Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022
Impact on xerostomia for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with superficial parotid lobe-sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SPLS-IMRT): A prospective phase II randomized controlled study.
Рандомизированное исследованиеКлиническое исследование II фазыСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Huang Huageng, Miao Jingjing, Xiao Xiao, Hu Jiang, Zhang Guangshun, Peng Yinglin, Lu Shunzhen, Liang Yingshan, Huang Shaomin, Han Fei, Deng Xiaowu, Zhao Chong, Wang Lin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of xerostomia in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients treated with superficial parotid lobe-sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SPLS-IMRT) and conventional IMRT (C-IMRT).
METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed NPC who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to receive either SPLS-IMRT or C-IMRT. The primary endpoint was the incidence of xerostomia at 12 months post-IMRT. The secondary endpoints included the xerostomia questionnaire (XQ) score, unstimulated salivary flow rate (USFR), stimulated salivary flow rate (SSFR), and survival outcomes.
RESULTS: Ninety patients were enrolled. Eighty-two patients were included for xerostomia analysis (42 in the SPLS-IMRT group and 40 in the C-IMRT group). At 12 months post-IMRT, the incidence of xerostomia in the SPLS-IMRT group was significantly lower than that in the C-IMRT group (83.4% vs 95.0%; P = 0.007), especially the grade 3 xerostomia (0% vs 12.5%; P < 0.001). The median change in XQ score was similar between the two groups (11.9 points vs 14.1 points; P = 0.194). There was a significantly higher median fractional USFR (0.67 vs 0.35; P = 0.024) and SSFR (0.66 vs 0.32; P = 0.021) in the SPLS-IMRT group than the C-IMRT group. The 3-year LRRFS, DMFS, and OS in the SPLS-IMRT and C-IMRT groups were 92.5% vs 90.9%, 83.8% vs 81.7%, and 88.9% vs 88.2% (all P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: SPLS-IMRT significantly reduced the incidence of xerostomia at 12 months post-IMRT in NPC by recovering parotid gland function earlier than C-IMRT, without compromising survivals. Phase III clinical trials are warranted. (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT05020067).
METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed NPC who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to receive either SPLS-IMRT or C-IMRT. The primary endpoint was the incidence of xerostomia at 12 months post-IMRT. The secondary endpoints included the xerostomia questionnaire (XQ) score, unstimulated salivary flow rate (USFR), stimulated salivary flow rate (SSFR), and survival outcomes.
RESULTS: Ninety patients were enrolled. Eighty-two patients were included for xerostomia analysis (42 in the SPLS-IMRT group and 40 in the C-IMRT group). At 12 months post-IMRT, the incidence of xerostomia in the SPLS-IMRT group was significantly lower than that in the C-IMRT group (83.4% vs 95.0%; P = 0.007), especially the grade 3 xerostomia (0% vs 12.5%; P < 0.001). The median change in XQ score was similar between the two groups (11.9 points vs 14.1 points; P = 0.194). There was a significantly higher median fractional USFR (0.67 vs 0.35; P = 0.024) and SSFR (0.66 vs 0.32; P = 0.021) in the SPLS-IMRT group than the C-IMRT group. The 3-year LRRFS, DMFS, and OS in the SPLS-IMRT and C-IMRT groups were 92.5% vs 90.9%, 83.8% vs 81.7%, and 88.9% vs 88.2% (all P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: SPLS-IMRT significantly reduced the incidence of xerostomia at 12 months post-IMRT in NPC by recovering parotid gland function earlier than C-IMRT, without compromising survivals. Phase III clinical trials are warranted. (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT05020067).