Radiation treatment for cervical esophagus: patterns of practice study in Canada, 1996

Tai, Patricia; Dyk, Jake Van; Yu, Edward; Battista, Jerry; Schmid, M.; Stitt, Larry; Tonita, Jon; Coad, T.

doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(00)00484-3

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A rationale for CCRT is that CT can sensitize tumors to RT by preferentially killing hypoxic cells, inhibiting tumor repopulation, inhibiting the sublethal radiation damage repair, and by improving blood supply and reoxygenation of organ [29]. However, in CEC, local and regional failure rates after CCRT remain high [1,29,30]. Studies with adequate follow-up reported a local relapse rate between 34% and 85% in CEC patients treated with CCRT [4,5,17,18,31,32] suggesting that a more aggressive local approach, such as the use of NAC or higher radiation doses, may be helpful.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes and prognostic factors for patients with cervical esophageal cancer undergoing definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy

Wang

et al. 2019

Bosn J of Basic Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cervical esophageal cancer (CEC) is uncommon, accounting for less than 5% of all esophageal cancers. The management of CEC is controversial. This study investigated treatment outcomes and prognostic factors of survival in CEC patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Ninety-one CEC patients were treated by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) between July 2007 and September 2017. The mean prescription dose was 64 Gy (range 54-70 Gy) delivered as 1.8-2.2 Gy per fraction per day, 5 days a week. Out of 91 patients, 34 received concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT) including 18 patients who also received neoadjuvant CT. Overall survival (OS), locoregional failure-free survival (LRFFS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Prognostic factors of survival were determined in univariate (log-rank test) and multivariate (Cox proportional hazard model) analysis. Treatment-related toxicity was also assessed. Median follow-up time for all patients was 19 months. Two-year OS, LRFFS and PFS of all patients were 58.2%, 52.5% and 48.1%, respectively. Clinical stage was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.03-5.37, p = 0.042), LRFFS (HR = 3.84, 95% CI: 1.38-10.69, p = 0.011), and PFS (HR = 2.68, 95% CI: 1.11-6.45, p = 0.028). Hoarseness was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.05-4.19, p = 0.036). CCRT was independently associated with better LRFFS (HR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.14-0.79, p = 0.012). 3DCRT and IMRT with concurrent CT is well-tolerated and may improve local tumor control in CEC patients. Advanced clinical stage and hoarseness are adverse prognostic factors for OS, LRFFS, and PFS in CEC.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes and prognostic factors for patients with cervical esophageal cancer undergoing definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy

Wang

et al. 2019

Bosn J of Basic Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, the dose per fraction to PTV1 and PTV2 was 2.4 Gy and 1.8 Gy, respectively. To compare with the conventional fractionation (2 Gy/f), we calculated the normalized total dose (NTD) [22,23] that was the biological equivalent dose given in 2 Gy/f by linear-quadratic (LQ) model [31] . The NTD for PTV1 and PTV2 was about 70 Gy and 49 Gy, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of conformal and intensity-modulated techniques for simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of upper esophageal carcinoma

Fu¹,

Wang²,

Zhou³

et al. 2004

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To compare intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with conformal radiotherapy (CRT) by investigating the dose profiles of primary tumors, electively treated regions, and the doses to organs at risk. METHODS:CRT and IMRT plans were designed for five patients with upper esophageal carcinoma. For each patient, target volumes for primary lesions (67.2 Gy) and electively treated regions (50.4 Gy) were predefined. An experienced planner manually designed one CRT plan. Four IMRT plans were generated with the same dose-volume constraints, but with different beam arrangements. Indices including dose distributions, dose volume histograms (DVHs) and conformity index were compared. RESULTS:The plans with three intensity-modulated beams were discarded because the doses to spinal cord were lager than the tolerable dose 45Gy, and the dose on areas near the skin was up to 50Gy. When the number of intensity beams increased to five, IMRT plans were better than CRT plans in terms of the dose conformity and homogeneity of targets and the dose to OARs. The dose distributions changed little when the beam number increased from five to seven and nine. CONCLUSION:IMRT is superior to CRT for the treatment of upper esophageal carcinoma with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). Five equispaced coplanar intensity-modulated beams can produce desirable dose distributions. The primary tumor can get higher equivalent dose by SIB technique. The SIB-IMRT technique shortens the total treatment time, and is an easier, more efficient, and perhaps a less errorprone way in delivering IMRT.Fu WH, Wang LH, Zhou ZM, Dai JR, Hu YM, Zhao LJ. Comparison of conformal and intensity-modulated techniques for simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of upper esophageal carcinoma.

show abstract

“…Indeed, a survey done in Canada yielded different opinions regarding the optimal radiotherapy plan for esophageal carcinoma (12,13).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Is Elective Nodal Irradiation Necessary?

Zhao¹,

Ma²,

Guang³

et al. 2010

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiation treatment for cervical esophagus: patterns of practice study in Canada, 1996

Cited by 9 publications

References 32 publications

Outcomes and prognostic factors for patients with cervical esophageal cancer undergoing definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy

Outcomes and prognostic factors for patients with cervical esophageal cancer undergoing definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy

Comparison of conformal and intensity-modulated techniques for simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of upper esophageal carcinoma

Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Is Elective Nodal Irradiation Necessary?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About