4.3 Review

A Systematic Review of Primary, Adjuvant, and Salvage Radiation Therapy for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma

期刊

DERMATOLOGIC SURGERY
卷 47, 期 5, 页码 587-592

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000002965

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dermatology Foundation Career Development Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reviewed 46 studies on the efficacy of primary and adjuvant/salvage RT for the treatment of cSCC, showing promising results overall, but with higher rates of local recurrence for T3 and T4 tumors. Prospective randomized studies comparing outcomes by tumor stage are needed to guide treatment guidelines.
BACKGROUND The gold standard of treatment for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is surgery radiation therapy (RT) is used selectively as definitive treatment for low-risk tumors or as adjuvant/salvage treatment for high-risk tumors. There is a lack of standardized studies evaluating the efficacy of RT in either clinical scenario. OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of primary and adjuvant/salvage RT for the treatment of cSCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed for studies that reported outcomes of cSCC treated with RT to the primary site alone. Outcomes included local control (LC), local recurrence (LR), nodal metastases (NM), distant metastases (DM), disease-specific death (DSD), and recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS Forty-six studies with 4,141 tumors were included. Pooled LC and LR rates were 87.3% and 8.6%, respectively. The rates of NM, DM, DSD, and RFS were 4.8%, 3.5%, 5.3%, and 73.5%, respectively. Local recurrence was significantly higher for T3 and T4 tumors, with rates above 25.9%. CONCLUSION LR after RT to the primary site increased with increasing tumor stage, highlighting the importance of clear surgical margins for high-risk tumors. Prospective randomized studies characterizing outcomes by tumor stage for RT compared with surgery are needed to inform guidelines.

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

4.3
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