4.5 Article

Randomized study of low-dose versus standard-dose chemoradiotherapy for unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (JCOG0303)

期刊

CANCER SCIENCE
卷 106, 期 4, 页码 407-412

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cas.12622

关键词

Chemoradiotherapy; esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; randomized trial; survival; toxicity

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan
  2. National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-dose cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (LDPF) chemotherapy with daily radiotherapy (RT) is used as an alternative chemoradiotherapy regimen for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma. We evaluated whether RT plus LDPF chemotherapy had an advantage in terms of survival and/or toxicity over RT plus standard-dose cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (SDPF) chemotherapy in this study. This multicenter trial included esophageal cancer patients with clinical T4 disease and/or unresectable regional lymph node metastasis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive RT (2Gy/fraction, total dose of 60Gy) with SDPF (arm A) or LDPF (arm B) chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). A total of 142 patients (arm A/B, 71/71) from 41 institutions were enrolled between April 2004 and September 2009. The OS hazard ratio in arm B versus arm A was 1.05 (80% confidence interval, 0.78-1.41). There were no differences in toxicities in either arm. Arm B was judged as not promising for further evaluation in the phase III setting. Thus, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that the study be terminated. In the updated analyses, median OS and 3-year OS were 13.1months and 25.9%, respectively, for arm A and 14.4months and 25.7%, respectively, for arm B. Daily RT plus LDPF chemotherapy did not qualify for further evaluation as a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced unresectable esophageal cancer. This study was registered at the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000000861.

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