Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2014
Optimal timing of radiotherapy with alternating/sequential radio-chemotherapy for limited-stage small cell lung cancer.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Wang Li-Jie, Liu Xiu-Ju, Guan Yan, Zhang Chu-Feng, Wang Peng, Li Yan, Guo Qi-Sen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the optimal timing of radiotherapy with alternating/sequential radio-chemotherapy for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC).
METHODS: 91 patients with LS-SCLC were retrospectively analyzed and divided into two groups according to the number of chemotherapy cycles before radiotherapy. If the patient received radiotherapy after 3 cycles or fewer cycles of chemotherapy, classification was into the early group, if not, into the late group. All patients received 6 cycles of standard chemotherapy (EP/EC) and conventional radiotherapy (56 gy~ 60 gy/28 f ~30 f).
RESULTS: The response rate (RR) of the early and late groups were 85.7% and 81.6%, respectively, with no significant difference (p>0.05). In contrast, the progression-free survival (PFS) in the early group was better than that in the late group (11.8 months vs 9.86 months), and the difference was significant (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between two groups in adverse reactions, which gastrointestinal irritation and bone marrow suppression being the most common (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy after 3 cycles or fewer cycles of chemotherapy does not bring significant benefits for RR of patients with LS-SCLC, but it could significantly prolong their PFS without increase in adverse reactions.
METHODS: 91 patients with LS-SCLC were retrospectively analyzed and divided into two groups according to the number of chemotherapy cycles before radiotherapy. If the patient received radiotherapy after 3 cycles or fewer cycles of chemotherapy, classification was into the early group, if not, into the late group. All patients received 6 cycles of standard chemotherapy (EP/EC) and conventional radiotherapy (56 gy~ 60 gy/28 f ~30 f).
RESULTS: The response rate (RR) of the early and late groups were 85.7% and 81.6%, respectively, with no significant difference (p>0.05). In contrast, the progression-free survival (PFS) in the early group was better than that in the late group (11.8 months vs 9.86 months), and the difference was significant (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between two groups in adverse reactions, which gastrointestinal irritation and bone marrow suppression being the most common (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy after 3 cycles or fewer cycles of chemotherapy does not bring significant benefits for RR of patients with LS-SCLC, but it could significantly prolong their PFS without increase in adverse reactions.