4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Phase II trial of radiosurgery for one to three newly diagnosed brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, and sarcoma: An eastern cooperative oncology group study (E 6397)

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 34, 页码 8870-8876

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.8747

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Long-term brain metastases survivors are at risk for neurologic morbidity after whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Retrospective radiosurgery (RS) reports found no survival difference when compared with WBRT. Before RS alone was evaluated with delayed WBRT in a phase III trial, the feasibility of RS alone was tested prospectively. Patients and Methods Patients with renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, or sarcoma; one to three brain metastases; and performance status of 0 to 2 were enrolled. Exclusion criteria were leptomeningeal disease; metastases in medulla, pons, or midbrain; or liver metastases. On the basis of tumor size, patients received 24, 18, or 15 Gy RS. At recurrence, management was discretionary. The primary end point was 3- and 6-month intracranial progression. Results Between July 1998 and August 2003, 36 patients were accrued; 31 were eligible. Median follow-up was 32.7 months and the median survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 12.2). Three- and 6-month intracranial failure with RS alone was 25.8% and 48.3%. Failure within and outside the RS volume, when in-field and distant intracranial failures were scored independently, was 19.3% and 16.2% (3 months) and 32.2% and 32.2% (6 months), respectively. Approximately 38% of patients experienced death attributable to neurologic cause. There were three grade 3 toxicities related to RS. Conclusion Intracranial failure rates without WBRT were 25.8% and 48.3% at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Delaying WBRT may be appropriate for some subgroups of patients with radioresistant tumors, but routine avoidance of WBRT should be approached judiciously.

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