4.5 Article

Stereotactic body ablative radiotherapy for reirradiation of small volume head and neck cancers is associated with prolonged survival: A large, single-institution, modern cohort study

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hed.26820

关键词

head and neck neoplasms; recurrence; reirradiation; salvage therapy; stereotactic body radiotherapy

资金

  1. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center [P30CA016672, P30CA016672-44]
  2. NIH/NIDCR [R01DE027445]
  3. National Science Foundation [NSF 1933369]
  4. NIH/NCI Cancer Center [P30CA016672]
  5. National Cancer Institute [1R01CA218148]
  6. NIDCR [R01DE028290]
  7. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R25EB025787-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study observed a median overall survival of 44.3 months for patients receiving SBRT retreatment for recurrent head and neck cancers. Systemic therapy had a positive impact on improving regional and distant control, while toxicities were influenced by anatomic site and systemic therapy.
Background Recurrent head and neck cancer has poor prognosis. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may improve outcomes by delivering ablative radiation doses. Methods We reviewed patients who received definitive-intent SBRT reirradiation at our institution from 2013 to 2020. Patterns of failure, overall survival (OS), and toxicities were analyzed. Results One hundred and thirty-seven patients were evaluated. The median OS was 44.3 months. The median SBRT dose was 45 Gy and median target volume 16.9 cc. The 1-year local, regional, and distant control was 78%, 66%, and 83%, respectively. Systemic therapy improved regional (p = 0.004) and distant control (p = 0.04) in nonmetastatic patients. Grade 3+ toxicities were more common at mucosal sites (p = 0.001) and with concurrent systemic therapy (p = 0.02). Conclusions In a large cohort of SBRT reirradiation for recurrent, small volume head and neck cancers, a median OS of 44.3 months was observed. Systemic therapy improved regional and distant control. Toxicities were modulated by anatomic site and systemic therapy.

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