超分割放疗同步化疗治疗Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌

目的 观察超分割放疗结合不同时机化疗治疗Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌的临床疗效.方法 选择Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌患者112例,随机分为放化疗同步治疗组56例(A组)和放疗后化疗的序贯治疗组56例(B组),两组病例均给以超分割放疗(1.2 Gy/次,2次/d,10次/周,总DT 69.6 Gy).同步组(A组)放疗开始的1,5,10,15周给予化疗(顺铂20 mg/m2,第1～5天;足叶乙甙50 mg/m2,第1～5天),化疗4个周期,每4周为1个周期;序贯组(B组)在放射治疗结束后给予4个周期化疗(顺铂100 mg/m2,第1天;足叶乙甙100 mg/m2,第1～3天),每4周为1个周期.结果 同步组和序贯组近期有效率分别为75.0%和57.1%(χ2=2.32,P＜0.05);1,3,4年生存率、中位生存期分别为73.2%、28.6%、10.7%、28个月和66.1%、12.5%、3.6%、19个月,两组中位生存期差异有显著性(t=2.32,P＜0.05),两组患者的生存率差异无显著性.两组患者的毒副反应主要为可逆性骨髓抑制、放射性食管炎和放射性肺炎,两组发生率相似.结论 同步化疗结合超分割放射治疗非小细胞肺癌效果优于超分割放疗后化疗的序贯治疗.     

放疗联合方克顺铂同步或序贯化疗治疗老年晚期食管癌的临床研究

目的 评价放疗联合方克顺铂同步或序贯化疗治疗老年食管癌的疗效及毒副反应.方法 将62例>70岁的老年食管癌随机分成两组:同步放化疗组(31例),放疗第1天即同时开始化疗;序贯放化疗组(31例).人组后先予化疗2个周期,再单独予放疗,放疗结束后再化疗2-3个周期,放疗采用60Co γ线,常规分割放疗,1.8～2.0 Gy/次,5次/周,总剂量64～68 Gy/6～7周完成.结果 同步组和序贯组的有效率分别为93.5%、83.9%,1、3年局部控制率分别为77.4%与67.7%和48.4%与38.7%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(x2=3.02,P>0.05).同步组和序贯组的1、3年生存率分别为74.2%与64.5%和45.2%与32.3%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(x2=2.32,P>0.05).同步组的血液学毒性、放射性食管炎以及放射性肺炎均高于序贯组,多数为 1～2 级.结论 老年晚期食管癌患者同步治疗组较序贯治疗组的疗效提高,生存期延长,毒副反应增加,但患者可以耐受.     

中晚期食管癌TP联合同步或序贯放疗的临床对照研究

目的:观察TP联合同步放疗与序贯放疗治疗Ⅱ~Ⅲ期食管癌的疗效和毒副作用,并进行民族间差异比较。方法:选取2006-12-01-2009-12-31我院171例中晚期食管癌患者,随机分为同步放化疗组86例和序贯放化疗组85例,均采用三维适形放疗或调强放疗联合TP(多西他赛+顺铂/卡铂)方案化疗。结果:同步组和序贯组的近期有效率分别为73.26%和65.88%,差异无统计学意义,χ2=1.089,P=0.295。同步组和序贯组的1年生存率为77.91%和61.18%,2年生存率为65.12%和47.06%,3年生存率为41.86%和31.76%,差异有统计学意义,χ2=5.098,P=0.024。亚组分析显示,同步组和序贯组汉族1年生存率分别为82.98%和71.11%,少数民族组为71.79%和50.00%,汉族2年生存率分别为68.09%和57.78%,少数民族组为61.54%%和35.00%,汉族3年生存率分别为53.19%和42.22%,少数民族组为28.21%和20.00%,汉族组高于少数民族组,但仅在序贯组中差异有统计学意义,χ2=8.325,P=0.016;1、2和3年生存率中,汉族组(χ2=3.549,P=0.049)和少数民族组(χ2=3.955,P=0.039)的同步组均高于序贯组,差异有统计学意义。两组患者毒副作用主要表现为放射性食管炎、血液毒性和恶心、呕吐等胃肠道症状,同步组的发生率较序贯组高,但仅血液学毒性(χ2=12.74,P=0.013)和胃肠道症状(χ2=10.47,P=0.033)差异有统计学意义,且均可耐受;上述毒副作用在汉族组中的发生率高于少数民族组,差异均有统计学意义,P值均<0.05。结论:TP联合同步放疗较序贯放疗可提高中晚期食管癌的远期生存率,疗效和毒副作用在不同民族间存在差异,毒副作用可耐受。     

三维适形放疗同步化疗局限期小细胞肺癌的临床研究

目的比较三维适形放疗同步化疗和序贯化放疗治疗局限期小细胞肺癌的疗效及副作用。方法65例局限期小细胞肺癌患者被随机分成三维适形放疗加同步化疗组（同步组,33例）和化疗后再放疗组（序贯组,32例）。同步组在化疗的第1周期开始放疗,序贯组化疗4～6个周期后再进行放疗。两组患者均接受三维适形放疗,1次/d,2 Gy/次,5次/周,共25～32次,总剂量50～62 Gy。照射野包括原发病灶和转移淋巴结。化疗方案均为EP方案。结果同步组和序贯组的近期有效率分别为100%和91%,其中CR率分别为33%和9%（P=0．006）。同步组和序贯组的1、2年生存率分别为80%、66%和73%、33%（P=0．041）。同步组和序贯组局部复发率分别为9%和31%,同步组低于序贯组（P=0．026）。两组患者的毒副反应均以白细胞减少、放射性食管炎和放射性肺炎为主。同步组1～2级放射性食管炎、放射性肺炎发生率分别为79%、82%与序贯组的75%、78%相仿（P＞0．05）。无3、4级放射性食管炎和放射性肺炎。3～4级血液反应发生率同步组和序贯组分别为9%和13%（P＞0．05）。结论三维适形放疗加同步化疗局限期小细胞肺癌有较好疗效,是一种安全有效的治疗手段,值得进一步研究。     

1257例食管鳞癌三维放疗+化疗的临床研究

目的 比较食管癌3DRT+化疗与单纯放疗的疗效。方法 回顾分析2003—2012年本院收治符合入组条件的食管鳞癌患者1257例,3DRT+化疗(放化疗组)362例,单纯放疗(单放组)895例。观察全组患者近期疗效、OS率及死亡原因。Kaplan-Meier法计算OS率并Logrank法检验和单因素预后分析。结果 放化疗组与单放组的有效率分别99.1%(346/349)与99.0%(813/821)(P=0.397)。1、3、5年OS率放化疗组与单放组分别为74.0%、42.0%、32.9%与65.9%、33.0%、23.3%(P=0.000),同期放化组与单放组分别为75.6%、43.5%、33.2%与65.9%、33.0%、23.3%(P=0.000)。同期放化组与序贯放化组相近(P=0.583),序贯放化疗组较单放组有提高OS率趋势(P=0.065)。两组主要死因均为肿瘤复发和未控,其次为远处转移。放化疗组死于未控比例低于单放组(7.4%∶14.7%,P=0.003)。结论 放化疗组OS明显优于单放组;序贯放化疗组较单放组有提高OS率趋势,同期放化组较单放组OS率明显提高;放化疗组死于未控比例要低于单放组。     

局限期小细胞肺癌调强适形放疗同步化疗的临床研究

目的:观察分析调强适形放疗同步化疗与序贯放化疗治疗局限期小细胞肺癌的疗效、毒副反应及生活质量。方法:45例局限期小细胞肺癌患者被随机分成精确放疗加同步化疗组(同步组,23例)与化疗后再放疗组(序贯组,22例)。同步组在化疗的第1个周期开始放疗,序贯组化疗4～6个周期后再进行放疗。两组患者化疗方案均为EP方案,均接受精确放疗,1次/d,(1.8～2.0)Gy/次,5次/周,共28～31次,总剂量50.4～62.0Gy。照射野包括原发病灶和转移淋巴结。结果:同步组和序贯组原发病灶总有效率为95%和86%;12和18个月生存率分别为84%、69%和76%、34%。两组患者的毒副反应均以急性骨髓抑制、放射性食管炎及放射性肺炎为主。同步组Ⅰ～Ⅱ级放射性食管炎和放射性肺炎发生率分别为78%和86%,与序贯组的73%和81%近似。Ⅲ～Ⅳ级急性骨髓抑制发生率同步组和序贯组分别为8%、9%。生活质量QOL评分同步组和序贯组治疗前后差异无统计学意义。结论:调强适形放疗同步化疗局限期小细胞肺癌有较好的疗效,毒副反应为绝大多数患者耐受且生活质量无明显下降,但值得进一步研究。     

放疗联合方克顺铂同步或序贯化疗治疗老年晚期食管癌的临床研究

目的评价放疗联合方克顺铂同步或序贯化疗治疗老年食管癌的疗效及毒副反应。方法将62例〉70a的老年食管癌病人随机分成两组,同步放化疗组（31例）：放疗d1即同时开始化疗;序贯放化疗组31例：入组后先予化疗2个周期,再单独予放疗,放疗结束后再化疗2～3个周期,放疗采用6～Coy常规分割放疗,1．8～2．0Gy／次,5次／wk,总剂量64～68Gy／6～7wk完成。结果同步组和序贯组的有效率分别为93．6％、83．9％,1a、3a局部控制率分别为77．4％与67．7％和48．4％与38．7％,两组比较差异无统计学意义（χ^2=3．02,P=0．065）。同步组和序贯组的1a、3a生存率分别为74．2％与64．5％和45．1％与32.3％,两组比较差异无统计学意义（χ^2=2．32,P=0．073）。同步组的血液学毒性、放射性食管炎以及放射性肺炎均高于序贯组,多数为1以级。结论老年晚期食管癌病人同步治疗组较序贯治疗组的疗效提高,生存期延长,毒副作用增加,但病人可以耐受。     

同步放化疗和单纯放疗治疗ⅡB～ⅢB期宫颈癌的疗效比较

背景与目的:同步放化疗已成为局部晚期宫颈癌的标准治疗模式,但对于放疗联合何种方案的化疗效果最佳,目前尚无一致意见.本研究中我们比较同步放化疗与单纯放疗,以及同步放化疗不同化疗方案的疗效及毒副反应.方法:2003年1月至2004年12月江西省妇幼保健院收治的符合人组标准的ⅡB～ⅢB期宫颈癌患者285例,按住院序号随机分为单纯放疗组142例,同步放化疗组143例.同步放化疗组又按化疗方案不同分为:BP(博来霉素 顺铂)方案同步放化疗51例,TP(紫杉醇 卡铂)方案同步放化疗47例,FP(氟尿嘧啶 顺铂)方案同步放化疗45例.比较单纯放疗组与同步放化疗组患者的3年生存率和不良反应,同时对同步放化疗三种不同化疗方案组的3年生存率及不良反应进行比较.结果:全组中位随访时间为42个月,单纯放疗组与同步放化疗组的3年生存率分别为65%和75%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P=0.042).单纯放疗组Ⅲ～Ⅳ度急性毒副反应低于同步放化疗组(P<0.001),迟发性毒副反应两组差异无统计学意义(P=0.613).同步放化疗组BP方案、TP方案、FP方案的3年生存率分别为74%、80%和71%,三组间比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.792).三组Ⅲ～Ⅳ度急性及迟发性毒副反应发生率相似.结论:与单纯放疗相比,同步放化疗可明显提高ⅡB～ⅢB期宫颈癌患者的疗效.在同步放化疗三种不同的化疗方案中,紫杉醇联合卡铂方案组患者3年生存率略高于其他两种化疗方案,毒副反应可耐受,值得进一步研究.     

放疗联合吉西他滨加顺铂化疗序贯治疗中晚期鼻咽癌的临床研究

目的:评价吉西他滨+顺铂(DDP)联合放疗序贯治疗中晚期鼻咽癌疗效及其毒副反应。方法:首诊中晚期(Ⅲ、ⅣA)鼻咽癌患者240例,随机分为3组。实验组采用常规放疗联合GP化疗方案序贯治疗(GP+RT:GP化疗方案为吉西他滨800 mg/m2,d1,d8;DDP 20 mg/m2,d1~d3,每4周重复,共4个周期,并行常规放疗);对照1组采用同期放化疗(CT:放疗期间行化疗DDP 20 mg/m2,d1,每周1次,共6周;放疗结束后再行常规DDP+5-FU辅助化疗2个周期,即DDP 20 mg/m2,5-FU 500 mg/m2,d1~d5,每4周1个周期)。对照2组采用常规放疗联合PF化疗方案序贯治疗(PF+RT:5-FU 500 mg/m2,DDP 20 mg/m2,d1~d5,每4周1个周期,共4个周期)。评价3组病例近远期疗效及毒副反应。结果:经GP+RT序贯治疗后鼻咽及颈部病灶CR 98.8%(79/80),而同期放化疗组、PF+RT组分别为91.3%(73/80)、93.8%(75/80)。GP方案化疗的主要毒副反应为血小板及白细胞减少。所有病例随访均>3年。1、1~3及3年生存率、无瘤生存率和无远处转移率GP+CT组最高;PF+RT组次之;同期放化疗组较差。GP+DT组病例复发率及转移率则较其他2组低。结论:吉西他滨+顺铂化疗联合放疗序治疗中晚期鼻咽癌近远期疗效确切,值得临床一线应用。     

调强放疗联合奈达铂单药与PF方案治疗局部晚期子宫颈癌的疗效比较

目的 探讨调强放疗联合奈达铂单药用于局部晚期子宫颈癌同步化疗与PF方案同步化疗的近期临床疗效及不良反应.方法 对62例局部晚期子宫颈癌患者均采用盆腔外照射调强放疗和腔内后装治疗的放疗方案,放疗期间随机分为两组同步化疗:单药奈达铂方案组(N组)32例,5-氟尿嘧啶加顺铂方案组(PF组)30例,比较2种方案的近期疗效和不良反应.结果 62例患者全部完成同步放化疗.N组CR率为93.8％,PF组为93.3％ (P ＞0.05).N组和PF组有效率均为100.0％ (P ＞0.05).两组主要不良反应有骨髓抑制、胃肠道反应、肾毒性反应.其中N组和PF组Ⅲ度以上白细胞减少发生率分别为6.3％和20.0％,Ⅲ度以上血小板减少发生率分别为3.1％和10.0％,Ⅲ度以上胃肠道反应发生率分别为6.3％和23.3％,差异均有统计学意义(均P＜0.05).结论 调强放疗联合单药奈达铂同步放化疗与PF方案同步放化疗,均能提高子宫颈癌患者近期疗效,不良反应均可以耐受;2种化疗方案疗效相近;单药奈达铂同步放化疗不良反应较轻,患者更易耐受.     

Paradigms in chemoradiotherapy

The efficacy of radiation in locally advanced non- small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is limited. In a search for improving the outcome, particular attention has focused on the possibility of combining radi- ation with chemotherapy. The two most frequently used combined modality strategies include induction chemotherapy (chemotherapy preceding radiation) and concurrent chemoradiation. The former allows for drug delivery in full doses and in principle aims at a reduction of micrometastatic disease, whereas the latter is believed to improve locoregional control by making tumour cells more vulnerable to radiotherapy. The results of phase III trials of induction chemo- therapy were equivocal; nevertheless, three large trials using platinum-based regimens demonstrated significant survival benefit. The role of single agent platinum compounds (believed to be radiosensitising agents) applied concurrently with radiotherapy is controversial. Improved survival with this strategy was demonstrated in two studies, but several other studies were negative. Concurrent application of multidrug platinum-based chemotherapy in conventional sched- ules has been found relatively toxic yet feasible in selected patients. The direct comparison of sequential versus concurrent use of chemotherapy and radiation demonstrated the superiority of the latter, but at the expense of higher acute in-field toxicity. More recently, several new agents, including taxanes, vinorelbine and gemcitabine, have appeared promising in NSCLC. Their role in combined modality regimens warrants further clinical research. Chemotherapy as an adjunct to radiation has become a standard in fit patients with locally advanced NSCLC. The gain from the combined modality approach, however, is modest on average and should be weighted against increased early and late toxicity. Further studies built upon recent positive results should focus on identifying the means of optimal interactions between the two modalities. This research should define the most effective types and doses of anti-cancer agents as well as the optimal features of radiotherapy. Additionally, the knowledge of the biological characteristics of individual tumours, in particular their expected response to therapy, may contribute to further progress.     

Rationale for chemoradiotherapy

The rationale for combining chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) is based mainly on two ideas, one being spatial cooperation and the other the enhancement of radiation effects. Spatial cooperation is effective if CT is sufficiently active to eradicate subclinical metastases and if the primary local tumor is effectively treated by RT. In this regard, no interaction between RT and CT is required, but differing toxicities are needed so that both modalities can be used at effective dosages. To enhance RT by CT, five major mechanisms of CT-RT interactions are required. CT can enhance RT effects by: (1) direct enhancement of the initial radiation damage by incorporating drugs into DNA, (2) inhibiting cellular repair, (3) accumulating cells in a radiosensitive phase or eliminating radioresistant phase cells, (4) eliminating hypoxic cells, or (5) inhibiting the accelerated repopulation of tumor cells. However, virtually all chemotherapeutic agents enhance radiation damage to normal tissues as well. Consequently, therapeutic benefits are only achieved if the enhanced tumor response is greater than that for normal tissues. Due to the complex interaction between CT and RT, the sequence of CT and RT is important. Clinical results of induction CT followed by RT are disappointing, and improvements in local control rates of RT by induction CT have not been observed. On the other hand, clinical trials, including metaanalyses, have clearly shown that CT given concurrently with RT results in improved local control and survival. Although acute toxicities are inevitably increased in concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT), no significant increases in late toxicities were reported in most clinical trials. Thus, a therapeutic benefit was observed with the use of concurrent CRT.     

Alternating chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer

To evaluate the usefulness of chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer, we retrospectively analyzed disease-free survival (DFS) and acute toxicities of the patients treated with this therapy. Between 1990 and 1998, 15 patients were treated with alternating chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Chemotherapy (CT) mainly consisted of 5-fluorouracil 700 mg/m2 (i.v.) on days 1-5 and nedaplatin 100-140 mg/m2 (i.v.) on day 6. Chemotherapy was administered before the beginning of radiotherapy. One cycle of this treatment consisted of CT and a subsequent 27 to 36 Gy of radiotherapy, as a general rule, two cycles were performed. Radiotherapy was delivered in single daily fractions of 1.8 to 2 Gy, to a total dose of 54 to 75 Gy for local lesions and 45 to 86.3 Gy for nodal metastases in the neck. As a historical control, 52 patients treated with curative radiotherapy between 1971 and 1990 were analyzed and compared with the CRT group in terms of DFS. The complete response rate with CRT was 100%. The three-year DFS were 87% and 38% with CRT and RT, respectively. There was a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.0081). The most frequent and severe acute toxicity was mucositis, with grade 3-4 occurring in 47%. Acute hematologic toxicities were mild. Therefore, this CRT is considered to be an effective and tolerable treatment, and is expected to improve survival for oropharyngeal cancer patients.     

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma

The clinical results of definitive chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma were retrospectively analyzed. Thirty-one patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma who received definitive radiation therapy between January 1986 and June 1998 were analyzed. The median age was 61 years. All patients had squamous cell carcinoma. According to the Union International Contre le Cancer 1997 classification system, stage I, II, III, IVA, and IVB were 1,0, 9, 14, and 7, respectively. Regarding the primary site, 23 tumors were in the lateral wall, whereas 2 were in the superior wall, and 3 each were in the anterior and posterior walls. The median total dose was 66 Gy, with a range of 60 Gy to 74.4 Gy. The overall treatment time ranged from 39 days to 113 days, with a median of 50 days. Seven patients underwent hemilateral radical neck dissection. Fourteen patients received concurrent chemotherapy using weekly cisplatin (50 mg/d) at least three times. The 5-year overall and cause-specific survival (CSS) rates were 55% and 62%, respectively. All local recurrences occurred within 2 years. The CSS rate in patients with lateral or superior wall origin was significantly superior to that of patients with anterior or posterior wall origin (p < 0.05). The 3-year CSS rate was 83% for patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy using weekly cisplatin at least 3 times, whereas that was 53% for the remaining patients (p < 0.05). No serious adverse effects were observed. It is concluded that definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy using weekly cisplatin for oropharyngeal carcinoma appear promising.     

食管癌放化疗研究进展

国外对食管癌同时放化疗已有了肯定的临床结果。为了更好地提高疗效，人们更多地在研究术前同时放化疗后加手术的治疗方法，有些研究应用加速超分割放疗联合化疗治疗食管癌也获得了初步结果。     

Postoperative chemoradiotherapy for cerebral glioblastoma

We developed a new method of accelerated chemoimmunoradiotherapy for cerebral glioblastoma and evaluated the immediate effects. A single focal dose of 3Gy was administered once a day 5 times a week until the total focal dose of 51 Gy was reached. Chemoradiotherapy was followed by a course of biotherapy with recombinant interleukine-2 (roncoleukine). On administering a total dose of 10 million units, a course of chemoimmunotherapeutic support was given after a 2-week break. Vincristine 1 mg was injected on day 1 and nitrosourea preparations (lomustine 160 mg or carmustine 100 mg) on day 2. Later on, the same regimen of roncoleukine was used. Our method was followed by longer survival as compared with standard treatment (control) and use of incomplete course chemoimmunotherapy.     

食管癌放化疗研究进展

国外对食管癌同时放化疗已有了肯定的临床结果。为了更好地提高疗效,人们更多地在研究术前同时放化疗后加手术的治疗方法,有些研究应用加速超分割放疗联合化疗治疗食管癌也获得了初步结果。     

Improving chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer

The optimal management of rectal cancer remains a major challenge for oncologists. The treatment of stage II/III rectal cancer has historically been associated with a high risk of local recurrence and poor survival, which led to the development of adjuvant treatments in the hope of improving outcomes. The approach to adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer currently varies widely between Europe and the U.S. Postoperative adjuvant chemoradiation is the standard of care in the U.S. In contrast, in Europe, because there is a greater emphasis placed on preoperative imaging, meticulous surgical technique, and accurate pathologic reporting of the circumferential or radial margin, preoperative treatment (radiotherapy and chemoradiation) is used widely. The aims of preoperative radiotherapy and chemoradiation are to facilitate a curative resection (R0) and to increase the chance of performing sphincter-sparing procedures, and, therefore, to improve both survival and quality of life. This article reviews the clinical trials that led to these diverging standards of care. An interesting new approach in chemoradiation is the use of the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine as a combination partner for radiotherapy. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that the combination of capecitabine and radiotherapy has highly enhanced antitumor activity. This is most likely attributable to the upregulation of thymidine phosphorylase (the rate-limiting enzyme needed to convert capecitabine to 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]) in tumor cells following radiotherapy. A phase I study has consequently been performed to establish a feasible chemoradiotherapy combination. Capecitabine has the potential to replace bolus or continuous infusion 5-FU as the standard treatment for rectal cancer and offers a potentially enhanced therapeutic ratio. Oral chemotherapy has the additional advantage of simplifying chemoradiation and providing a treatment that is more appealing to patients.