非小细胞肺癌脑转移不同放疗方式疗效分析

为了比较不同放疗方式对非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)脑转移的疗效及预后影响因素,回顾性分析97例NSCLC脑转移患者的临床资料.23例接受全脑放疗2周30 Gy/10次(A组);45例接受全脑放疗4周40 Gy/20次(B组);29例接受全脑放疗4周40 Gy/20次,然后局部缩野加量1周10 Gy/5次(C组).A组中住生存时间8.7个月,1年局部控制率为23%;B组中位生存时间8.8个月,1年局部控制率为63%;C组中位生存时间9.2个月,1年局部控制率为84%.3组中位生存时间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但C组1年局部控制率明显高于A组.单因素分析表明,颅外转移及脑转移瘤个数是预后的危险因素;多因素Cox模型分析表明,颅外部位转移是预后的独立危险因素.初步研究结果提示,NSCLC脑转移的预后与颅外转移及脑转移瘤个数有关,颅外转移是影响预后的独立因素.     

87例非小细胞肺癌脑转移三维适形放疗疗效分析

目的:探讨非小细胞肺癌脑转移三维适形放疗联合全脑照射的疗效及预后因素.方法:回顾性分析1997年12月至2003年12月在本院行三维适形放疗的87例非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者的临床资料,所有病例先行全脑照射,然后缩野至局部病灶行三维适形低分割推量照射.用Kaplan-meier法分析局部控制率及生存率,预后多因素分析用COX比例风险模型.结果:中位生存时间为14个月,12个月、24个月生存率分别为53%、20%;6个月、12个月局部控制率分别为99%、93%.多因素分析提示颅脑外活动性病灶(P=0.006)、脑转移灶数量(P=0.035)、转移间隔时间(P=0.040)是独立的生存预后因素.结论:三维适形放疗联合全脑照射可有效控制非小细胞肺癌脑转移灶,不良反应可耐受.     

颅脑放疗联合替莫唑胺治疗非小细胞肺癌脑转移30例

摘 要：［目的］ 观察全脑放疗与全脑放疗联合替莫唑胺治疗非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)脑转移的疗效、生存时间及不良反应。［方法］ 60例NSCLC伴脑转移患者随机分为放射治疗组(放疗组30例)和放射治疗联合化疗组(联合组30例)。放疗组：全脑放疗剂量DT 40Gy/20F/4W。联合组：放疗方法与放疗组相同,放疗同步替莫唑胺治疗剂量为75mg/（m2·d）,d1~28。［结果］ 放疗组和联合组总有效率分别为43.3％(13/30)、63.3％(19/30) (P=0.07);中位生存时间放疗组为4.3个月,联合组为8.5个月(P<0.01)。联合组骨髓抑制和胃肠反应高于放疗组（P＞0.05）。［结论］ 全脑放疗联合替莫唑胺可以作为NSCLC脑转移患者的治疗选择,治疗不良反应可耐受。     

沙利度胺联合全脑放化疗治疗20例非小细胞肺癌脑转移疗效分析

[目的]探讨沙利度胺联合全脑放化疗对晚期非小细胞肺癌脑转移治疗的疗效及毒副作用。[方法]20例晚期非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者,接受全脑放疗DT30～36Gy／20～24F,2-2．5周（加速超分割放疗）,脑单个病灶患者追加每周DT9～15Gy／6～10F,所有患者从放疗开始均口服沙利度胺200mg／d,直至疾病进展或出现不可耐受的毒副反应。全脑放疗15Gy／10F后根据患者的病理类型和一般状况选择不同的化疗方案。[结果]沙利度胺联合全脑放化疗对非小细胞癌脑转移的总有效率（CR＋PR）为70．0％,临床获益率（CR＋PR＋SD）为100％（3例CR,11例PR,6例SD）;口服沙利度胺时间〉6个月者中位生存期与〈6个月者比较差异有统计学意义（14．1个月vs．6．9个月,Х^2=4．615,P〈0．05）;主要毒副反应为轻中度便秘和疲乏,但可耐受。[结论]沙利度胺联合全脑放化疗治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌脑转移有明显的疗效．有必要进一步开展随机对照临床研究,以明确抗血管生成药物联合放化疗对脑转移的作用。     

非小细胞肺癌脑转移高危因素研究进展

非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)脑转移是常见的治疗失败模式,发生脑转移的NSCLC患者中位生存时间仅为1个月-2个月.预防性脑照射(prophylactic cranial irradiation,PCI)可延缓脑转移的发生,但对NSCLC患者的生存获益仍存在争议,因此,...     

基于增强MRI诊断并行全脑放疗的非小细胞肺癌脑转移预后分析

背景与目的肺癌脑转移约占脑转移瘤的20%-40%。本研究旨在探讨基于增强MRI诊断并行全脑放疗的非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)脑转移的预后因素。方法回顾性分析2007年4月-2008年10月241例NSCLC脑转移并接受全脑放疗的病例资料,采用Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率,Log-rank法进行单因素分析,Cox回归分析进行多因素分析。结果中位随访时间为19.1个月,全组中位生存时间为8.7个月。影响NSCLC脑转移生存的单因素包括女性、KPS(karnofsky performance score)>70分、脑转移无症状、胸内病变控制、化疗3周期以上及合并靶向治疗。多因素分析显示性别、随访截止时胸内病变控制状态、靶向治疗是影响NSCLC脑转移生存的独立预后因素。结论对于基于增强MRI诊断并行全脑放疗的NSCLC脑转移患者,性别、胸内病变控制、靶向治疗是影响生存的独立预后因素。     

低剂量替莫唑胺持续用药联合同步全脑放疗治疗非小细胞肺癌脑转移

非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)脑转移的发生率约为20％～40％,是肺癌治疗失败的常见原因,患者的自然中位生存期仅有1个月.药代动力学研究显示,脑转移瘤的病灶区血脑屏障部分或全部破坏[1].另外,全脑放疗也能使血脑屏障不同程度开放[2].我们采用低剂量替莫唑胺(temozolomide,TMZ)持续用药联合同步全脑放疗治疗了42例NSCLC脑转移患者,以探讨该方法的疗效和安全性.     

全脑照射加Vm-26治疗肺癌脑转移临床研究

目的观察Vm-26配合全脑放疗与单纯放疗治疗肺癌脑转移的疗效、生存时间及不良反应。方法将60例肺癌脑转移患者随机分为单纯放疗组(放疗组30例)和放化疗综合组(综合组30例)。放疗组全脑常规放疗40Gy/4周。综合组放疗方法与单纯放疗组相同,放疗第1天开始给药,Vm-2660mg/m2,1次/周。结果放疗组和综合组总有效率分别为80.0%(24/30)和83.3%(25/30)。治疗后中位生存时间放疗组为5.4个月,综合组为7.6个月。两组中位生存时间比较差异有统计学意义,Z=2.365,P=0.0180,综合组骨髓抑制和胃肠反应高于放疗组,但大部分患者能耐受。结论肺癌脑转移患者全脑放疗加Vm-26可以延长生存时间。     

立体定向放射治疗肺癌脑转移疗效分析

目的探讨不同放射治疗方法对肺癌脑转移的疗效.方法176例由病理学证实的肺癌脑转移患者分为4组:单纯全脑放疗(WBRT)组、全脑放疗加立体定向放射外科(WBRT SRS)组、单纯立体定向放射治疗(SRT)组、全脑放疗加立体定向放射治疗(WBRT SRT)组.SRS治疗单次靶区平均周边剂量8～20Gy,总剂量20～32Gy;SRT治疗单次靶区平均周边剂量2～5Gy,总剂量25～60Gy;WBRT1.8～2Gy/次,总剂量30～40Gy.结果四组的局部控制率分别为47.0%、87.7%、86.5%和78.0%;中位生存期分别为5.0,11.0,11.5和10.0个月;局部无进展生存期分别为3.33,8.33,9.33和7.67个月;颅脑无新病灶生存期分别为4.11,8.57,9.03和6.12个月.在死因分析中,WBRT组死于脑转移的比率为57.6%,较其他三组高.而WBRT SRS组的晚期放射反应的发生率为12.2%,较其他组高.结论肺癌单发脑转移瘤患者的最佳治疗方式是单纯立体定向放射治疗,治疗失败后再行挽救性全脑照射或立体定向放疗.对于多发脑转移,全脑放疗加立体定向放射治疗(WBRT SRT)在提高生存率以及减少并发症方面优于其他治疗方法.     

脑转移瘤放射治疗局部推量模式的临床分析

目的探讨全脑放射治疗(WBRT)分别联合调强适形放射治疗(IMRT)与联合立体定向放射治疗(SRT)对非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)1³个脑转移瘤病灶疗效的比较。方法将2010年1月至2011年12月收治的非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者80例,随机分为WBRT加IMRT组(38例)和WBRT加SRT组(42例),以中位生存时间、局部控制率、1年生存率和周围器官受量等作为评价指标,对两种方法进行疗效与组织损伤的评价和比较。结果 WBRT加IMRT组和WBRT加SRT组的中位生存时间分别为10.6月和11.9月(P=0.144);局部率控制分别为73.7%和90.5%(P=0.002);1年生存率分别为68.4%和81.0%(P=0.070);单个转移灶者1年生存率分别为78.6%和90.0%,23个脑转移瘤病灶疗效的比较。方法将2010年1月至2011年12月收治的非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者80例,随机分为WBRT加IMRT组(38例)和WBRT加SRT组(42例),以中位生存时间、局部控制率、1年生存率和周围器官受量等作为评价指标,对两种方法进行疗效与组织损伤的评价和比较。结果 WBRT加IMRT组和WBRT加SRT组的中位生存时间分别为10.6月和11.9月(P=0.144);局部率控制分别为73.7%和90.5%(P=0.002);1年生存率分别为68.4%和81.0%(P=0.070);单个转移灶者1年生存率分别为78.6%和90.0%,2³个脑转移灶者分别为37.5%和55.6%,两种治疗方法差异无统计学意义(P=0.226);脑干最大受量(D max)分别为(275±285)Gy和(17±25)Gy,平均受量(D mean)分别为(144±152)Gy和(9±14)Gy,差异均有统计学意义(均P=0.000)。结论全脑放射治疗后行立体定向放射治疗局部加量能更好地提高病人的局部控制率,对周围组织损伤更小。     

Brain metastases

Opinion statement Metastatic tumors to the brain are an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with systemic cancers. Many new therapies used to treat systemic cancers do not penetrate the central nervous system (CNS) and do not protect patients from the development of brain metastases. Surgery, radiosurgery, and radiation therapy are all used to treat brain metastases. It is in our opinion a mistake to use only one or two of these modalities to the exclusion of other(s). The role of systemic chemotherapy is still limited, due to both the issues of drug delivery caused by the blood brain barrier and to the relative resistance of many of these tumors to chemotherapy. Traditionally, brain metastases have been grouped together regardless of the origin of the tumor and have been treated with a single algorithm. As we encounter more patients for whom treatment of the brain metastases is an important determinant of survival, we must tailor our treatment strategies to individual tumor types. Also, we must recognize differences in each tumor’s sensitivity to chemotherapy and radiotherapy and differences in their biology.     

Brain metastases

The topic of brain metastases has recently become a popular subject for review. The reasons for this most likely include technical advances in therapy, notably radiosurgery, as well as recently-published reports of phase III studies, which have addressed certain aspects of management, notably the combination of surgery and radiotherapy in the treatment of patients with a single metastasis. The main purpose of treatment is to reverse the patient's neurological deficits and prolong life. Nevertheless, opinions remain divided on whether meaningful clinical progress has been achieved overall. A clinician working in a tertiary referral center offering radiosurgery for a selected group of favorable patients may believe that the therapeutic nihilism of the past is no longer warranted, whereas another, whose experience is based on the management of patients dying from metastatic lung cancer, may still question the value of active treatment. The purpose of this review will be to try to reconcile these opinions by providing a critical analysis of the available evidence, identify current problems in management, and suggest future directions for clinical investigation.     

Brain tumors

Brain tumors generally arise as the culmination of a multistep process that involves a variety of genetic abnormalities. Theoretically, replacement of abnormal genes with normal genes is essential to brain tumor treatment. However, it is very difficult to replace all damaged genes. Currently, most clinical protocols for gene therapy in brain tumors include transfer of a gene which can induce tumor cells to die or which can enhance the environment to generate a systemic immune response against the tumor. The former strategy includes suicide gene therapies, tumor suppressor gene therapy and oncolytic virus therapy. The latter adopts immunogene therapy. In this report, we also focus on other gene therapies, such as therapies to control the cell cycle or apoptosis, and promote antiangiogenesis. Gene therapy is generally accepted to be rather safe in recent years. In fact, the current single-gene therapies for brain tumor are limited and probably restricted to a few tumors. Several agents with different mechanisms of action would be necessary to kill heterogenously mixed tumor cells. Further molecular techniques and basic studies may overcome the malignancy of cancers.     

Brain metastases

Opinion statement Brain metastases are an increasingly common complication in patients with systemic cancer. The optimal treatment for each patient depends on careful evaluation of several factors: the location, size, and number of brain metastases; the patient's age, general condition, and neurologic status; and the extent of systemic cancer to name a few. For patients with a single brain metastasis and limited systemic disease, the standard treatment is surgical resection followed by whole brain radiation therapy. In patients with a small, single metastasis, stereotactic radiosurgery is probably comparable to surgery. Patients with several metastases (up to three) and controlled systemic disease can be treated with whole-brain radiation and stereotactic radiosurgery. Patients with multiple metastases (more than three) are generally treated with whole-brain radiation alone. Radiosurgery is effective in treating patients with a limited number of recurrent brain metastases and stable systemic diseases. Surgery may have a role in patients with a large symptomatic recurrent lesion producing mass effect. Reirradiation and chemotherapy may have a limited role in patients with multiple recurrent metastases.     

脑瘤的组胺研究及其临床意义

报告36份脑瘤组织的组胺测定结果,其中包括低恶度及高恶度星形细胞瘤22份,不同亚型脑膜瘤14份;并以10份正常脑组织为对照.结果发现脑瘤组织的组胺含量显著增高,其增高水平与肿瘤的恶性程度明显相关;故认为脑瘤组织的组胺可以作为评估肿瘤恶性程度的生化标志物,而且也为今后进一步研究H_2受体阻断剂治疗脑瘤提供线索及实验依据.     

X刀加全脑常规放疗治疗脑转移瘤

1997年 3月～ 1999年 12月利用JX 10 0X刀系统加全脑放疗共治疗 40例脑转移瘤患者。 2 9例先行全脑常规放疗 35～ 40Gy ,而后行X刀治疗 ;11例X刀治疗后 ,再加全脑放疗。X刀治疗采用单次或分次照射 ,其中单次照射 2 8例 ,处方剂量 16～ 2 2Gy ,平均 19.2Gy ,分次照射 12例 ,分割 2～ 3次 ,处方剂量 6～ 12Gy 次 ,每周 1次 ,总剂量达 2 0～ 30Gy ,平均 2 5 4Gy。全组 40例均获 3～ 2 6个月的随访 ,中位 12个月。 40例患者生存期为 2～ 2 6个月 ,中位 11.5个月 ,其中 36例生存期超过 6个月 ,占 90 % ,2 7例超过 12个月 ,占 67.5 %。 2例超过 2 6个月 ,4例在治疗后 2～ 5个月内死亡 ;治疗后 6个月CT或MRI复查 ,32例病灶明显缩小或消失 ,占 80 %。 3例出现新的转移灶 ,占 7.5 %。 4例无明显变化占10 %。 4例死亡。在随访期间 ,有 2 6例死亡。死亡病例中 ,脑部肿瘤复发或出现新病灶者仅 5例 ,其余病例均因有其他脏器转移或原发肿瘤进展合并脏器衰竭而死亡。结果提示 ,X刀与常规放疗相结合治疗脑转移瘤优于单纯常规放疗。     

Primary Brain Lymphoma

The broad spectrum of C.T. findings in a group of 15 patients with primary brain lymphoma are reviewed. An attempt has been made to emphasize the more typical lesion characteristics, including location, definition, multiplicity and attenuation, both prior to and following contrast administration. Clinical presentation, changing C.T. appearances following radiotherapy and ultimate prognosis are briefly described. Differential diagnoses and their significance for management are discussed.