4.7 Article

BRACHYTHERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.070

关键词

Cholangiocarcinoma; Brachytherapy; Radiation; Surgery; SEER

资金

  1. Pennsylvania Department of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To examine the role of brachytherapy in the treatment of cholangiocarcinomas in a relatively large group of patients. Methods and Materials: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, a total of 193 patients with cholangiocarcinoma treated with brachytherapy were identified for the period 1988-2003. The primary analysis compared patients treated with brachytherapy (with or without external-beam radiation) with those who did not receive radiation. To try to account for confounding variables, propensity score and sensitivity analyses were used. Results: There was a significant difference between patients who received radiation (n = 193) and those who did not (n = 6859) with regard to surgery (p < 0.0001), race (p < 0.0001), stage (p < 0.0001), and year of diagnosis (p <0.0001). Median survival for patients treated with brachytherapy was 11 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9-13 months), compared with 4 months for patients who received no radiation (p <0.0001). On multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [95% CI]) brachytherapy (0.79 [0.66-0.95]), surgery (0.50 [0.46-0.53]), year of diagnosis (1998-2003: 0.66 [0.60-0.73]; 1993-1997: (0.96 [0.89-1.03; NS], baseline 1988-1992), and extrahepatic disease (0.84 [0.79-0.89]) were associated with better overall survival. Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest dataset reported for the treatment of cholangiocarcinomas with brachytherapy. The results of this retrospective analysis suggest that brachytherapy may improve overall survival. However, because of the limitations of the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, these results should be interpreted cautiously, and future prospective studies are needed. (C) 2010 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