4.6 Review

Splenic irradiation for splenomegaly: A systematic review

期刊

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 47-52

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.11.016

关键词

Leukemia; Lymphoma; Meta-analysis; Myelofibrosis; Splenomegaly; Radiotherapy; Radiation oncology; Palliation; Cancer; Toxicity

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA006927] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Splenic irradiation (SI) is a palliative treatment option for symptomatic splenomegaly (i.e. for pain, early satiety, pancytopenia from sequestration) secondary to hematologic malignancies and disorders. The purpose of the current article is to review the literature on SI for hematologic malignancies and disorders, including: (1) patient selection and optimal technique; (2) efficacy of SI; and (3) toxicities of SI. PICOS/ PRISMA methods are used to select 27 articles including 766 courses of SI for 486 patients from 1960 to 2016. The most common cancers treated included chronic lymphocytic leukemia and myeloproliferative disorders; the most common regimen was 10 Gy in 1 Gy fractions over two weeks, and 27% of patients received retreatment. A partial or complete response (for symptoms, lab abnormalities) was obtained in 85-90% of treated patients, and 30% were retreated within 6-12 months. There was no correlation between biologically equivalent dose of radiation therapy and response duration, pain relief, spleen reduction, or cytopenia improvement (r(2) all < 0.4); therefore, lower doses (e.g. 5 Gy in 5 fractions) may be as effective as higher doses. Grade 3-4 toxicity (typically leukopenia, infection) was noted in 22% of courses, with grade 5 toxicity in 0.7% of courses. All grade 5 toxicities were due to either thrombocytopenia with hemorrhage or leukopenia with sepsis (or a combination of both); they were sequelae of cancer and not directly caused by SI. In summary, SI is generally a safe and efficacious method for treating patients with symptomatic splenomegaly. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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