4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Accelerated Radiotherapy With Carbogen and Nicotinamide for Laryngeal Cancer: Results of a Phase III Randomized Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 30, 期 15, 页码 1777-1783

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.9315

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To report the results from a randomized trial comparing accelerated radiotherapy (AR) with accelerated radiotherapy plus carbogen inhalation and nicotinamide (ARCON) in laryngeal cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with cT2-4 squamous cell laryngeal cancer were randomly assigned to AR (68 Gy within 36 to 38 days) or ARCON. To limit the risk of laryngeal necrosis, ARCON patients received 64 Gy on the laryngeal cartilage. The primary end point was local control. Secondary end points were regional control, larynx preservation, toxicity, disease-free survival, and overall survival. In a translational side study, the hypoxia marker pimonidazole was used to assess the oxygenation status in tumor biopsies. Results From April 2001 to February 2008, 345 patients were accrued. After a median follow-up of 44 months, local tumor control rate at 5 years was 78% for AR versus 79% for ARCON (P = .80), with larynx preservation rates of 84% and 87%, respectively (P = .48). The 5-year regional control was significantly better with ARCON (93%) compared with AR (86%, P = .04). The improvement in regional control was specifically observed in patients with hypoxic tumors and not in patients with well-oxygenated tumors (100% v 55%, respectively; P = .01). AR and ARCON produced equal levels of toxicity. Conclusion Despite lack of benefit in local tumor control for advanced laryngeal cancers, a significant gain in regional control rate, with equal levels of toxicity, was observed in favor of ARCON. The poor regional control of patients with hypoxic tumors is specifically countered by ARCON treatment. J Clin Oncol 30:1777-1783. (c) 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

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