Cargando…

Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors

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: We included 84 consecutive patients who were treated for non-metastatic GC ≥ s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mukai, Yuki, Hayashi, Yuichiro, Koike, Izumi, Koizumi, Toshiyuki, Sugiura, Madoka, Oguri, Senri, Takano, Shoko, Kioi, Mitomu, Sato, Mizuki, Mitsudo, Kenji, Hata, Masaharu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691076/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33243168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07638-y
_version_ 1783614211550609408
author Mukai, Yuki
Hayashi, Yuichiro
Koike, Izumi
Koizumi, Toshiyuki
Sugiura, Madoka
Oguri, Senri
Takano, Shoko
Kioi, Mitomu
Sato, Mizuki
Mitsudo, Kenji
Hata, Masaharu
author_facet Mukai, Yuki
Hayashi, Yuichiro
Koike, Izumi
Koizumi, Toshiyuki
Sugiura, Madoka
Oguri, Senri
Takano, Shoko
Kioi, Mitomu
Sato, Mizuki
Mitsudo, Kenji
Hata, Masaharu
author_sort Mukai, Yuki
collection PubMed
description 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: 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: 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: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7691076
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76910762020-11-30 Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors Mukai, Yuki Hayashi, Yuichiro Koike, Izumi Koizumi, Toshiyuki Sugiura, Madoka Oguri, Senri Takano, Shoko Kioi, Mitomu Sato, Mizuki Mitsudo, Kenji Hata, Masaharu BMC Cancer Research Article 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: 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: 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: 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. BioMed Central 2020-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7691076/ /pubmed/33243168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07638-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mukai, Yuki
Hayashi, Yuichiro
Koike, Izumi
Koizumi, Toshiyuki
Sugiura, Madoka
Oguri, Senri
Takano, Shoko
Kioi, Mitomu
Sato, Mizuki
Mitsudo, Kenji
Hata, Masaharu
Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors
title Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors
title_full Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors
title_fullStr Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors
title_full_unstemmed Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors
title_short Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors
title_sort impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691076/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33243168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07638-y
work_keys_str_mv AT mukaiyuki impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors
AT hayashiyuichiro impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors
AT koikeizumi impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors
AT koizumitoshiyuki impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors
AT sugiuramadoka impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors
AT ogurisenri impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors
AT takanoshoko impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors
AT kioimitomu impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors
AT satomizuki impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors
AT mitsudokenji impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors
AT hatamasaharu impactofsuperselectiveintraarterialandsystemicchemoradiotherapyforgingivalcarcinomaanalysisoftreatmentoutcomesandprognosticfactors