We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Haematological toxicities are seen in rectal cancer patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with capecitabine.
Aims:
To compare dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters and acute haematological toxicities using RapidArc with or without bone marrow constraints for rectal cancer patients receiving pelvic chemoradiation as part of curative treatment.
Setting and designs:
This is a prospective randomised controlled study including patients with rectal cancer initiated on chemoradiation. Patients were stratified into two arms, bone marrow sparing (BMS) arm and non-bone marrow sparing arm (NBMS).
Materials and methods:
DVH parameters and weekly toxicity data were collected. Grade 2 or more anaemia, leucopenia, neutropenia, or thrombocytopenia, any blood transfusions, colony-stimulating factor injection, platelet transfusions were considered as an event in acute haematological toxicity (HT).
Statistical analysis:
Independent t-test was used to compare quantitative parameters, and Mann–Whitney U-test was used for ordinal parameters between groups.
Results:
A total of 43 patients were enrolled. Bone marrow constraints were achieved without compromising the target coverage. There was a significant reduction in the bone marrow dose with BMS technique (p < 0·05). A 16·7% reduction in the HT (33·3% versus 50%) and a 21·9% reduction in the grade 2 or more anaemia (19% versus 40·9%) were noted in the BMS arm when compared to NBMS arm, though not statistically significant. However, in the preoperative setting, a significant reduction in grade 2/more anaemia (7·1% versus 41·1%, p = 0·035) was noticed in the BMS arm.
Conclusions:
Pelvic BMS radiotherapy may benefit patients receiving chemoradiation for locally advanced carcinoma rectum as part of curative treatment.
To evaluate the efficacy of concurrent chemotherapy and high-dose (≥55 Gy) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (CCIMRT) in comparison with chemotherapy alone and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) alone for unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.
Methods:
Forty-six patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing CCIMRT (n = 17), chemotherapy alone (n = 16) or IMRT alone (n = 13) were analysed. Overall survival (OS), locoregional progression-free survival (LRPFS) and gastrointestinal toxicities were evaluated. The median radiation dose was 60 Gy (range, 55–60) delivered in a median of 25 fractions (range, 24–30). Gemcitabine (GEM) alone, GEM + S-1, S-1 alone, FOLFIRINOX and GEM + nab-paclitaxel were used in CCIMRT and chemo-monotherapy.
Results:
The 1-year OS rate was 69% in the CCIMRT group, 27% in the chemotherapy group and 38% in the IMRT group (p = 0·12). The 1-year LRPFS rate was 73, 0 and 40% in the 3 groups, respectively (p = 0·012). Acute Grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicity (nausea, diarrhea) was observed in 12% (2/17) in the CCIMRT group, 25% (4/16) in the chemotherapy group and 7·7% (1/13) in the IMRT group (p = 0·38). Late Grade 3 gastrointestinal bleeding was observed in 6·3% (1/16) in the chemotherapy group.
Conclusion:
High-dose CCIMRT yielded acceptable toxicity and favorable OS and LRPFS.
Advanced hypopharyngeal carcinoma has a dismal prognosis. The optimal treatment for these patients remains under debate. This systematic review aimed to compare survival following surgical and non-surgical treatments.
Methods:
A systematic review was conducted of randomised studies, with a descriptive analysis of retrospective observational studies.
Results:
Two randomised trials and 11 observational studies were included in the review. A meta-analysis of randomised trials reported a hazard ratio of 0.89 for overall survival in favour of surgical treatment (p = 0.44). Neither treatment was favoured in terms of overall survival. Observational studies did not report a survival advantage with either treatment. The five-year larynx preservation rates for non-surgically treated patients were between 38 and 58 percent.
Conclusion:
Chemoradiotherapy offers similar survivorship compared to surgery in advanced disease, while also making larynx preservation feasible. It can be used as a treatment in all patients as an alternative to surgery.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.