The current role of adjuvant radiotherapy in management of medullary thyroid carcinoma: A single institute analysis.

J Bhuvana, Vinay Shivhare, Satyajeet Rath, Ankita Parikh, U Suryanarayan Kunikullaya
{"title":"The current role of adjuvant radiotherapy in management of medullary thyroid carcinoma: A single institute analysis.","authors":"J Bhuvana, Vinay Shivhare, Satyajeet Rath, Ankita Parikh, U Suryanarayan Kunikullaya","doi":"10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1174_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) accounts for only about 5% of total thyroid cancers. It usually presents as an advanced disease carrying a poor prognosis than well-differentiated thyroid cancers. While the treatment of choice is surgery, the role of adjuvant radiotherapy is still unclear. This retrospective study aims to understand the role of adjuvant radiotherapy in MTC and its effect on survival.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We did a retrospective two study to estimate the effect of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on survival outcomes in MTC. A total of 30 patients who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic MTC during the period 2015 to 2020 were included in the study. Fifteen patients underwent only total thyroidectomy with cervical lymph node dissection. Rest 15 patients received adjuvant EBRT following surgery. A median dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions, 2 Gy per fraction, 5 days per week, was given by conventional radiotherapy technique. Survival outcomes were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. A univariate analysis using log rank test was performed to estimate the association of various prognostic factors including age, sex, tumor size, nodal involvement, and surgical resection status on survival outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median age of presentation in our study is 47 years (inter quartile range: 36-55 years). Median follow-up time is 4 years. Male to female ratio is 2:3-70% of patients presented with T3 lesions and 77% with N1b disease. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) in patients who received adjuvant RT following surgery in comparison to patients who underwent only surgery (92.9% vs. 71.4% P value = 0.202). Similarly, there was no improvement in locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (100% vs. 85.7%, P value-0.157), Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (64.3% vs. 71.4%, P value = 0.725), and Disease-free survival (DFS) (64.3% vs. 64.3%, P value = 0.91). Age, gender, nodal involvement, and surgical resection status (R0, R1, R2) did not have any effect on survival outcomes. DFS (100% vs. 63.6% P value = 0.008), LRFS (100% vs. 94.7% P value = 0.002), and DMFS (100% vs. 63.2% P value = 0.006) were significantly better in T2 lesions compared to advanced lesions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adjuvant EBRT failed to show any significant improvement in survival outcomes and locoregional control in MTC. Further prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to validate the role of EBRT in MTC. Clinicians should proceed with caution before advising adjuvant radiotherapy in MTC and make an informed decision after weighing the pros and cons of giving adjuvant EBRT.</p>","PeriodicalId":94070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1174_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) accounts for only about 5% of total thyroid cancers. It usually presents as an advanced disease carrying a poor prognosis than well-differentiated thyroid cancers. While the treatment of choice is surgery, the role of adjuvant radiotherapy is still unclear. This retrospective study aims to understand the role of adjuvant radiotherapy in MTC and its effect on survival.

Materials and methods: We did a retrospective two study to estimate the effect of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on survival outcomes in MTC. A total of 30 patients who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic MTC during the period 2015 to 2020 were included in the study. Fifteen patients underwent only total thyroidectomy with cervical lymph node dissection. Rest 15 patients received adjuvant EBRT following surgery. A median dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions, 2 Gy per fraction, 5 days per week, was given by conventional radiotherapy technique. Survival outcomes were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. A univariate analysis using log rank test was performed to estimate the association of various prognostic factors including age, sex, tumor size, nodal involvement, and surgical resection status on survival outcomes.

Results: Median age of presentation in our study is 47 years (inter quartile range: 36-55 years). Median follow-up time is 4 years. Male to female ratio is 2:3-70% of patients presented with T3 lesions and 77% with N1b disease. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) in patients who received adjuvant RT following surgery in comparison to patients who underwent only surgery (92.9% vs. 71.4% P value = 0.202). Similarly, there was no improvement in locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (100% vs. 85.7%, P value-0.157), Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (64.3% vs. 71.4%, P value = 0.725), and Disease-free survival (DFS) (64.3% vs. 64.3%, P value = 0.91). Age, gender, nodal involvement, and surgical resection status (R0, R1, R2) did not have any effect on survival outcomes. DFS (100% vs. 63.6% P value = 0.008), LRFS (100% vs. 94.7% P value = 0.002), and DMFS (100% vs. 63.2% P value = 0.006) were significantly better in T2 lesions compared to advanced lesions.

Conclusion: Adjuvant EBRT failed to show any significant improvement in survival outcomes and locoregional control in MTC. Further prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to validate the role of EBRT in MTC. Clinicians should proceed with caution before advising adjuvant radiotherapy in MTC and make an informed decision after weighing the pros and cons of giving adjuvant EBRT.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
辅助放射治疗在甲状腺髓样癌治疗中的当前作用:单一研究所分析。
目的:甲状腺髓样癌只占甲状腺癌总数的 5%左右。与分化良好的甲状腺癌相比,它通常是一种预后较差的晚期疾病。虽然手术是首选治疗方法,但辅助放疗的作用仍不明确。这项回顾性研究旨在了解辅助放疗在MTC中的作用及其对生存率的影响:我们进行了两项回顾性研究,以估计辅助外照射放疗(EBRT)对 MTC 患者生存结果的影响。研究共纳入了 30 名在 2015 年至 2020 年期间确诊为非转移性 MTC 的患者。其中15名患者仅接受了全甲状腺切除术和颈淋巴结清扫术。其余15名患者在手术后接受了EBRT辅助治疗。传统放疗技术的中位剂量为60 Gy,分30次进行,每次2 Gy,每周5天。采用 Kaplan-Meier 法估算生存率。采用对数秩检验法进行单变量分析,以估计各种预后因素(包括年龄、性别、肿瘤大小、结节受累情况和手术切除情况)对生存结果的影响:本研究的中位发病年龄为 47 岁(四分位间范围:36-55 岁),中位随访时间为 4 年。中位随访时间为 4 年。男女比例为2:3-70%的患者为T3病变,77%为N1b病变。手术后接受辅助 RT 的患者与只接受手术的患者相比,总生存期(OS)没有明显差异(92.9% 对 71.4% P 值 = 0.202)。同样,无局部复发生存率(LRFS)(100% vs. 85.7%,P 值-0.157)、无远处转移生存率(DMFS)(64.3% vs. 71.4%,P 值=0.725)和无疾病生存率(DFS)(64.3% vs. 64.3%,P 值=0.91)也没有改善。年龄、性别、结节受累和手术切除状态(R0、R1、R2)对生存结果没有影响。T2病变的DFS(100% vs. 63.6% P值=0.008)、LRFS(100% vs. 94.7% P值=0.002)和DMFS(100% vs. 63.2% P值=0.006)明显优于晚期病变:结论:EBRT辅助治疗未能明显改善MTC的生存预后和局部控制。需要进一步开展前瞻性随机临床试验,以验证 EBRT 在 MTC 中的作用。临床医生在建议对 MTC 进行辅助放疗前应谨慎行事,并在权衡利弊后做出明智的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Microwave Ablation after VATS in Patients with Multiple Pulmonary Nodules. Adenoid basal carcinoma cervix - A rare epithelial neoplasm. An aggressive Cushing's syndrome originating from a rare thymic neuroendocrine tumor, controlled successfully with fluconazole and octreotide therapy before surgery. Analysis of the gamma index using an indigenously developed anthropomorphic heterogeneous female pelvis (AHFP) phantom. First clinical experience of total body irradiation using volumetric modulated arc therapy technique in Japan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1