Display options
Share it on

Onco Targets Ther. 2017 Aug 17;10:4081-4088. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S139571. eCollection 2017.

CT-guided .

OncoTargets and therapy

Lina Tong, Ping Liu, Bin Huo, Zhi Guo, Hong Ni

Affiliations

  1. Department of Interventional Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
  2. Department of Oncology, The Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.

PMID: 28860816 PMCID: PMC5566505 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S139571

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical efficacy of computed tomography (CT)-guided

METHODS: From March 2011 to December 2015, 35 pelvic recurrent lesions (33 patients) were reirradiated using this type of salvage therapy. The medical history, dose-volume histogram parameters, complications, local control, overall survival (OS), and affected factors were analyzed.

RESULTS: All patients were followed-up until expiration, and the median duration of follow-up was 16 months. The 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month local control rates were 84.5%, 74.2%, 60.0%, 55.5%, and 33.3%, respectively. The symptoms significantly improved after implantation. The median local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and OS times were 7 months (range, 1-19 months) and 12 months (range, 2-42 months), respectively. The 1- and 2-year OS rates were 65.5% and 43.6%, respectively. In univariate analysis, a good performance status, a tumor diameter <4 cm, an interval time from last radiotherapy to seed implantation longer than 6 months and D90 (dose delivered to 90% of the target volume) ≥130 Gy were prognostic factors for LTPFS. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that tumor size and D90 were independent factors affecting LTPFS (

CONCLUSION: Reirradiation with CT-guided

Keywords: 125I seed; brachytherapy; cervical cancer; recurrent

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  1. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998 Oct 1;42(3):545-50 - PubMed
  2. Cancer. 1991 May 15;67(10):2467-71 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 1;27(7):1069-74 - PubMed
  4. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 20;23(21):4626-33 - PubMed
  5. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Mar 15;58(4):1298-308 - PubMed
  6. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28(6):435-41 - PubMed
  7. J Neurooncol. 2016 Oct;130(1):123-131 - PubMed
  8. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Nov;95 Suppl 1:S43-103 - PubMed
  9. Radiat Oncol. 2013 Apr 08;8:80 - PubMed
  10. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Mar 1;52(3):806-15 - PubMed
  11. Lancet Oncol. 2006 Oct;7(10):837-47 - PubMed
  12. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2009 Dec;36(13):2495-501 - PubMed
  13. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Dec;139(3):553-8 - PubMed
  14. J Nucl Med. 2007 Oct;48(10):1683-91 - PubMed
  15. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994 Mar 1;28(4):971-8 - PubMed
  16. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014 Jan;24(1):141-8 - PubMed
  17. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Apr;14(2):201-7 - PubMed
  18. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Aug;41(8):975-85 - PubMed
  19. Med Phys. 1995 Feb;22(2):209-34 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 10;25(20):2966-74 - PubMed
  21. Med Oncol. 2010 Jun;27(2):319-26 - PubMed
  22. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Mar 30;31(5):1341-6 - PubMed
  23. J Urol. 1998 Feb;159(2):591-8 - PubMed
  24. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Apr;76(5):1433-8 - PubMed

Publication Types