4.7 Article

Contact X-ray therapy for rectal cancer:: Experience in Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, Nice, 2002-2006

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.01.030

关键词

rectal cancer; contact X-ray therapy; conservative treatment; local excision; endocavitary treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To report the results of using contact X-ray (CXR), which has been used in the Centre-Lacassagne since 2002 for rectal cancer. Methods and Materials: A total of 44 patients were treated between 2002 and 2006 using four distinct clinical approaches. Patients with Stage T1N0 tumors were treated with transanal local excision (TLE) and adjuvant CXR (45 Gy in three fractions) (n = 7). The 11 inoperable (or who had refused surgery) patients with Stage T2-T3 disease were treated with CXR plus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Those with Stage T3N0-N2 tumors were treated with preoperative CXR plus EBRT (with or without concurrent chemotherapy) followed by surgery (n = 21). Finally, the patients with Stage T2 disease were treated with CXR plus EBRT followed by TLE (n = 5). Results: The median follow-up was 25 months. In the 7 patients who underwent TLE first, no local failure was observed, and their anorectal function was good. Of the 11 inoperable patients who underwent CXR plus EBRT alone, 10 achieved local control. In the third group (preoperative CXR plus EBRT), anterior resection was performed in 16 of 21 patients. Complete sterilization of the operative specimen was seen in 4 cases (19%). No local recurrence occurred. Finally, of the 5 patients treated with CXR plus EBRT followed by TLE. a complete or near complete clinical response was observed in all. TLE with a R0 resection margin was performed in all cases. The rectum was preserved with good function in all 5 patients. Conclusion: These earl), results have confirmed that CXR combined with surgery (or alone with EBRT) can play, a major role in the conservative and curative treatment of rectal cancer. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据