姑息放疗联合化疗与单独姑息放疗治疗局部晚期头颈部癌的比较评价

Manas Dubey, R. Dhankhar, V. Kaushal, K. Dahiya, O. Parkash, A. Dhull, R. Atri
{"title":"姑息放疗联合化疗与单独姑息放疗治疗局部晚期头颈部癌的比较评价","authors":"Manas Dubey, R. Dhankhar, V. Kaushal, K. Dahiya, O. Parkash, A. Dhull, R. Atri","doi":"10.35248/2684-1266.16.4.116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy, tolerability and toxicity of two palliative radiotherapy (RT) schedules in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (LAHNC), i.e., Quad Shot schedule with chemotherapy and Quad Shot schedule alone. Methods: The patients were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each. Group I patients were planned for 14.8 Gy in 4 fractions over 2 days every 3 weeks for three cycles. All these patients also received paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 intravenous. Group II patients received 14.8 Gy in 4 fractions over 2 days every 3 weeks for three cycles alone. All these patients in Group I and II received total radiation dose of 44.4 Gy. Results: At the end of treatment, complete tumor response (CR) in Group I was better than Group II (40% vs. 36.7%). Disease status (tumor+node) at the end of treatment in terms of complete response was 36.7% vs. 0% (11/30 and 0/30) in Group I and II. Disease status at 6 months of follow up was noted as follows: complete tumor response in Group I and II was 23.3% (7/30) vs. 10% (3/30) (p=0.012). Complete nodal response was 35.7% (10/28) in Group I and 6.67% (02/30) in Group II (p= 0.538). Overall, no evidence of disease was observed in 16.7% (5/30) in Group I and 3.3% (1/30) in Group II respectively (p<0.001). Conclusion: This palliative schedule has been shown to provide good tumor response and palliation of symptoms. The toxicity profile remains low with the addition of paclitaxel. Further investigation is warranted in a larger trial. Palliation of symptoms resulted in improved quality of life for these group of patients","PeriodicalId":22619,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Cancer Research","volume":"4 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Palliative Radiotherapy with Chemotherapy vs.Palliative Radiotherapy Alone in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer\",\"authors\":\"Manas Dubey, R. Dhankhar, V. Kaushal, K. Dahiya, O. Parkash, A. Dhull, R. Atri\",\"doi\":\"10.35248/2684-1266.16.4.116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy, tolerability and toxicity of two palliative radiotherapy (RT) schedules in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (LAHNC), i.e., Quad Shot schedule with chemotherapy and Quad Shot schedule alone. Methods: The patients were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each. Group I patients were planned for 14.8 Gy in 4 fractions over 2 days every 3 weeks for three cycles. All these patients also received paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 intravenous. Group II patients received 14.8 Gy in 4 fractions over 2 days every 3 weeks for three cycles alone. All these patients in Group I and II received total radiation dose of 44.4 Gy. Results: At the end of treatment, complete tumor response (CR) in Group I was better than Group II (40% vs. 36.7%). Disease status (tumor+node) at the end of treatment in terms of complete response was 36.7% vs. 0% (11/30 and 0/30) in Group I and II. Disease status at 6 months of follow up was noted as follows: complete tumor response in Group I and II was 23.3% (7/30) vs. 10% (3/30) (p=0.012). Complete nodal response was 35.7% (10/28) in Group I and 6.67% (02/30) in Group II (p= 0.538). Overall, no evidence of disease was observed in 16.7% (5/30) in Group I and 3.3% (1/30) in Group II respectively (p<0.001). Conclusion: This palliative schedule has been shown to provide good tumor response and palliation of symptoms. The toxicity profile remains low with the addition of paclitaxel. Further investigation is warranted in a larger trial. Palliation of symptoms resulted in improved quality of life for these group of patients\",\"PeriodicalId\":22619,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Cancer Research\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"1-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Cancer Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35248/2684-1266.16.4.116\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Cancer Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/2684-1266.16.4.116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是评价和比较局部晚期头颈部癌(LAHNC)两种姑息放疗(RT)方案的疗效、耐受性和毒性,即联合化疗的Quad Shot方案和单独的Quad Shot方案。方法:将患者随机分为两组,每组30例。第一组患者计划14.8 Gy,分4次,每3周2天,共3个周期。同时给予紫杉醇60mg /m2静脉注射。II组患者接受14.8 Gy分4次治疗,每3周2天,共3个周期。ⅰ组和ⅱ组均接受总辐射剂量44.4 Gy。结果:治疗结束时,I组肿瘤完全缓解(CR)优于II组(40% vs. 36.7%)。治疗结束时疾病状态(肿瘤+淋巴结)的完全缓解率为36.7%,而I组和II组为0%(11/30和0/30)。随访6个月时疾病情况如下:I组和II组肿瘤完全缓解率分别为23.3%(7/30)和10% (3/30)(p=0.012)。I组的淋巴结完全缓解率为35.7% (10/28),II组为6.67% (02/30)(p= 0.538)。总体而言,I组的16.7%(5/30)和II组的3.3%(1/30)未观察到疾病证据(p<0.001)。结论:这种姑息治疗方案已被证明可提供良好的肿瘤反应和症状缓解。添加紫杉醇后毒性仍然很低。有必要在更大规模的试验中进行进一步调查。症状的缓解改善了这组患者的生活质量
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparative Evaluation of Palliative Radiotherapy with Chemotherapy vs.Palliative Radiotherapy Alone in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer
Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy, tolerability and toxicity of two palliative radiotherapy (RT) schedules in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (LAHNC), i.e., Quad Shot schedule with chemotherapy and Quad Shot schedule alone. Methods: The patients were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each. Group I patients were planned for 14.8 Gy in 4 fractions over 2 days every 3 weeks for three cycles. All these patients also received paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 intravenous. Group II patients received 14.8 Gy in 4 fractions over 2 days every 3 weeks for three cycles alone. All these patients in Group I and II received total radiation dose of 44.4 Gy. Results: At the end of treatment, complete tumor response (CR) in Group I was better than Group II (40% vs. 36.7%). Disease status (tumor+node) at the end of treatment in terms of complete response was 36.7% vs. 0% (11/30 and 0/30) in Group I and II. Disease status at 6 months of follow up was noted as follows: complete tumor response in Group I and II was 23.3% (7/30) vs. 10% (3/30) (p=0.012). Complete nodal response was 35.7% (10/28) in Group I and 6.67% (02/30) in Group II (p= 0.538). Overall, no evidence of disease was observed in 16.7% (5/30) in Group I and 3.3% (1/30) in Group II respectively (p<0.001). Conclusion: This palliative schedule has been shown to provide good tumor response and palliation of symptoms. The toxicity profile remains low with the addition of paclitaxel. Further investigation is warranted in a larger trial. Palliation of symptoms resulted in improved quality of life for these group of patients
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessment of alternative approaches of primary cervical cancer screening among women in low-income environments Impact of an Educational Program on Sexual Dysfunction Associated With Cervical Cancer Self-Knowledge among Women with Cervical Cancer Open the Therapeutic Revolution Door of Antiviral Antitumor by Improving Systemic Non-Specific Immunity A Case of Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Myeloid Leukemia (Ph+AML) of Primary Drug Resistance and Relevant Literature Review
×
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