Cargando…

Involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for 239 esophageal cancers: a single institutional retrospective study

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study on early and locally advanced esophageal cancer was conducted to evaluate locoregional failure and its impact on survival by comparing involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy. METHODS: W...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yamashita, Hideomi, Takenaka, Ryousuke, Omori, Mami, Imae, Toshikazu, Okuma, Kae, Ohtomo, Kuni, Nakagawa, Keiichi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554303/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26269033
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0482-9
_version_ 1782388035382411264
author Yamashita, Hideomi
Takenaka, Ryousuke
Omori, Mami
Imae, Toshikazu
Okuma, Kae
Ohtomo, Kuni
Nakagawa, Keiichi
author_facet Yamashita, Hideomi
Takenaka, Ryousuke
Omori, Mami
Imae, Toshikazu
Okuma, Kae
Ohtomo, Kuni
Nakagawa, Keiichi
author_sort Yamashita, Hideomi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This retrospective study on early and locally advanced esophageal cancer was conducted to evaluate locoregional failure and its impact on survival by comparing involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy. METHODS: We assessed all patients with esophageal cancer of stages I-IV treated with definitive radiotherapy from June 2000 to March 2014. Between 2000 and 2011, ENI was used for all cases excluding high age cases. After Feb 2011, a prospective study about IFRT was started, and therefore IFRT was used since then for all cases. Concurrent chemotherapy regimen was nedaplatin (80 mg/m(2) at D1 and D29) and 5-fluorouracil (800 mg/m(2) at D1-4 and D29-32). RESULTS: Of the 239 consecutive patients assessed (120 ENI vs. 119 IFRT), 59 patients (24.7 %) had stage IV disease and all patients received at least one cycle of chemotherapy. The median follow-up time for survivors was 34.0 months. There were differences in 3-year local control (44.8 % vs. 55.5 %, p = 0.039), distant control (53.8 % vs. 69.9 %, p = 0.021) and overall survival (34.8 % vs. 51.6 %, p = 0.087) rates between ENI vs. IFRT, respectively. Patients treated with IFRT (8 %) demonstrated a significantly lower risk (p = 0.047) of high grade late toxicities than with ENI (16 %). IFRT did not increase the risk of initially uninvolved or isolated nodal failures (27.5 % in ENI and 13.4 % in IFRT). CONCLUSIONS: Nodal failure rates in clinically uninvolved nodal stations were not increased with IFRT when compared to ENI. IFRT also resulted in significantly decreased esophageal toxicity, suggesting that IFRT may allow for integration of concurrent systemic chemotherapy in a greater proportion of patients. Both tendencies of improved loco-regional progression-free survival and a significant increased overall survival rate favored the IFRT arm over the ENI arm in this study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4554303
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45543032015-09-01 Involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for 239 esophageal cancers: a single institutional retrospective study Yamashita, Hideomi Takenaka, Ryousuke Omori, Mami Imae, Toshikazu Okuma, Kae Ohtomo, Kuni Nakagawa, Keiichi Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: This retrospective study on early and locally advanced esophageal cancer was conducted to evaluate locoregional failure and its impact on survival by comparing involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy. METHODS: We assessed all patients with esophageal cancer of stages I-IV treated with definitive radiotherapy from June 2000 to March 2014. Between 2000 and 2011, ENI was used for all cases excluding high age cases. After Feb 2011, a prospective study about IFRT was started, and therefore IFRT was used since then for all cases. Concurrent chemotherapy regimen was nedaplatin (80 mg/m(2) at D1 and D29) and 5-fluorouracil (800 mg/m(2) at D1-4 and D29-32). RESULTS: Of the 239 consecutive patients assessed (120 ENI vs. 119 IFRT), 59 patients (24.7 %) had stage IV disease and all patients received at least one cycle of chemotherapy. The median follow-up time for survivors was 34.0 months. There were differences in 3-year local control (44.8 % vs. 55.5 %, p = 0.039), distant control (53.8 % vs. 69.9 %, p = 0.021) and overall survival (34.8 % vs. 51.6 %, p = 0.087) rates between ENI vs. IFRT, respectively. Patients treated with IFRT (8 %) demonstrated a significantly lower risk (p = 0.047) of high grade late toxicities than with ENI (16 %). IFRT did not increase the risk of initially uninvolved or isolated nodal failures (27.5 % in ENI and 13.4 % in IFRT). CONCLUSIONS: Nodal failure rates in clinically uninvolved nodal stations were not increased with IFRT when compared to ENI. IFRT also resulted in significantly decreased esophageal toxicity, suggesting that IFRT may allow for integration of concurrent systemic chemotherapy in a greater proportion of patients. Both tendencies of improved loco-regional progression-free survival and a significant increased overall survival rate favored the IFRT arm over the ENI arm in this study. BioMed Central 2015-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4554303/ /pubmed/26269033 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0482-9 Text en © Yamashita et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Yamashita, Hideomi
Takenaka, Ryousuke
Omori, Mami
Imae, Toshikazu
Okuma, Kae
Ohtomo, Kuni
Nakagawa, Keiichi
Involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for 239 esophageal cancers: a single institutional retrospective study
title Involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for 239 esophageal cancers: a single institutional retrospective study
title_full Involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for 239 esophageal cancers: a single institutional retrospective study
title_fullStr Involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for 239 esophageal cancers: a single institutional retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed Involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for 239 esophageal cancers: a single institutional retrospective study
title_short Involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for 239 esophageal cancers: a single institutional retrospective study
title_sort involved-field radiotherapy (ifrt) versus elective nodal irradiation (eni) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for 239 esophageal cancers: a single institutional retrospective study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554303/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26269033
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0482-9
work_keys_str_mv AT yamashitahideomi involvedfieldradiotherapyifrtversuselectivenodalirradiationeniincombinationwithconcurrentchemotherapyfor239esophagealcancersasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy
AT takenakaryousuke involvedfieldradiotherapyifrtversuselectivenodalirradiationeniincombinationwithconcurrentchemotherapyfor239esophagealcancersasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy
AT omorimami involvedfieldradiotherapyifrtversuselectivenodalirradiationeniincombinationwithconcurrentchemotherapyfor239esophagealcancersasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy
AT imaetoshikazu involvedfieldradiotherapyifrtversuselectivenodalirradiationeniincombinationwithconcurrentchemotherapyfor239esophagealcancersasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy
AT okumakae involvedfieldradiotherapyifrtversuselectivenodalirradiationeniincombinationwithconcurrentchemotherapyfor239esophagealcancersasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy
AT ohtomokuni involvedfieldradiotherapyifrtversuselectivenodalirradiationeniincombinationwithconcurrentchemotherapyfor239esophagealcancersasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy
AT nakagawakeiichi involvedfieldradiotherapyifrtversuselectivenodalirradiationeniincombinationwithconcurrentchemotherapyfor239esophagealcancersasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy