JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2026
Proton Beam vs Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in Olfactory Neuroblastoma.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Tang Anthony, Adida Samuel, Donohue Jack, Olson Brennan, Krippaehne Elise, Roozdar Pooya, Goetschel Kaitlin, Gago Guilherme, Almeida Joao Paulo, Champagne Pierre-Olivier, Fernandez-Miranda Juan C, Gardner Paul, Hwang Peter H, Nayak Jayakar V, Patel Chirag, Patel Zara M, Celda Maria Peris, Pinheiro-Neto Carlos, Routman David M, Sanusi Olabisi, Snyderman Carl H, Thorp Brian D, Van Gompel Jamie J, Zenonos Georgios A, Zwagerman Nathan T, Wilke Christopher, Wang Eric W, Geltzeiler Mathew, Choby Garret
Аннотация
IMPORTANCE: Adjuvant radiotherapy can improve locoregional control and survival in patients with olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB), particularly with advanced-stage and histologic-grade disease. Standard radiotherapy treatment is with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Proton beam radiotherapy (PBRT) provides theoretical advantages in greater sparing of dose to uninvolved organs at risk.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if there are differences in the effectiveness and radiation treatment-related adverse events (RTAEs) between adjuvant IMRT and PBRT for patients with ONB.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This propensity score-matched cohort study included patients with ONB treated between February 2005 and April 2021 with either IMRT or PBRT at 9 academic tertiary care centers in North America. Patients were matched 1:2 based on age, modified Kadish stage, and Hyams grade. Data were analyzed from July 2024 to January 2025.
EXPOSURE: Adjuvant IMRT or adjuvant PBRT.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Local recurrence-free survival (RFS), any RFS, and overall survival (OS). RTAEs, ie, grade 2 events or higher based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, were recorded for both modalities.
RESULTS: Of 54 included patients, 27 (50%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 46.2 (15.4) years. A total of 18 were treated with PBRT and 36 were treated with IMRT. Most patients had modified Kadish stage C disease (33 of 54 [61%]), and 24 patients (44%) had Hyams grade III or IV disease. The RTAE rate was 20% (8 of 40); IMRT had a rate of 21% (6 of 29), and PBRT had a rate of 18% (2 of 11). The difference in the point estimates for 10-year RFS showed a potential clinical benefit favoring IMRT, although the wide confidence interval indicates uncertainty (10-year RFS: IMRT, 63.3%; 95% CI, 44.6-89.8; PBRT, 37.8%; 95% CI, 14.2-100; difference, 25.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.6 to 68.6). There were no clinically meaningful differences in 10-year local RFS (IMRT, 75.6%; 95% CI, 59.8-95.4; PBRT, 72.7%; 95% CI, 45.2-100; difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -35.9 to 41.7) or 10-year OS (IMRT, 61.8%; 95% CI, 42.8-89.1; PBRT, 57.1%; 95% CI, 24.3-100; difference, 4.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -49.2 to 58.6), although wide confidence intervals indicate considerable uncertainty.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Due to the imprecision of estimates, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding the comparative effectiveness of IMRT vs PBRT for patients with ONB. These preliminary data may inform the design of appropriately powered prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of PBRT vs IMRT in this population.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if there are differences in the effectiveness and radiation treatment-related adverse events (RTAEs) between adjuvant IMRT and PBRT for patients with ONB.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This propensity score-matched cohort study included patients with ONB treated between February 2005 and April 2021 with either IMRT or PBRT at 9 academic tertiary care centers in North America. Patients were matched 1:2 based on age, modified Kadish stage, and Hyams grade. Data were analyzed from July 2024 to January 2025.
EXPOSURE: Adjuvant IMRT or adjuvant PBRT.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Local recurrence-free survival (RFS), any RFS, and overall survival (OS). RTAEs, ie, grade 2 events or higher based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, were recorded for both modalities.
RESULTS: Of 54 included patients, 27 (50%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 46.2 (15.4) years. A total of 18 were treated with PBRT and 36 were treated with IMRT. Most patients had modified Kadish stage C disease (33 of 54 [61%]), and 24 patients (44%) had Hyams grade III or IV disease. The RTAE rate was 20% (8 of 40); IMRT had a rate of 21% (6 of 29), and PBRT had a rate of 18% (2 of 11). The difference in the point estimates for 10-year RFS showed a potential clinical benefit favoring IMRT, although the wide confidence interval indicates uncertainty (10-year RFS: IMRT, 63.3%; 95% CI, 44.6-89.8; PBRT, 37.8%; 95% CI, 14.2-100; difference, 25.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.6 to 68.6). There were no clinically meaningful differences in 10-year local RFS (IMRT, 75.6%; 95% CI, 59.8-95.4; PBRT, 72.7%; 95% CI, 45.2-100; difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -35.9 to 41.7) or 10-year OS (IMRT, 61.8%; 95% CI, 42.8-89.1; PBRT, 57.1%; 95% CI, 24.3-100; difference, 4.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -49.2 to 58.6), although wide confidence intervals indicate considerable uncertainty.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Due to the imprecision of estimates, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding the comparative effectiveness of IMRT vs PBRT for patients with ONB. These preliminary data may inform the design of appropriately powered prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of PBRT vs IMRT in this population.