International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2005
Phase II multicenter randomized study of amifostine for prevention of acute radiation rectal toxicity: topical intrarectal versus subcutaneous application.
Клиническое исследованиеКлиническое исследование II фазыСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kouloulias Vassilis E, Kouvaris John R, Pissakas George, Mallas Elias, Antypas Christos, Kokakis John D, Matsopoulos George, Michopoulos Spyros, Mystakidou Kyriaki, Vlahos Lambros J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the cytoprotective effect of subcutaneous vs. intrarectal administration of amifostine against acute radiation toxicity.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were randomized to receive amifostine either intrarectally (Group A, n = 27) or a 500-mg flat dose subcutaneously (Group B, n = 26) before irradiation. Therapy was delivered using a four-field technique with three-dimensional conformal planning. In Group A, 1,500 mg of amifostine was administered intrarectally as an aqueous solution in 40 mL of enema. Two different toxicity scales were used: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) rectal and urologic toxicity criteria and the Subjective-RectoSigmoid scale based on the endoscopic terminology of the World Organization for Digestive Endoscopy. Objective measurements with rectosigmoidoscopy were performed at baseline and 1-2 days after radiotherapy completion. The area under the curve for the time course of mucositis (RTOG criteria) during irradiation represented the mucositis index.
RESULTS: Intrarectal amifostine was feasible and well tolerated without any systemic or local side effects. According to the RTOG toxicity scale, Group A had superior results with a significantly lower incidence of Grades I-II rectal radiation morbidity (11% vs. 42%, p = 0.04) but inferior results concerning urinary toxicity (48% vs. 15%, p = 0.03). The mean rectal mucositis index and Subjective-RectoSigmoid score were significantly lower in Group A (0.44 vs. 2.45 [p = 0.015] and 3.9 vs. 6.0 [p = 0.01], respectively), and the mean urinary mucositis index was lower in Group B (2.39 vs. 0.34, p < 0.028).
CONCLUSIONS: Intrarectal administration of amifostine (1,500 mg) seemed to have a cytoprotective efficacy in acute radiation rectal mucositis but was inferior to subcutaneous administration in terms of urinary toxicity. Additional randomized studies are needed for definitive decisions concerning the cytoprotection of pelvic irradiated areas.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were randomized to receive amifostine either intrarectally (Group A, n = 27) or a 500-mg flat dose subcutaneously (Group B, n = 26) before irradiation. Therapy was delivered using a four-field technique with three-dimensional conformal planning. In Group A, 1,500 mg of amifostine was administered intrarectally as an aqueous solution in 40 mL of enema. Two different toxicity scales were used: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) rectal and urologic toxicity criteria and the Subjective-RectoSigmoid scale based on the endoscopic terminology of the World Organization for Digestive Endoscopy. Objective measurements with rectosigmoidoscopy were performed at baseline and 1-2 days after radiotherapy completion. The area under the curve for the time course of mucositis (RTOG criteria) during irradiation represented the mucositis index.
RESULTS: Intrarectal amifostine was feasible and well tolerated without any systemic or local side effects. According to the RTOG toxicity scale, Group A had superior results with a significantly lower incidence of Grades I-II rectal radiation morbidity (11% vs. 42%, p = 0.04) but inferior results concerning urinary toxicity (48% vs. 15%, p = 0.03). The mean rectal mucositis index and Subjective-RectoSigmoid score were significantly lower in Group A (0.44 vs. 2.45 [p = 0.015] and 3.9 vs. 6.0 [p = 0.01], respectively), and the mean urinary mucositis index was lower in Group B (2.39 vs. 0.34, p < 0.028).
CONCLUSIONS: Intrarectal administration of amifostine (1,500 mg) seemed to have a cytoprotective efficacy in acute radiation rectal mucositis but was inferior to subcutaneous administration in terms of urinary toxicity. Additional randomized studies are needed for definitive decisions concerning the cytoprotection of pelvic irradiated areas.