-136), the actuarial 10-year disease-free survival rate in the SeG was 80.1% compared to 83.2% in the CG (P = .65), and the actuarial 10-year overall survival rate of patients in the SeG was 55.3% compared to 42.7% in the CG (P = .09). Conclusions. Our extended follow-up analysis demonstrates that Se supplementation had no influence on the effectiveness of the anticancer irradiation therapy and did not negatively affect patients' long-term survival. In view of its positive effects on RT-induced diarrhea, we consider Se supplementation to be a meaningful and beneficial adjuvant treatment in Se-deficient cervical and uterine cancer patients while undergoing pelvic radiation therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据