Cargando…

Treatment results for hypopharyngeal cancer by different treatment strategies and its secondary primary- an experience in Taiwan

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment results in our hypopharyngeal cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of three hundred and ninety five hypopharyngeal cancer patients received radical treatment at our hospital; 96% were male. The majority were habitual smokers (88%), a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chang, Morgan Fu-Ti, Wang, Hung-Ming, Kang, Chung-Jan, Huang, Shiang-Fu, Lin, Chien-Yu, Fang, Kang-Hsing, Chen, Eric Yen-Chao, Chen, I-How, Liao, Chun-Ta, Chang, Joseph Tung-Chieh
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958972/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20925962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-5-91
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment results in our hypopharyngeal cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of three hundred and ninety five hypopharyngeal cancer patients received radical treatment at our hospital; 96% were male. The majority were habitual smokers (88%), alcohol drinkers (73%) and/or betel quid chewers (51%). All patients received a CT scan or MRI for tumor staging before treatment. The stage distribution was stage I: 2 (0.5%); stage II: 22 (5.6%); stage III: 57 (14.4%) and stage IV: 314 (79.5%). Radical surgery was used first in 81 patients (20.5%), and the remaining patients (79.5%) received organ preservation-intended treatment (OPIT). In the OPIT group, 46 patients received radiotherapy alone, 156 patients received chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (CT/RT) and 112 patients received concomitant chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT). RESULTS: The five-year overall survival rates for stages I/II, III and IV were 49.5%, 47.4% and 18.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference in overall and disease-specific survival rates between patients who received radical surgery first and those who received OPIT. In the OPIT group, CCRT tended to preserve the larynx better (p = 0.088), with three-year larynx preservation rates of 44.8% for CCRT and 27.2% for CT/RT. Thirty-seven patients developed a second malignancy, with an annual incidence of 4.6%. CONCLUSIONS: There was no survival difference between OPIT and radical surgery in hypopharyngeal cancer patients at our hospital. CCRT may offer better laryngeal preservation than RT alone or CT/RT. However, prospective studies are still needed to confirm this finding. Additionally, second primary cancers are another important issue for hypopharyngeal cancer management.