4.7 Article

THE RESULTS OF SURGERY, WITH OR WITHOUT RADIOTHERAPY, FOR PRIMARY SPINAL MYXOPAPILLARY EPENDYMOMA: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY FROM THE RARE CANCER NETWORK

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.09.034

关键词

Myxopapillary ependymoma; Radiation therapy; Spinal tumor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of patients with primary spinal myxopapillary ependymoma(MPE). Materials and Methods: Data from a series of 85 (35 females, 50 males) patients with spinal MPE were collected in this retrospective multi-center study. Thirty-eight (45%) underwent surgery only and 47 (55%) received postoperative radiotherapy (RT). Median administered radiation dose was 50.4 Gy (range, 22.2-59.4). Median follow-up of the surviving patients was 60.0 months (range, 0.2-316.6). Results: The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 50.4% and 74.8% for surgery only and surgery with postoperative low- (<50.4 Gy) or high-dose (>= 50.4 Gy) RT, respectively. Treatment failure was observed in 24 (28%) patients. Fifteen patients presented treatment failure at the primary site only, whereas 2 and 1 patients presented with brain and distant spinal failure only. Three and 2 patients with local failure presented with concomitant spinal distant seeding and brain failure, respectively. One patient failed simultaneously in the brain and spine. Age greater than 36 years (p = 0.01), absence of neurologic symptoms at diagnosis (p = 0.01), tumor size >= 25 mm (p = 0.04), and postoperative high-dose RT (p = 0.05) were variables predictive of improved PFS on univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, only postoperative high-dose RT was independent predictors of PFS (p = 0.04). Conclusions: The observed pattern of failure was mainly local, but one fifth of the patients presented with a concomitant spinal or brain component. Postoperative high-dose RT appears to significantly reduce the rate of tumor progression. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.7
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