Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors.
3-dimensional radiation therapy
Chemoradiotherapy
External beam radiation therapy
Gingival carcinoma
Superselective intra-arterial chemoradiotherapy
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Nov 2020
26 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
07
08
2020
accepted:
15
11
2020
entrez:
27
11
2020
pubmed:
28
11
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We compared outcomes and toxicities between concurrent retrograde super-selective intra-arterial chemoradiotherapy (IACRT) and concurrent systemic chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) for gingival carcinoma (GC). We included 84 consecutive patients who were treated for non-metastatic GC ≥ stage III, from 2006 to 2018, in this retrospective analysis (IACRT group: n = 66; SCRT group: n = 18). The median follow-up time was 24 (range: 1-124) months. The median prescribed dose was 60 (6-70.2) Gy (IACRT: 60 Gy; SCRT: 69 Gy). There were significant differences between the two groups in terms of 3-year overall survival (OS; IACRT: 78.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.0-87.6; SCRT: 50.4, 95% CI: 27.6-73.0; P = 0.039), progression-free survival (PFS; IACRT: 75.6, 95% CI: 62.7-85.2; SCRT: 42.0, 95% CI: 17.7-70.9; P = 0.028) and local control rates (LC; IACRT: 77.2, 95% CI: 64.2-86.4; SCRT: 42.0, 95% CI: 17.7-70.9; P = 0.015). In univariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, decreased performance status (PS) and SCRT were significantly associated with worse outcomes (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, clinical stage IV, and SCRT were significantly correlated with a poor OS rate (P < 0.05). Patients with poorer PS had a significantly worse PFS rate. Regarding acute toxicity, 22 IACRT patients had grade 4 lymphopenia, and osteoradionecrosis was the most common late toxicity in both groups. This is the first report to compare outcomes from IACRT and SCRT among patients with GC. ALL therapy related toxicities were manageable. IACRT is an effective and safe treatment for GC.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We compared outcomes and toxicities between concurrent retrograde super-selective intra-arterial chemoradiotherapy (IACRT) and concurrent systemic chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) for gingival carcinoma (GC).
METHODS
METHODS
We included 84 consecutive patients who were treated for non-metastatic GC ≥ stage III, from 2006 to 2018, in this retrospective analysis (IACRT group: n = 66; SCRT group: n = 18).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The median follow-up time was 24 (range: 1-124) months. The median prescribed dose was 60 (6-70.2) Gy (IACRT: 60 Gy; SCRT: 69 Gy). There were significant differences between the two groups in terms of 3-year overall survival (OS; IACRT: 78.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.0-87.6; SCRT: 50.4, 95% CI: 27.6-73.0; P = 0.039), progression-free survival (PFS; IACRT: 75.6, 95% CI: 62.7-85.2; SCRT: 42.0, 95% CI: 17.7-70.9; P = 0.028) and local control rates (LC; IACRT: 77.2, 95% CI: 64.2-86.4; SCRT: 42.0, 95% CI: 17.7-70.9; P = 0.015). In univariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, decreased performance status (PS) and SCRT were significantly associated with worse outcomes (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, clinical stage IV, and SCRT were significantly correlated with a poor OS rate (P < 0.05). Patients with poorer PS had a significantly worse PFS rate. Regarding acute toxicity, 22 IACRT patients had grade 4 lymphopenia, and osteoradionecrosis was the most common late toxicity in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first report to compare outcomes from IACRT and SCRT among patients with GC. ALL therapy related toxicities were manageable. IACRT is an effective and safe treatment for GC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33243168
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07638-y
pii: 10.1186/s12885-020-07638-y
pmc: PMC7691076
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1154Références
Oral Oncol. 2018 Apr;79:71-77
pubmed: 29598953
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Aug;31(4):427-33
pubmed: 12361079
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 May;73(5):994-1002
pubmed: 25795182
Oncology. 2002;62(1):17-24
pubmed: 11810039
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003 Nov;61(11):1289-96
pubmed: 14613085
Oral Oncol. 2009 Apr-May;45(4-5):394-401
pubmed: 18674952
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 May;160(5):870-875
pubmed: 30598048
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Mar;65(3):452-6
pubmed: 17307592
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108
pubmed: 25651787
Strahlenther Onkol. 2014 Feb;190(2):181-5
pubmed: 24264464
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Nov 15;78(4):1011-9
pubmed: 20434273
Oral Oncol. 2010 Dec;46(12):860-3
pubmed: 21050802
Oral Oncol. 2018 Sep;84:20-24
pubmed: 30115471
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Apr;49(3):182-5
pubmed: 20462676
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 Mar 01;17(2):e262-70
pubmed: 22143710
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 Sep;195(9):819-829
pubmed: 31267170
Radiother Oncol. 1997 Aug;44(2):143-7
pubmed: 9288842
Head Neck. 2019 Jun;41(6):1777-1784
pubmed: 30694002