4.6 Article

Association of chemotherapy and radiotherapy sequence with overall survival in locoregionally advanced endometrial cancer

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 153, 期 1, 页码 41-48

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.01.007

关键词

Radiotherapy; Chemotherapy; Endometrial cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The optimal adjuvant management of women with FIGO Stage III-IVA endometrial cancer (EC) is unclear. While recent prospective data suggest that treatment with pelvic radiotherapy (RT) prior to chemotherapy (CT) is not associated with a survival benefit compared to CT alone, no prospective randomized trial has included a treatment arm in which CT is given before RT. Methods. An observational cohort study was performed on women with FIGO Stage III-IVA Type 1 (grade 1-2, endometrioid) EC who underwent hysterectomy and received multi-agent CT and/or RT from 2004 to 2014 at Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals. Multivariable parametric accelerated failure time models were performed to estimate the association of sequence of adjuvant CT and RT with overall survival (OS) using propensity score-adjusted matched cohorts. Results. Of 5795 women identified, 1260 (21.7%) received RT only, 2465 (42.5%) received CT only, 593 (9.7%) received RT before CT, and 1506 (26.0%) received RT after CT. Women who received RT after CT experienced significantly longer 5-year OS than women who received RT before CT (5-year OS: 80.1% vs 73.3%; time-ratio (TR) = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.18-1.58, P < 0.001), CT only (68.9%; TR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.19-1.48, P < 0.00] ), or RT only (64.5%, TR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.32-1.70, P < 0.001). Conclusions. For women with advanced EC, treatment with multi-agent CT followed by RT is associated with longer OS compared with treatment with RT followed by CT or either treatment alone. These hypothesis-generating data support inclusion in future prospective trials of regimens in which multi-agent CT starts prior to RT. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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