4.7 Article

Carcinomas of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity treated with radiotherapy at a single institution over five decades: Are we making improvement?

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.02.031

关键词

paranasal sinuses; nasal cavity; head and neck cancer; radiotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes of patients with carcinomas of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity according to decade of radiation treatment. Methods and Materials: Between 1960 and 2005, 127 patients with sinonasal carcinoma underwent radiotherapy with planning and delivery techniques available at the time of treatment. Fifty-nine patients were treated by conventional radiotherapy; 45 patients by three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy; and 23 patients by intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Eighty-two patients (65%) were treated with radiotherapy after gross total tumor resection. Nineteen patients (15%) received chemotherapy. The most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma (83 patients). Results: The 5-vear estimates of overall survival, local control, and disease-free survival for the entire patient population were 52%, 62%, and 54%, respectively. There were no significant differences in any of these endpoints with respect to decade of treatment or radiotherapy technique (p > 0.05, for all). The 5-year overall survival rate for patients treated in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s was 46%, 56%, 51%, 53%, and 49%. respectively (p = 0.23). The observed incidence of severe (Grade 3 or 4) late toxicity was 53%, 45%, 39%, 28%, and 16% among patients treated in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, respectively (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Although we did not detect improvements in disease control or overall survival for patients treated over time, the incidence of complications has significantly declined, thereby resulting in an improved therapeutic ratio for patients with carcinomas of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity. (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