4.0 Review

Pelvic radiation disease: Updates on treatment options

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 272-280

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v6.i6.272

关键词

Pelvic radiation disease; Radiation-induced proctopathy; Radiotherapy; Gastrointestinal toxicity; Sucralfate; Metronidazole; Probiotics; Argon plasma coagulation; Hyperbaric oxygen; Formalin

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pelvic cancers are among the most frequently diagnosed neoplasms and radiotherapy represents one of the main treatment options. The irradiation field usually encompasses healthy intestinal tissue, especially of distal large bowel, thus inducing gastrointestinal (GI) radiation-induced toxicity. Indeed, up to half of radiation-treated patients say that their quality of life is affected by GI symptoms (e.g., rectal bleeding, diarrhoea). The constellation of GI symptoms-from transient to long-term, from mild to very severe-experienced by patients who underwent radiation treatment for a pelvic tumor have been comprised in the definition of pelvic radiation disease (PRD). A correct and evidence-based therapeutic approach of patients experiencing GI radiation-induced toxicity is mandatory. Therapeutic non-surgical strategies for PRD can be summarized in two broad categories, i.e., medical and endoscopic. Of note, most of the studies have investigated the management of radiation-induced rectal bleeding. Patients with clinically significant bleeding (i.e., causing chronic anemia) should firstly be considered for medical management (i.e., sucralfate enemas, metronidazole and hyperbaric oxygen); in case of failure, endoscopic treatment should be implemented. This latter should be considered the first choice in case of acute, transfusion requiring, bleeding. More well-performed, high quality studies should be performed, especially the role of medical treatments should be better investigated as well as the comparative studies between endoscopic and hyperbaric oxygen treatments.

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

4.0
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