4.3 Article

Concurrent radiochemotherapy of locally recurrent or advanced sarcomas of the uterus

期刊

STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE
卷 182, 期 6, 页码 318-+

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00066-006-1491-2

关键词

uterine sarcoma; recurrence; concurrent radiochemotherapy; combined therapy; recurrences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Uterine sarcomas are rare tumors. Until now, no data on the treatment of recurrent or advanced uterine sarcomas using concurrent radiochemotherapy (RCT) has been available. Patients and Methods: From 01/1997 to 03/2004, seven patients with Locally recurrent (n = 6) or Locally advanced uterine sarcomas (n = 1) received concurrent RCT after tumor surgery (R1/2 resection in 3/7 patients). A total radiation dose of 45 Gy was applied in single doses of 1.8 Gy using an external-beam technique; in addition, three to four intracavitary doses of 5 Gy were applied. Concurrent chemotherapy was generally administered as follows: 1.2 g/m(2) ifosfamide on days 1-5 and 29-33 in combination with 50 or 40 mg/m(2) adriamycin on days 2 and 30. 3/7 patients received further cycles of chemotherapy. The median follow-up was 35 months. Results: ALL recurrences (before RCT) were localized either in the vagina or in or directly proximal to the vaginal stump. The main side effects of RCT were hemotoxicity (grade 3: n = 3/7; grade 4: n = 4/7; neutropenic fever n = 1/7) and diarrhea (grade 3: n = 5/7). At the median follow-up (35 months), 4/7 patients had recurrences (one Local recurrence; one Lymph node recurrence outside the irradiated field, two distant metastases). Local control in the irradiated field was 80% + 18% after 3 years. Disease-free survival calculated according to Kaplan-Meier was 57% +/- 19% after 3 years. Presently, 5/7 patients are stilt alive, corresponding to a 3-year survival rate of 83% +/- 15%. Conclusion: Concurrent RCT shows good Local effectiveness with a good Long-term survival. Further evaluation in phase II studies is recommended.

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