A systematic review on the role of interventional radiotherapy for treatment of anal squamous cell cancer: multimodal and multidisciplinary therapeutic approach.

IF 9.7 1区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Radiologia Medica Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1007/s11547-024-01896-7

Maria Concetta Campisi, Valentina Lancellotta, Bruno Fionda, Martina De Angeli, Stefania Manfrida, Patrizia Cornacchione, Gabriella Macchia, Alessio Giuseppe Morganti, Gian Carlo Mattiucci, Maria Antonietta Gambacorta, Roberto Iezzi, Luca Tagliaferri

{"title":"A systematic review on the role of interventional radiotherapy for treatment of anal squamous cell cancer: multimodal and multidisciplinary therapeutic approach.","authors":"Maria Concetta Campisi, Valentina Lancellotta, Bruno Fionda, Martina De Angeli, Stefania Manfrida, Patrizia Cornacchione, Gabriella Macchia, Alessio Giuseppe Morganti, Gian Carlo Mattiucci, Maria Antonietta Gambacorta, Roberto Iezzi, Luca Tagliaferri","doi":"10.1007/s11547-024-01896-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Aim was to compare the efficacy of interventional radiotherapy (IRT) boost vs. external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost after chemoradiation (CCRT) in patients with anal cancer (AC).Methods: The P.I.C.O. framework was: in patients with AC [P], is IRT boost [I] superior to EBRT boost [C] in terms of local control (LC), cancer specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), distant meta-static free Survival (DMFS), colostomy free survival (CFS) and toxicity [O]?Results: 651 patients were analyzed. The median 5-year locoregional control rates was 87.8% in the IRT boost group versus 72.8% in the EBRT boost group. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 91% in the IRT boost group versus 78% in the EBRT boost group. 5-years overall survival was 74.6% in IRT boost versus 67.7% in the EBRT boost. 5-years disease metastasis-free survival rate was 92.9% in IRT boost group vs. 85.6% for the EBRT boost group. Cancer-free survival rate was 76.8% in the IRT group vs. 63.1% in the EBRT boost group. Acute toxicity above grade 2 was less common in the IRT boost group while chronic toxicity was similar between both groups.Conclusion: IRT boost after CCRT could lead to better outcomes than EBRT boost in treating AC.","PeriodicalId":20817,"journal":{"name":"Radiologia Medica","volume":" ","pages":"1739-1750"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiologia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-024-01896-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Aim was to compare the efficacy of interventional radiotherapy (IRT) boost vs. external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost after chemoradiation (CCRT) in patients with anal cancer (AC).

Methods: The P.I.C.O. framework was: in patients with AC [P], is IRT boost [I] superior to EBRT boost [C] in terms of local control (LC), cancer specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), distant meta-static free Survival (DMFS), colostomy free survival (CFS) and toxicity [O]?

Results: 651 patients were analyzed. The median 5-year locoregional control rates was 87.8% in the IRT boost group versus 72.8% in the EBRT boost group. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 91% in the IRT boost group versus 78% in the EBRT boost group. 5-years overall survival was 74.6% in IRT boost versus 67.7% in the EBRT boost. 5-years disease metastasis-free survival rate was 92.9% in IRT boost group vs. 85.6% for the EBRT boost group. Cancer-free survival rate was 76.8% in the IRT group vs. 63.1% in the EBRT boost group. Acute toxicity above grade 2 was less common in the IRT boost group while chronic toxicity was similar between both groups.

Conclusion: IRT boost after CCRT could lead to better outcomes than EBRT boost in treating AC.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

关于介入放射治疗在肛门鳞状细胞癌治疗中的作用的系统综述：多模式和多学科治疗方法。

背景：目的：比较肛门癌（AC）患者化疗（CCRT）后介入放射治疗（IRT）增强与体外放射治疗（EBRT）增强的疗效：P.I.C.O.框架为：在肛门癌患者[P]中，就局部控制（LC）、特定癌症生存率（CSS）、总生存率（OS）、无远处转移生存率（DMFS）、无结肠造口生存率（CFS）和毒性[O]而言，IRT增强疗法[I]是否优于EBRT增强疗法[C]？对 651 名患者进行了分析。IRT增强组的5年局部控制率中位数为87.8%，而EBRT增强组为72.8%。IRT增强组的5年癌症特异性生存率为91%，而EBRT增强组为78%。IRT增强组的5年总生存率为74.6%，而EBRT增强组为67.7%。IRT增强组的5年无转移生存率为92.9%，而EBRT增强组为85.6%。IRT组的无癌生存率为76.8%，而EBRT增强组为63.1%。IRT增强组2级以上急性毒性较少，而慢性毒性两组相似：结论：与EBRT增强疗法相比，CCRT后IRT增强疗法在治疗AC方面可取得更好的疗效。

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

Radiologia Medica 医学-核医学

CiteScore

14.10

自引率

7.90%

发文量

133

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Felice Perussia founded La radiologia medica in 1914. It is a peer-reviewed journal and serves as the official journal of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM). The primary purpose of the journal is to disseminate information related to Radiology, especially advancements in diagnostic imaging and related disciplines. La radiologia medica welcomes original research on both fundamental and clinical aspects of modern radiology, with a particular focus on diagnostic and interventional imaging techniques. It also covers topics such as radiotherapy, nuclear medicine, radiobiology, health physics, and artificial intelligence in the context of clinical implications. The journal includes various types of contributions such as original articles, review articles, editorials, short reports, and letters to the editor. With an esteemed Editorial Board and a selection of insightful reports, the journal is an indispensable resource for radiologists and professionals in related fields. Ultimately, La radiologia medica aims to serve as a platform for international collaboration and knowledge sharing within the radiological community.