4.0 Article

Definitive chemoradiotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF-R) for advanced cervical esophageal cancer

期刊

ESOPHAGUS
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 281-285

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10388-018-0627-7

关键词

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; Chemoradiotherapy; Docetaxel; Cisplatin; 5-Fluorouracil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recently, definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) has become one of the essential treatment strategies for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and has been especially gaining prevalence for cervical ESCC to preserve the larynx. Our department recently introduced dCRT concomitant with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF-R) for treating advanced cervical ESCC. This study aims to assess the safety and outcomes of DCF-R in patients with advanced cervical ESCC. Methods We retrospectively assessed 11 patients with advanced cervical ESCC (clinical stage: II-IV, including T4b and/or M1 lymph node) who received DCF-R as the first-line treatment between December 2010 and February 2015. Results Our patient cohort comprised 8 males and 3 females (median age 68 years; range 54-76 years). The pretreatment clinical stage included stage II (1), stage III (7), and stage IV (3) cases [including 3 patients with T4b (2 trachea and 1 thyroid) and 3 patients with M1 lymph node]. We attained complete response (CR) in 10 patients and stable disease in 1 patient. Of 10 patients with CR, 5 experienced recurrence and 5 continued exhibiting CR. Furthermore, grade 3 or more adverse events included leucopenia (91%), neutropenia (91%), febrile neutropenia (45%), and pharyngeal pain (55%). While the 2-year overall survival rate was 72%, the 2-year recurrent-free survival rate was 64%, respectively. Conclusions DCF-R treatment for advanced cervical esophageal cancer could be completed by the careful administration; although a strong blood toxicity might occur, this treatment may provide the chance to obtain favorable prognosis with larynx preservation.

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

4.0
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