4.3 Article

Improved survival with higher radiation dose for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 8, 期 45, 页码 79662-79669

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.19030

关键词

esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; radiotherapy; overall survival; progression-free survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The optimal radiation dose for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has long been debated. We undertook the retrospective study to evaluate the survival impact of high dose vs standard dose in patients with stage II-III esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Results: A total of 137 patients were included in our study, 63 patients classified as standard-dose group and 74 as high-dose group. For the 63 patients in the standard-dose group, the median PFS and the 1-, 2-, and 3-year PFS rates were 12.6 months, 58.0%, 26.0% and 12.0%, respectively; for the 74 patients in the high-dose group, they were 20.0 months, 80.1%, 31.0% and 20.0%, respectively (P = 0.013). The median OS of the patients in the standard-dose group and high-dose group groups were 19.0 months and 26.6 months, respectively, and the 1-, 2- and 3-year survival rates were 78.0%, 39.0%, and 24.0%, and 89.0%, 61.0%, and 30.0%, respectively (P = 0.037). Besides the rate of grade 3 acute irradiation esophagitis in the high dose group (10.5% versus. 2.2%, P < 0.01), there were no significantly differ of treatment-related toxicities between the two groups. Materials and Methods: According to the radiation dose, patients from 2010 to 2014 were allocated into either the standard-dose group (50-50.4 Gy) or the high dose group (>= 59.4 Gy). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment-related toxicities were assessed and compared between the two groups. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that higher radiation dose could perform better outcomes for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients.

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