Prognostic significance of lung radiation dose in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

The prognostic significance of radiation dose to the lung or heart is unknown in esophageal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (trimodal therapy). This study aimed to determine the association between lung and heart radiation dose volumes and prognosis of eso...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiation oncology (London, England) England), 2019-05, Vol.14 (1), p.85-10, Article 85
Hauptverfasser: Lin, Jhen-Bin, Hung, Li-Chung, Cheng, Ching-Yuan, Chien, Yu-An, Lee, Chou-Hsien, Huang, Chia-Chun, Chou, Tsai-Wei, Ko, Ming-Huei, Lai, Yuan-Chun, Liu, Mu-Tai, Chang, Tung-Hao, Lee, Jie, Chen, Yu-Jen
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The prognostic significance of radiation dose to the lung or heart is unknown in esophageal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (trimodal therapy). This study aimed to determine the association between lung and heart radiation dose volumes and prognosis of esophageal cancer after trimodal therapy. This study reviewed 123 esophageal cancer patients treated with trimodal therapy in two tertiary institutions between 2010 and 2015. The dose-volume histogram parameter of Vx was defined as the percentage of total organ volume receiving a radiation dose of x (Gy) or more. Predictors of overall survival (OS) were identified using Cox regression models. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were used to select cut-off values for dose-volume. Median follow-up was 28.3 months (range: 4.7-92.8 months). Median OS and progression-free survival were 34.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.4-40.6 months) and 24.8 months (95% CI, 18.9-30.7 months), respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that lung V20 (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04-1.14; p  23% was 54.4% vs. 5% (p  56% was 81.5% vs. 23.4% (p 
ISSN:1748-717X
1748-717X
DOI:10.1186/s13014-019-1283-3