BACKGROUND: Although current standard treatment for advanced esophageal cancer is intermittent standard-dose cisplatin with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (ISD-FP), daily low-dose cisplatin with continuous infusion of 5-FU (CLD-FP) is advocated for equivalent effectiveness and lower toxicity. The feasibility of these two concurrent chemoradiotherapeutic protocols was retrospectively reviewed for local control rate, overall survival, toxicity, and compliance in a single institutional situation. METHODS: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy, using 60 Gy of radiation and ISD-FP or CLD-FP was non-randomly scheduled for 29 patients between June 1994 and March 2001. RESULTS: Complete response in the irradiated volume at the end of primary treatment was shown by 8 of 15 and 9 of 14 patients in the ISD-FP and CLD-FP groups, respectively. The projected overall survival rate at 2 years was 55% for stage III patients and 13% for stage IV. Median survival times were 14 months versus 15 months in the ISD-FP and CLD-FP groups, with no significant difference. Toxicities were similar, including two treatment-related deaths in each group. Chemotherapy was completed for 10 of 15 and 11 of 14 patients in the ISD-FP and CLD-FP groups, respectively. Modification of the planned regimen was more often required for the CLD-FP group. CONCLUSION: CLD-FP therapy has no apparent advantage over ISD-FP therapy from the perspective of compliance and safety. A randomized phase II clinical trial comparing ISD-FP and CLD-FP, currently being performed, is expected to provide further information. Although current standard treatment for advanced esophageal cancer is intermittent standard-dose cisplatin with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (ISD-FP), daily low-dose cisplatin with continuous infusion of 5-FU (CLD-FP) is advocated for equivalent effectiveness and lower toxicity. The feasibility of these two concurrent chemoradiotherapeutic protocols was retrospectively reviewed for local control rate, overall survival, toxicity, and compliance in a single institutional situation.
BACKGROUND: Although current standard treatment for advanced esophageal cancer is intermittent standard-dose cisplatin with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (ISD-FP), daily low-dose cisplatin with continuous infusion of 5-FU (CLD-FP) is advocated for equivalent effectiveness and lower toxicity. The feasibility of these two concurrent chemoradiotherapeutic protocols was retrospectively reviewed for local control rate, overall survival, toxicity, and compliance in a single institutional situation. METHODS: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy, using 60 Gy of radiation and ISD-FP or CLD-FP was non-randomly scheduled for 29 patients between June 1994 and March 2001. RESULTS: Complete response in the irradiated volume at the end of primary treatment was shown by 8 of 15 and 9 of 14 patients in the ISD-FP and CLD-FP groups, respectively. The projected overall survival rate at 2 years was 55% for stage III patients and 13% for stage IV. Median survival times were 14 months versus 15 months in the ISD-FP and CLD-FP groups, with no significant difference. Toxicities were similar, including two treatment-related deaths in each group. Chemotherapy was completed for 10 of 15 and 11 of 14 patients in the ISD-FP and CLD-FP groups, respectively. Modification of the planned regimen was more often required for the CLD-FP group. CONCLUSION:CLD-FP therapy has no apparent advantage over ISD-FP therapy from the perspective of compliance and safety. A randomized phase II clinical trial comparing ISD-FP and CLD-FP, currently being performed, is expected to provide further information. Although current standard treatment for advanced esophageal cancer is intermittent standard-dose cisplatin with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (ISD-FP), daily low-dose cisplatin with continuous infusion of 5-FU (CLD-FP) is advocated for equivalent effectiveness and lower toxicity. The feasibility of these two concurrent chemoradiotherapeutic protocols was retrospectively reviewed for local control rate, overall survival, toxicity, and compliance in a single institutional situation.
Authors: K Hayashi; Y Fujiwara; M Nomura; M Kamata; H Kojima; M Kohzai; K Sumita; N Tanigawa Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Bryan H Burmeister; Euan T Walpole; Elizabeth A Burmeister; Janine Thomas; Damien B Thomson; Jennifer A Harvey; B Mark Smithers; David C Gotley Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.402