术后局限期小细胞肺癌预防性脑照射疗效分析

目的 探讨局限期小细胞肺癌(SCLC)术后行预防性脑照射(PCI)的疗效。方法 回顾分析2003-2015年浙江省肿瘤医院收治的接受根治性手术治疗的52例局限期SCLC患者资料。根据术后是否行PCI治疗分为PCI组(19例,Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ期分别为5、5、9例)和非PCI组(33例,Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ期分别为12、5、16例)。采用Kaplan-Meier法生存分析,Cox模型多因素预后分析。结果 PCI组和非PCI组中位总生存时间分别为32.9、20.4个月,2年总生存率高于非PCI组(72%∶38%,P=0.023);中位颅内无进展生存时间分别为32.5、17.1个月,PCI组2年颅内无进展生存率优于非PCI组(89%∶53%,P=0.026)。亚组分析结果显示PCI治疗可使Ⅲ期患者总生存获益(P=0.031),而Ⅰ、Ⅱ期患者生存获益不显著(P=0.924、0.094)。多因素Cox回归分析结果显示PCI是总生存的影响因素(HR=0.330,P=0.041)。结论 SCLC术后行PCI治疗可降低术后脑转移的发生率,并使SCLC患者总OS获益。     

局限期小细胞肺癌放化疗后局部区域复发模式分析

目的 分析精确放疗技术下局限期小细胞肺癌(SCLC)调强放化疗后局部区域复发模式、复发部位与放化疗关系及影响因素。方法 回顾分析中国医学科学院肿瘤医院于2006-2014年治疗的局限期SCLC患者482例,其中125例治疗局部区域复发,采用Kaplan-Meier生存分析,Logrank法检验差异和单因素分析影响因素,Logistic回归法多因素分析影响因素。结果 全组复发患者的1、2、5年生存率分别为92.0%、46.4%、14.7%,中位生存期23.40个月。中位进展时间12.96个月,复发后的中位生存期为11.50个月,1、2、5年生存率分别为45.0%、23.0%、10.0%。原发灶复发67例(53.6%)、区域淋巴结复发21例(16.8%)、原发灶+区域淋巴结复发28例(22.4%)、对侧纵隔或锁骨上淋巴结复发9例(7.2%),其中位生存期分别为23.96、24.76、23.23、18.66个月,2年生存率分别为49%、52%、46%、11%(P=0.000、0.004、0.008)。6例(4.0%)患者靶区外孤立淋巴结复发,其中5例位于锁骨上区域,1例(0.8%)野外孤立淋巴结复发。结论 局限期SCLC放化疗后局部失败部位主要为肺原发灶,更好的分割剂量和靶区范围需要进一步的临床探索。     

Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌放化综合治疗结果分析

目的 回顾性分析比较Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌放化综合治疗与单纯放疗的临床疗效.方法 对56例Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌的患者纳入分析,治疗方法包括单纯放疗(RT组25例)和放化综合治疗(CRT组31例),放疗均采用常规分割,其中常规放疗29例,三维适形放射治疗(3DCRT)27例.综合治疗采用以顺铂为主的联合化疗方案.结果 化放组和单放组总有效率(CR+PR)分别为83.9%和76%(P=0.75).化放组中位生存期18个月,单放组中位生存期10个月,两组1、2、3年总生存率分别为64.5%、41.3%、37.2%和44.0%、26.7%、13.3%(P=0.048).化放组和单放组2年局部控制率分别为35.0%和13.5%(P=0.077).全组未出现3级以上食道炎及肺炎,毒副反应发生率在不同治疗组间差别无统计学意义.结论 放化综合治疗明显提高Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌的生存率而未增加毒副反应发生率.     

手术治疗小细胞肺癌价值的分析

目的:本研究旨在探讨手术治疗小细胞肺癌(small cell lung cancer, SCLC)的临床价值,并分析其临床特征.方法:回顾性分析2001年1月1日-2007年6月31日接受住院治疗的154例SCLC患者的临床资料.采用Kaplan-Meier曲线和log-rank检验进行生存分析和比较,并应用COX多因素回归分析与生存相关的因素.结果: 154例患者总的中位生存期为16.1个月,1年生存率为60.3%.其中,接受手术者30例(19.5%),未接受手术者124例(80.5%),中位生存期分别为18.3和14.7个月(P>0.05),1年生存率分别为62.8%和63.3%(P>0.05).局限期SCLC接受手术患者的中位生存期(24.4个月)优于未接受手术患者(19.8个月),2组的1年生存率分别为70.0%和68.6%,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).根据WHO TNM分期,Ⅰ期患者的1年生存率为100.0%;Ⅱ期13例患者中有6例接受手术治疗,接受手术与未接受者的中位生存期分别为30.2和26.6个月(P>0.05),1年生存率分别为66.7%和85.7%(P>0.05).病理诊断类型(组织学诊断或细胞学诊断)、临床分期、吸烟史(≥400年支或<400年支)、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(neuron-specific enolase,NSE)(≥20 ng/mL或<20 ng/mL)和癌胚抗原(carcinoembryonic antigen,CEA)(≥5 ng/mL或<5 ng/mL)和生存相关.COX多因素分析发现,吸烟是SCLC的独立预后因素(P=0.003;95%可信区间:1.458～8.060).结论:手术在早期SCLC治疗中具有一定价值,对早期SCLC患者可采取手术结合放化疗的综合治疗措施.     

局限期小细胞肺癌放化疗后局部区域复发模式分析

目的 分析精确放疗技术下局限期小细胞肺癌(SCLC)调强放化疗后局部区域复发模式、复发部位与放化疗关系及影响因素。方法 回顾分析中国医学科学院肿瘤医院于2006-2014年治疗的局限期SCLC患者482例,其中125例治疗局部区域复发,采用Kaplan-Meier生存分析,Logrank法检验差异和单因素分析影响因素,Logistic回归法多因素分析影响因素。结果 全组复发患者的1、2、5年生存率分别为92.0%、46.4%、14.7%,中位生存期23.40个月。中位进展时间12.96个月,复发后的中位生存期为11.50个月,1、2、5年生存率分别为45.0%、23.0%、10.0%。原发灶复发67例(53.6%)、区域淋巴结复发21例(16.8%)、原发灶+区域淋巴结复发28例(22.4%)、对侧纵隔或锁骨上淋巴结复发9例(7.2%),其中位生存期分别为23.96、24.76、23.23、18.66个月,2年生存率分别为49%、52%、46%、11%(P=0.000、0.004、0.008)。6例(4.0%)患者靶区外孤立淋巴结复发,其中5例位于锁骨上区域,1例(0.8%)野外孤立淋巴结复发。结论 局限期SCLC放化疗后局部失败部位主要为肺原发灶,更好的分割剂量和靶区范围需要进一步的临床探索。     

小细胞肺癌脑转移发生时间与预后分析

目的 探讨小细胞肺癌(SCLC)脑转移发生时间与预后的关系。 方法 回顾分析2007-2015年收治的首发远处转移部位为脑的局限期SCLC患者 131例,依据中位无脑转移生存期(BMFS)将病例分为A、B两组,其中BMFS≤10个月为A组(61例),BMFS>10个月为B组(70例)。Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率,Logrank法比较组间差异,Cox模型多因素预后分析。 结果 131例SCLC患者中位总生存期及1、2、3年生存率分别为22.5个月及87.3%、44.7%、20.8%;全组中位脑转移后生存期及1、2年生存率分别为9.3个月及39.3%、14.8%。由于A、B组脑转移后中位生存期相近(分别为8.6、9.3个月,P=0.695),进而对未行预防性脑照射的A、B两组患者进行分析,其脑转移后生存期也相近(P=0.240~0.731)。 结论 SCLC脑转移发生时间与总生存相关,而与脑转移后生存无关,因此着重预防和减少脑转移的发生可能是提高SCLC患者生存的重要手段。     

手术切除不完全的Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌多学科综合治疗的探讨

目的：探讨多学科综合治疗对手术切除不完全的Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌的生存影响。方法：分析46例手术切除不完全的Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌患者（ⅢA32例，ⅢB14例）的远期疗效，比较术后化疗和术后化放疗对生存期的影响。结果：全组的中位生存期，1年，2年和3年生存率分别为15个月，69．6％，26．1％和13．1％；术后化疗组分别为15个月，65．2％，18．2％和9．1％，而术后化放疗组则分别为18．5个月，73．9％，34．8％和17．4％。两组的生存率无显著差别（P＞0．05）。结论：手术切除不完全的Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌经多学科综合治疗后生存率提高；与术后化疗相比，术后化放疗并不能显著延长生存率。     

小细胞肺癌术后放疗的临床意义分析

分析术后放疗在Ⅰ～Ⅲ期小细胞肺癌患者综合治疗中的地位。方法:回顾性分析2000年2月至2009年12月间天津医科大学附属肿瘤医院有完整记录的接受手术治疗的Ⅰ～Ⅲ期小细胞肺癌患者临床资料,分析术后放疗对小细胞肺癌患者预后的影响。采用Kaplan-Meier法及Cox回归模型分析术后放疗的价值。结果:全组患者3年生存率为45.8%,中位生存期为34个月。单因素及多因素分析均显示术后放疗没有显著增加生存率,但是显著降低了局部区域复发率。术后放疗组与未放疗组的3年生存率分别为49.7%和39.3%,中位生存期分别为36个月和30个月（P=0.260）;3年局部区域复发率分别为7.7%和28.8%（P=0.001）。pN0患者术后放疗组与未放疗组3年生存率分别为54.5%和64.3%（P=0.705）,pN1患者分别为53.8%和33.3%（P=0.067）,pN2患者分别为46.7%和22.7%（P=0.141）。结论:术后放疗可明显降低小细胞肺癌术后局部复发率,可能会提高淋巴结阳性患者生存期。建议小细胞肺癌术后淋巴结阳性患者行术后放疗。      

恶性胸膜间皮瘤远期疗效的影响因素分析

背景与目的:恶性胸膜间皮瘤(malignant pleural mesothelioma,MPM)是一种少见的恶性肿瘤,但预后差。本文分析MPM的治疗效果,探讨影响其预后的因素。方法:1988年1月～2001年12月中山大学肿瘤医院收治的经病理组织学或细胞学确诊的MPM24例,其中12例单纯接受以DDP为基础的方案化疗1～6个疗程,7例接受手术治疗和以DDP为基础的术后化疗1～6个疗程,5例接受手术治疗和术后放射治疗。用Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率,用log-rank法比较各组的生存率,应用Cox模型进行多因素分析。结果:24例患者1、3、5年生存率分别为37.5%、20.8%和4.2%,中位生存期9.0个月。单纯化疗组12例患者的1、3、5年生存率分别为16.7%、0和0,中位生存期为5.0个月;手术加化疗组7例患者的1、3、5年生存率分别为28.6%、14.3%和0,中位生存期为10.0个月;手术加放疗组5例患者的1、3、5年生存率分别为100.0%、80.0%和20.0%,中位生存期为42.0个月。3组生存率比较有显著性差异(χ2=11.93,P=0.00)。影响MPM预后的因素有临床分型(P=0.04)和治疗方法(P=0.00)。结论:临床分型和治疗方法是影响MPM预后的独立因素。     

经匹配后放化疗与手术治疗局限期小细胞肺癌预后比较

目的 比较手术与放化疗治疗局限期小细胞肺癌(SCLC)患者的总生存(OS)、无进展生存(PFS)、颅内无进展生存(BMFS)预后差异。方法 收集2000-2016年在浙江省肿瘤医院经手术治疗的局限期SCLC患者 69例,在 503例经根治性放化疗的局限期SCLC数据库中,按照T、N分期,治疗年份,年龄,性别,是否预防性脑照射(PCI)等进行1∶1匹配 69例患者为放化疗组。结果 共纳入 138例患者,手术组 69例(Ⅰ期 24例、Ⅱ期 14例、Ⅲ期 31例),放化疗组 69例(Ⅰ期 24例、Ⅱ期 14例、Ⅲ期 31例)。手术组与放化疗组的中位OS期分别为37.1个月(95%CI为 24.1~50.2个月)和45.0个月(95%CI为 15.8~74.2个月),2、5年OS率分别为60%、45%和64%、45%(P=0.846);中位PFS期分别为27.1个月(95%CI为 0.00~60.3个月)和36.2个月(95%CI为 20.9~51.4个月),2、5年PFS率分别为52%、38%和56%、40%(P=0.610)。2、5年BMFS率分别为80%、76%和84%、80%(P=0.774)。Ⅰ期手术组、放疗组 5年OS率分别为62%、40%(P=0.038),PFS率分别为80%、40%(P=0.048),BMFS率分别为92%、95%(P=0.816)。Ⅱ期手术组、放化疗组 5年OS率分别为41%、51%(P=0.946),PFS率分别为65%、42%(P=0.280),BMFS率分别为75%、78%(P=0.720)。Ⅲ期手术组、放化疗组 5年OS率分别为25%、48%(P=0.220),5年PFS率分别为28%、36%(P=0.333),5年BMFS率分别为76%、74%(P=0.842)。结论 手术治疗可为Ⅰ期患者带来生存获益,Ⅱ期患者两组生存相当,Ⅲ期患者放化疗组有更好生存趋势。最终结论需要更大样本或开展前瞻性研究得出。     

Interstitial high dose-rate brachytherapy: principle, practice and first clinical experiences with a new remote-controlled afterloading system using Ir-192

In our newly developed remote-controlled afterloading system, a single Ir-192-source is moved within hollow stainless steel needles, which are arranged strictly parallel and are uniformly spaced. Dose calculation is performed by an especially designed computer program using geometrical bodies (ellipsoid, cylinder and plane parallel body) as idealized tumor shapes. Reference points for calculation are defined on the surface of the chosen geometrical body. Theoretical base, principles of dosage, handling and first clinical experiences after treatment of 28 patients are presented.     

乳腺癌的新辅助全身治疗

 乳腺癌新辅助全身治疗,是指对某些乳腺癌患者在术前给予其全身性的治疗。术前综合运用化疗、内分泌治疗和靶向治疗可起到降期和提高保乳手术率的独特作用。新辅助化疗已经成为局部晚期乳腺癌的标准治疗方式之一。新辅助条件下,对于特定患者使用芳香化酶抑制剂和曲妥珠单抗治疗的研究也取得了长足进步。     

Neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Surgical resection offers the only hope of cure, though the addition of chemoradiation in the adjuvant setting has been shown to improve survival over surgery alone. Many patients are unable to receive adjuvant therapy due to prolonged postoperative recovery. For this reason, administration of chemoradiation preoperatively (neoadjuvant) has been proposed as an alternative to postoperative treatment. In patients with resectable disease, neoadjuvant therapy results in similar survivals compared to postoperative therapy, with a greater proportion of patients able to complete treatment. For selected patients with borderline or unresectable disease, neoadjuvant therapy offers the potential for tumor downstaging and increasing the likelihood of a margin-negative resection. This article reviews the use of neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.     

Successful treatment of metastatic androgen-independent prostate carcinoma in a transsexual patient

The occurrence of prostate carcinoma in transsexual patients has rarely been reported. These cases present a unique challenge in that such patients are effectively receiving androgen deprivation therapy. By definition, their disease is androgen-independent prostate cancer, and the role of local therapy is undefined. We report on a male-to-female transsexual patient with metastatic prostate cancer treated successfully with combination chemotherapy after previous standard therapy failed.     

Role of radiation therapy in the treatment of melanoma

Melanoma has been widely described as radioresistant but this should not be construed as meaning that melanoma is radioincurable. Many melanoma cell lines are as radiosensitive as other tumors commonly treated successfully with radiotherapy (RT). The use of RT requires careful planning resulting in the administration of a tumoricidal dose to the tumor cells with adequate sparing of normal tissues. RT has been used for primary therapy, postresection adjuvant therapy and palliation of symptomatic melanoma. Curative RT has been given for uveal melanoma yielding patient survival equivalent to enucleation. RT has been administered to patients with unresectable disease yielding relatively favorable results. As an adjuvant therapy postoperatively, RT has been used selectively to improve local disease control. Finally, RT is used successfully as a palliative maneuver for symptoms related to distant metastatic melanoma in patients with incurable disease.     

A randomized phase III study of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy in patients with localized prostate cancer

The primary objective of this randomized trial is to evaluate the benefit of the addition of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy to escalated-dose external-beam radiation therapy in the treatment of patients with intermediate-risk carcinoma of the prostate. A secondary objective of this study is to determine prognostic factors for radiation response. All patients will have tissue oxygenation measured and biopsies taken before treatment at the time of fiducial marker insertion for radiation treatment planning and daily monitoring. In addition, patients randomized to the neoadjuvant bicalutamide arm will be asked to consider having these studies repeated before initiation of radiation therapy (after 3 months of hormonal therapy).     

Comparison of optimized single and multifield irradiation plans of antiproton, proton and carbon ion beams

Background and purpose

Antiprotons have been suggested as a possibly superior modality for radiotherapy, due to the energy released when antiprotons annihilate, which enhances the Bragg peak and introduces a high-LET component to the dose. However, concerns are expressed about the inferior lateral dose distribution caused by the annihilation products.

Methods

We use the Monte Carlo code FLUKA to generate depth-dose kernels for protons, antiprotons, and carbon ions. Using these we then build virtual treatment plans optimized according to ICRU recommendations for the different beam modalities, which then are recalculated with FLUKA. Dose-volume histograms generated from these plans can be used to compare the different irradiations.

Results

The enhancement in physical and possibly biological dose from annihilating antiprotons can significantly lower the dose in the entrance channel; but only at the expense of a diffuse low dose background from long-range secondary particles. Lateral dose distributions are improved using active beam delivery methods, instead of flat fields.

Conclusions

Dose-volume histograms for different treatment scenarios show that antiprotons have the potential to reduce the volume of normal tissue receiving medium to high dose, however, in the low dose region antiprotons are inferior to both protons and carbon ions. This limits the potential usage to situations where dose to normal tissue must be reduced as much as possible.     

Radiation therapy (RT) after prostatectomy: The case for salvage therapy as opposed to adjuvant therapy

Patients with pathologic stage T3 or T4 prostate cancer who have undetectable PSA levels following radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) have a substantial risk of recurrence. Radiotherapy (RT) can be administered immediately following the RRP (immediate adjuvant RT) or may be postponed until the PSA level has risen to a level that is indicative of residual or recurrent prostate cancer (salvage RT). Immediate adjuvant RT can significantly reduce the risk of relapse, but does not appear to increase the rate of survival. Approximately two-thirds of patients with rising PSA levels after RRP can be salvaged with RT alone. This result was achieved in patients treated with an adequate dose of radiation before the PSA rose to > 1.1 ng/ml. While no one can be certain which approach (adjuvant or salvage RT) is better, future studies should examine this issue. Whether immediate postoperative adjuvant RT is of value to patients is the subject of two randomized prospective studies. The benefit of adjuvant RT is a matter of controversy. Salvage RT treats only those patients with proven residual prostate cancer. The salvage RT approach has several advantages. This approach spares approximately 40% of patients who have had an RRP for T3 or T4 prostate cancer and eliminates the risks and costs associated with adjuvant RT. Additionally, it appears that the results of immediate adjuvant RT are similar to those achieved with early salvage RT.