4.7 Article

A pooled analysis of arc-based image-guided simultaneous integrated boost radiation therapy for oligometastatic brain metastases

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 102, 期 2, 页码 180-186

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.032

关键词

Arc-based radiotherapy; Image-guided radiation; Radiosurgery; Oligometastatic disease; Pooled analysis; Brain metastases

资金

  1. TomoTherapy Research Partnership Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To report pooled overall survival and time to radiological intracranial progression results related to arc-based image-guided radiotherapy for dose-escalation of oligometastatic disease of the brain. Methods and materials: Anonymized patient, tumor, and treatment data were pooled from the VU University medical center (VUmc) and the London Regional Cancer Program (LRCP) for patients treated with whole brain radiotherapy (20 Gy/5 VUmc, 30 Gy/10 LRCP) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to individual intracranial lesions (40 Gy/5 VUmc, 35-60 Gy/10 LRCP) to perform survival/intracranial control outcome analyses. Results: A total of 120 patients were treated by both the LRCP (n = 70) and VUmc (n = 50) between 2005 and 2010. Median lesional dose BED3,10 for the entire cohort of patients were 147 and 72 Gy, respectively. Median follow-up for the entire cohort of patients was 4.7 months with median follow-up of 5.2 months for living patients. On multivariable analysis, primary lung cancer (HR 2.044), presence of systemic metastatic disease (HR 1.937), and lower baseline WHO performance status (HR 1.742) were significant (p < 0.05) predictors of shorter overall survival. Cumulative brain metastases volume (HR 1.014, = 0.06) was of borderline significance on analysis of intracranial control. Conclusions: This pooled analysis has provided robust outcome data regarding the use of arc-based radiotherapy with SIB. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 102 (2012) 180-186

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