4.7 Article

Clinical outcome of anaplastic thyroid carcinoma treated with radiotherapy of once- and twice-daily fractionation regimens

期刊

CANCER
卷 107, 期 8, 页码 1786-1792

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22203

关键词

anaplastic thyroid carcinoma; external beam radiotherapy; twice-daily fractionation; local control; survival

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. The purpose was to assess local control, survival, and toxicity after radiotherapy in patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma, and to compare clinical outcomes between once-daily and twice-daily fractionation regimens. METHODS. A retrospective review of patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (n =47) who underwent external beam radiotherapy from 1983 to 2004 was conducted. Twenty-three patients underwent radical radiotherapy with a radiation dose > 40 Gy, and 24 patients underwent palliative radiotherapy with a dose <= 40 Gy. Of radical radiotherapy, radiation was given with once-daily (14 patients) or twice-daily fractionation (9 patients; 1.5 Gy per fraction) to a total dose of 45-66 Gy. Most patients (37 patients; 78.7%) were followed to death. RESULTS. The 6-month local progression-free rate in patients who underwent radical radiotherapy was 94.1%, significantly higher compared with palliative radiotherapy (64.6%; P =.02). The median actuarial overall survival was greater in patients with radical radiotherapy (11.1 months) compared with palliative radiotherapy (3.2 months; P <.0001). The median overall survival in patients with twice-daily fractionation (13.6 months) was 3.3 months longer than patients treated with once-daily fractionation (10.3 months), but the difference was not statistically significant (P =.3). For patients treated with twice-daily fractionation, 3 patients had Grade 3 acute skin toxicity, and no patient had Grade 3 or higher esophageal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS. Radiotherapy can result in local control of anaplastic thyroid carcinoma. A twice-daily fractionation regimen is well tolerated and has a trend to longer survival, which deserves a larger study. (c) 2006 American Cancer Society.

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