4.7 Article

Improved survival outcomes with the incidental use of beta-blockers among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 1312-1319

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds616

关键词

beta-blockers; distant metastasis; non-small-cell lung cancer; radiation therapy

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Center Support (Core) Grant from the National Institutes of Health [CA016672]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Preclinical studies have shown that norepinephrine can directly stimulate tumor cell migration and that this effect is mediated by the beta-adrenergic receptor. Patients and methods: We retrospectively reviewed 722 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received definitive radiotherapy (RT). A Cox proportional hazard model was utilized to determine the association between beta-blocker intake and locoregional progression-free survival (LRPFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: In univariate analysis, patients taking beta-blockers (n = 155) had improved DMFS (P < 0.01), DFS (P < 0.01), and OS (P = 0.01), but not LRPFS (P = 0.33) compared with patients not taking beta-blockers (n = 567). In multivariate analysis, beta-blocker intake was associated with a significantly better DMFS [hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; P = 0.01], DFS (HR, 0.74; P = 0.02), and OS (HR, 0.78; P = 0.02) with adjustment for age, Karnofsky performance score, stage, histology type, concurrent chemotherapy, radiation dose, gross tumor volume, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the use of aspirin. There was no association of beta-blocker use with LRPFS (HR = 0.91, P = 0.63). Conclusion: Beta-blocker use is associated with improved DMFS, DFS, and OS in this large cohort of NSCLC patients. Future prospective trials can validate these retrospective findings and determine whether the length and timing of beta-blocker use influence survival outcomes.

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