4.7 Article

REGIONAL RELAPSE AFTER INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY FOR HEAD-AND-NECK CANCER

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.10.028

关键词

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; IMRT; Regional relapse; Isolated regional relapse; Head-and-neck cancer; Elective neck

资金

  1. Belgian Foundation Against Cancer
  2. Vlaamse Liga tegen Kanker
  3. Kankercentrum Gent

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the regional relapse rate in the elective neck using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively analyzed the data from 285 patients treated with IMRT between 2000 and 2008. The median dose prescription to the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes was 69 Gy in 32 fractions. The elective neck was treated simultaneously according to Protocol 1 (multiple dose prescription levels of 56-69 Gy; 2-Gy normalized isoeffective dose, 51-70 Gy; 222 patients) or Protocol 2 (one dose prescription level of 56 Gy; 2-Gy normalized isoeffective dose, 51 Gy; 63 patients). Primary surgery or lymph node dissection was performed before IMRT in 72 (25%) and 157 (55%) patients, respectively. Also, 92 patients (32%) received concomitant chemotherapy. The median follow-up of living patients was 27.4 months (range, 0.3-99). Results: Regional, local, and distant relapse were observed in 16 (5.6%), 35 (12.3%), and 47 (16.5%) patients, respectively. The 2- and 5-year rate of regional relapse was 7% and 10%, respectively, with a trend favoring Protocol 2 (p = 0.06). Seven isolated regional relapses were detected at a median follow-up of 7.3 months in patients treated with Protocol 1 and none in those treated with Protocol 2. Percutaneous gastrostomy was required more frequently in patients who received Protocol 1 (p = 0.079). Conclusion: Isolated regional relapse is rare after IMRT for head-and-neck cancer. Elective neck node doses >51 Gy for a 2-Gy normalized isoeffective dose do not seem to improve regional control. (C) 2011 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