4.7 Article

Clinical Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for Oligometastatic Patients with Lymph Node Metastases from Gynecological Cancers

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13020229

关键词

stereotactic body radiotherapy; oligometastases; lymph nodes; gynecological cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical outcomes of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lymph node metastases from gynecological cancers. The results showed that SBRT achieved excellent tumor control with low toxicities.
Background: To evaluate clinical outcomes of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a local treatment for lymph node metastases from gynecological cancers. Methods: Between November 2007 and October 2021, we retrospectively analyzed 29 lymph node metastases in 22 oligometastatic/oligoprogressive patients treated with SBRT. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the rates survival. Univariate analysis for prognostic factors were performed with the log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR). Results: Median age was 62 years (IQR, 50-80 years). Median follow-up was 17 months (IQR 10.5-31 months). The median survival was 22 months (CI 95%: 4.2-39.7, IQR: 12.5-34.5 months). Six months, one year and two year overall survival (OS) were 96.6%, 85.2%, and 48.7%, respectively. Median local control (LC) was not reached. Six months, 1one year and 2 year were 93.1%, 87.9%, and 79.9%, respectively. Distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) at one year, and two year was 53% and 37.1%, respectively Four patients (18%) experienced acute G1-G2 toxicities. No G3-4 acute toxicity was reported, and no late toxicity was observed. Conclusions: SBRT for lymph node recurrence offers excellent in-field tumor control with safe profile and low toxicities. Size, number of oligometastases, and time primary tumor to RT seem to be significant prognostic factors.

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