4.7 Article

Preoperative vs. postoperative radiation therapy for soft tissue sarcoma: A retrospective comparative evaluation of disease outcome

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)04510-8

关键词

sarcoma; preoperative radiation; postoperative radiation; treatment

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 06294] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Radiation (XRT) is a proven component in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. However, there is little evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of preoperative vs. postoperative XRT. This retrospective study addresses the relative effectiveness of disease control by these two treatment sequences. Methods and Materials: A total of 517 patients (246 treated with postoperative XRT, and 271 treated with preoperative XRT) with nonmetastatic sarcoma were evaluated for disease outcome and late complications using univariate and multivariate techniques. Results: With a median follow-up of 6 years, overall local control was 81% and 78% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Although local control appeared superior with preoperative XRT (83% at 10 years) compared with postoperative XRT (72%), multivariate analysis revealed that this difference could be entirely explained by the unequal distribution of prognostic factors between the two groups, and there was no evidence that treatment sequence independently determined local control. There were no differences in nodal or metastatic relapse between the two treatments, and disease-specific survival was not significantly different. There was a slightly higher incidence of late XRT-related complications among those treated with postoperative XRT (10-year incidence of 9% vs. 5%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: This study found no evidence for differences in disease outcome attributable to the use of either pre- or postoperative XRT. There was a slight increase in long-term complications with postoperative XRT, likely due to the higher doses used in this sequence. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc.

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