4.3 Article

Predictive value of the tumor oxygenation by means of pO2 histography in patients with advanced head and neck cancer

期刊

STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE
卷 177, 期 9, 页码 462-468

出版社

URBAN & VOGEL
DOI: 10.1007/PL00002427

关键词

predictive assay; tumor oxygenation; hypoxia; polarographic pO(2) measurements; serum hemoglobin concentration; radiotherapy; head and neck carcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the potential of the tumor oxygenation by means of Eppendorf pO(2) histography as a predictive test to select patients for treatment alternatives. Patients and Methods: Pretreatment tumor pO(2) histographies of Locoregional Lymph node metastases were assessed in 194 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Included in the analysis were 134 patients who received a primary radio- or radiochemotherapy with a radiation dose of greater than or equal to 60 Gy, and who had no distant metastasis at beginning of the therapy. Results: The Cox regression analysis revealed the fraction of pO(2) values less than or equal to 2.5 mm Hg (p = 0.004), age (p = 0.04) and radiotherapy/radiochemotherapy (p = 0.03) as significant independent prognostic factors for the survival. The positive and negative predictive values were calculated using different cut-off values of the fraction of pO(2) values less than or equal to 2.5 mm Hg and the survival status at 1 or 2 years after beginning of the therapy as endpoint. The highest positive and negative predictive values of AL cut-off values were 0.50 and 0.41 at 1 year, and 0.81 and 0.26 at 2 years. Conclusions: Our data confirm the influence of the tumor oxygenation on the prognosis of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck after radiotherapy. However, the calculated positive and negative predictive values suggest that the pO2 histography alone is not sufficient to be used as a predictive test to successfully select patients for treatment alternatives.

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

4.3
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