4.7 Article

INTRAOPERATIVE RADIOTHERAPY FOR RESECTED PANCREATIC CANCER: A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 210 PATIENTS

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.010

关键词

Radiotherapy; Intraoperative radiotherapy; Pancreatic neoplasms; Complete resection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To retrospectively analyze the results of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) with or without external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for resected pancreatic cancer. Methods and Materials: The records of 210 patients treated with gross complete resection (R0: 147 patients; R1: 63 patients) and TORT with or without EBRT were reviewed. One hundred forty-seven patients (70.0%) were treated without EBRT and 114 patients (54.3%) were treated in conjunction with chemotherapy. The median doses of IORT and EBRT were 25 Gy (range, 20-30 Gy) and 45 Gy (range, 20-60Gy), respectively. The median follow-up of the surviving 62 patients was 26.3 months (range, 2.7-90.5 months). Results: At the time of this analysis, 150 of 210 patients (71.4%) had disease recurrences. Local failure was observed in 31 patients (14.8%), and the 2-year local control rate in all patients was 83.7%. The median survival time and the 2-year actuarial overall survival (OS) in all 210 patients were 19.1 months and 42.1%, respectively. Patients treated with IORT and chemotherapy had a significantly more favorable OS than those treated with IORT alone (p = 0.0011). On univariate analysis, chemotherapy use, degree of resection, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, and pathological N stage had a significant impact on OS and on multivariate analysis; these four factors were significant prognostic factors. Late gastrointestinal morbidity of NCI-CTC Grade 4 was observed in 7 patients (3.3%). Conclusion: IORT yields an excellent local control rate for resected pancreatic cancer with few frequencies of severe late toxicity, and IORT combined with chemotherapy confers a survival benefit compared with that of IORT alone. (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