MedElevator
Войти в исследования International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2006
Intrarectal amifostine suspension may protect against acute proctitis during radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a pilot study.
СтатьяResearch Support, N.I.H., IntramuralНазвание 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.
Singh Anurag K, Ménard Cynthia, Guion Peter, Simone Nicole L, Smith Sharon, Crouse Nancy Sears, Godette Denise J, Cooley-Zgela Theresa, Sciuto Linda C, Coleman Jonathan, Pinto Peter, Albert Paul S, Camphausen Kevin, Coleman C Norman
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Our goal was to test the ability of intrarectal amifostine to limit symptoms of radiation proctitis.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: The first 18 patients received 1 g of intrarectal amifostine suspension placed 30-45 min before each radiation treatment. The following 12 patients received 2 g of amifostine. Total dose prescribed ranged from 66 to 76 Gy. All patients were treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The suspension remained intrarectal during treatment and was expelled after treatment. For gastrointestinal symptoms, during treatment and follow-up, all patients had a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade recorded.
RESULTS: Median follow-up was 18 months (range, 6-24 months). With 2 g vs. 1 g amifostine, there was a nearly significant decrease in RTOG Grade 2 acute rectal toxicity. Seven weeks after the start of radiation therapy, the incidence of Grade 2 toxicity was 33% in the 1-g group (6/18) compared with 0% (0/12) in the 2-g group (p=0.06). No Grade 3 toxicity or greater occurred in this study.
CONCLUSION: This trial suggests greater rectal radioprotection from acute effects with 2 g vs. 1 g amifostine suspension. Further studies should be conducted in populations at higher risk for developing symptomatic acute and late proctitis.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: The first 18 patients received 1 g of intrarectal amifostine suspension placed 30-45 min before each radiation treatment. The following 12 patients received 2 g of amifostine. Total dose prescribed ranged from 66 to 76 Gy. All patients were treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The suspension remained intrarectal during treatment and was expelled after treatment. For gastrointestinal symptoms, during treatment and follow-up, all patients had a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade recorded.
RESULTS: Median follow-up was 18 months (range, 6-24 months). With 2 g vs. 1 g amifostine, there was a nearly significant decrease in RTOG Grade 2 acute rectal toxicity. Seven weeks after the start of radiation therapy, the incidence of Grade 2 toxicity was 33% in the 1-g group (6/18) compared with 0% (0/12) in the 2-g group (p=0.06). No Grade 3 toxicity or greater occurred in this study.
CONCLUSION: This trial suggests greater rectal radioprotection from acute effects with 2 g vs. 1 g amifostine suspension. Further studies should be conducted in populations at higher risk for developing symptomatic acute and late proctitis.