4.7 Article

Carbon ion radiotherapy of skull base chondrosarcomas

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.08.027

关键词

carbon ion radiation therapy; chondrosarcoma; skull base; particle therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of carbon ion radiotherapy in chondrosarcomas of the skull base. Patients and Methods: Between November 1998 and September 2005, 54 patients with low-grade and intermediate-grade chondrosarcomas of the skull base have been treated with carbon ion radiation therapy (RT) using the raster scan technique at the Gesellschaft fur Schwerionenforschung in Darmstadt, Germany. All patients had gross residual tumors after surgery. Median total dose was 60 CGE (weekly fractionation 7 X 3.0 CGE). All patients were followed prospectively in regular intervals after treatment. Local control and overall survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Toxicity was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria (CTCAE v.3.0) and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) score. Results: Median follow-up was 33 months (range, 3-84 months). Only 2 patients developed local recurrences. The actuarial local control rates were 96.2% and 89.8% at 3 and 4 years; overall survival was 98.2% at 5 years. Only I patient developed a mucositis CTCAE Grade 3; the remaining patients did not develop any acute toxicities > CTCAE Grade 2. Five patients developed minor late toxicities (RTOG/EORTC Grades 1-2), including bilateral cataract (n=1), sensory hearing loss (n=1), a reduction of growth hormone (n=1), and asymptomatic radiation-induced white matter changes of the adjacent temporal lobe (n=2). Grade 3 late toxicity occurred in 1 patient (1.9%) only. Conclusions: Carbon ion RT is an effective treatment for low- and intermediate-grade chondrosarcomas of the skull base offering high local control rates with low toxicity. (c) 2007 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