Cargando…

Chemo-radiation with or without mandatory split in anal carcinoma: experiences of two institutions and review of the literature

BACKGROUND: The split-course schedule of chemo-radiation for anal cancer is controversial. METHODS: Eighty-four patients with invasive anal cancer treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy (RT) with a mandatory split of 12 days (52 patients, Montreal, Canada) or without an intended split (3...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oehler, Christoph, Provencher, Sawyna, Donath, David, Bahary, Jean-Paul, Lütolf, Urs M, Ciernik, I Frank
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879246/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20465811
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-5-36
_version_ 1782181909911044096
author Oehler, Christoph
Provencher, Sawyna
Donath, David
Bahary, Jean-Paul
Lütolf, Urs M
Ciernik, I Frank
author_facet Oehler, Christoph
Provencher, Sawyna
Donath, David
Bahary, Jean-Paul
Lütolf, Urs M
Ciernik, I Frank
author_sort Oehler, Christoph
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The split-course schedule of chemo-radiation for anal cancer is controversial. METHODS: Eighty-four patients with invasive anal cancer treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy (RT) with a mandatory split of 12 days (52 patients, Montreal, Canada) or without an intended split (32 patients, Zurich, Switzerland) were reviewed. Total RT doses were 52 Gy (Montreal) or 59.4 Gy (Zurich) given concurrently with 5-FU/MMC. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 40 ± 27 months, overall survival and local tumor control at 5 years were 57% and 78% (Zurich) compared to 67% and 82% (Montreal), respectively. Split duration of patients with or without local relapse was 15 ± 7 d vs. 14 ± 7 d (Montreal, NS) and 11 ± 11 d vs. 5 ± 7 d (Zurich; P < 0.001). Patients from Zurich with prolonged treatment interruption (≥ 7 d) had impaired cancer-specific survival compared with patients with only minor interruption (<7 d) (P = 0.06). Bowel toxicity was associated with prolonged RT (P = 0.03) duration as well as increased relapse probability (P = 0.05). Skin toxicity correlated with institution and was found in 79% (Montreal) and 28% (Zurich) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The study design did not allow demonstrating a clear difference in efficacy between the treatment regimens with or without short mandatory split. Cause-specific outcome appears to be impaired by unplanned prolonged interruption.
format Text
id pubmed-2879246
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28792462010-06-02 Chemo-radiation with or without mandatory split in anal carcinoma: experiences of two institutions and review of the literature Oehler, Christoph Provencher, Sawyna Donath, David Bahary, Jean-Paul Lütolf, Urs M Ciernik, I Frank Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: The split-course schedule of chemo-radiation for anal cancer is controversial. METHODS: Eighty-four patients with invasive anal cancer treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy (RT) with a mandatory split of 12 days (52 patients, Montreal, Canada) or without an intended split (32 patients, Zurich, Switzerland) were reviewed. Total RT doses were 52 Gy (Montreal) or 59.4 Gy (Zurich) given concurrently with 5-FU/MMC. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 40 ± 27 months, overall survival and local tumor control at 5 years were 57% and 78% (Zurich) compared to 67% and 82% (Montreal), respectively. Split duration of patients with or without local relapse was 15 ± 7 d vs. 14 ± 7 d (Montreal, NS) and 11 ± 11 d vs. 5 ± 7 d (Zurich; P < 0.001). Patients from Zurich with prolonged treatment interruption (≥ 7 d) had impaired cancer-specific survival compared with patients with only minor interruption (<7 d) (P = 0.06). Bowel toxicity was associated with prolonged RT (P = 0.03) duration as well as increased relapse probability (P = 0.05). Skin toxicity correlated with institution and was found in 79% (Montreal) and 28% (Zurich) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The study design did not allow demonstrating a clear difference in efficacy between the treatment regimens with or without short mandatory split. Cause-specific outcome appears to be impaired by unplanned prolonged interruption. BioMed Central 2010-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC2879246/ /pubmed/20465811 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-5-36 Text en Copyright ©2010 Oehler et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Oehler, Christoph
Provencher, Sawyna
Donath, David
Bahary, Jean-Paul
Lütolf, Urs M
Ciernik, I Frank
Chemo-radiation with or without mandatory split in anal carcinoma: experiences of two institutions and review of the literature
title Chemo-radiation with or without mandatory split in anal carcinoma: experiences of two institutions and review of the literature
title_full Chemo-radiation with or without mandatory split in anal carcinoma: experiences of two institutions and review of the literature
title_fullStr Chemo-radiation with or without mandatory split in anal carcinoma: experiences of two institutions and review of the literature
title_full_unstemmed Chemo-radiation with or without mandatory split in anal carcinoma: experiences of two institutions and review of the literature
title_short Chemo-radiation with or without mandatory split in anal carcinoma: experiences of two institutions and review of the literature
title_sort chemo-radiation with or without mandatory split in anal carcinoma: experiences of two institutions and review of the literature
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879246/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20465811
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-5-36
work_keys_str_mv AT oehlerchristoph chemoradiationwithorwithoutmandatorysplitinanalcarcinomaexperiencesoftwoinstitutionsandreviewoftheliterature
AT provenchersawyna chemoradiationwithorwithoutmandatorysplitinanalcarcinomaexperiencesoftwoinstitutionsandreviewoftheliterature
AT donathdavid chemoradiationwithorwithoutmandatorysplitinanalcarcinomaexperiencesoftwoinstitutionsandreviewoftheliterature
AT baharyjeanpaul chemoradiationwithorwithoutmandatorysplitinanalcarcinomaexperiencesoftwoinstitutionsandreviewoftheliterature
AT lutolfursm chemoradiationwithorwithoutmandatorysplitinanalcarcinomaexperiencesoftwoinstitutionsandreviewoftheliterature
AT ciernikifrank chemoradiationwithorwithoutmandatorysplitinanalcarcinomaexperiencesoftwoinstitutionsandreviewoftheliterature