4.7 Article

Preliminary results from a phase II trial of conformal radiation therapy and evaluation of radiation-related CNS effects for pediatric patients with localized ependymoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 15, 页码 3156-3162

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.11.142

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA21765] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose We conducted a phase II trial of conformal radiation therapy (CRT) for localized childhood ependymoma to determine whether the irradiated volume could be reduced to decrease CNS-related side effects without diminishing the rate of disease control. Patients and Methods Between July 1997 and January 2003, 88 pediatric patients (median age, 2.85 +/- 4.5 years) received CRT in which doses (59.4 Gy to 73 patients or 54.0 Gy after gross-total resection to 15 patients younger than 18 months) were administered to the gross tumor volume and a margin of 10 mm. Patients were categorized according to extent of resection (underwent gross total resection, n = 74; near-total resection, n = 6; subtotal resection, n = 8), prior chemotherapy (n = 16), tumor grade (anaplastic, n = 35), and tumor location (infratentorial, n = 68). An age-appropriate neurocognitive battery was administered before and serially after CRT. Results The median length of follow-up was 38.2 months (+/- 16.4 months); the 3-year progression-free survival estimate was 74.7% +/- 5.7%. Local failure occurred in eight patients, distant failure in eight patients, and both in four patients. The cumulative incidence of local failure as a component of failure at 3 years was 14.8% +/- 4.0%. Mean scores on all neurocognitive outcomes were stable and within normal limits, with more than half the cohort tested at or beyond 24 months. Conclusion Limited-volume irradiation achieves high rates of disease control in pediatric patients with ependymoma and results in stable neurocognitive outcomes. (C) 2004 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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