4.6 Article

High-dose rate brachytherapy for Stage I/II papillary serous or clear cell endometrial cancer

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 94, 期 2, 页码 383-386

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.05.009

关键词

high-dose rate brachytherapy; papillary serous; clear cell endometrial cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To determine the efficacy of high-dose rate brachytherapy as adjuvant treatment for Stage I/II papillary serous or clear cell endometrial cancer. Methods. A retrospective study of all patients with Stage I/II papillary serous or clear cell endometrial cancer treated with high-dose rate brachytherapy between 1995 and 2001 was performed. Following surgical staging, which included hysterectomy with pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy, all patients without extrauterine disease were treated with high-dose rate brachytherapy and followed for recurrence. The locations of recurrences were noted and were classified as local or distant. Results. Three (13%) recurrences occurred among 24 patients with Stage I/II papillary serous or clear cell carcinoma. The risk of recurrence was similar for papillary serous and clear cell cancer (12% vs. 12%). Local control was achieved in 96%. The risk of recurrence for those with no myometrial invasion, less than 1/2, or more than 1/2 myometrial invasion was 0%, 10%, and 50%, respectively (P < 0.04). Two of the three recurrences were distant and all patients with recurrence died despite additional treatment. Conclusions. High-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR) as the sole adjuvant treatment of Stage I/II papillary serous or clear cell carcinoma is associated with a 13% risk of recurrence. Although local control with HDR is excellent, the risk of distant recurrence is increased with deep myometrial invasion. High-dose rate brachytherapy is adequate for Stage IA cases, but more aggressive treatment combining chemotherapy with HDR should be evaluated for more advanced Stage I/II cases. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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