4.5 Article

The effect of external beam radiotherapy volume on locoregional control in patients with locoregionally advanced or recurrent nonanaplastic thyroid cancer

期刊

RADIATION ONCOLOGY
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-5-69

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Center [NCC-1010480]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We evaluated outcomes of patients treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for locoregionally advanced or recurrent nonanaplastic thyroid cancer and analyzed the effect of EBRT volume on locoregional control. Methods: This study included 23 patients with locoregionally advanced or recurrent nonanaplastic thyroid cancer who were treated with EBRT. Two different EBRT target volumes were executed as follows: 1) limited field (LF, n = 11) included the primary (involved lobe) or recurrent tumor bed and the positive nodal area; 2) elective field (EF, n = 12) included the primary (involved lobe) or recurrent tumor bed and the regional nodal areas in the cervical neck and upper mediastinum. Clinical parameters, such as gender, age, histologic type, recurrence, stage, thyroglobulin level, postoperative residuum, radioiodine treatment, and EBRT volume were analyzed to identify prognostic factors associated with locoregional control. Results: There were no significant differences in the clinical parameter distributions between the LF and EF groups. In the LF group, six (55%) patients developed locoregional recurrence and three (27%) developed distant metastasis. In the EF group, one (8%) patient developed locoregional recurrence and one (8%) developed a distant metastasis. There was a significant difference in locoregional control rate at 5 years in the LF and EF groups (40% vs. 89%, p = 0.041). There were no significant differences in incidences of acute and late toxicities between two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: EBRT with EF provided significantly better locoregional control than that of LF; however, further larger scaled studies are warranted.

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

4.5
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