| Literature DB >> 16834784 |
Sayako Oota1, Hitoshi Shibuya, Ryo-ichi Yoshimura, Hiroshi Watanabe, Masahiko Miura.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus as to the prognostic model for brachytherapy of tongue carcinoma. This study was designed to evaluate the prognostic factors for local control based on a large population under a unified treatment policy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16834784 PMCID: PMC1543646 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-1-21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Variables and Relative Classes for 277 patients treated with linear sources
| Sex | Male | 169 | 61 |
| Female | 108 | 39 | |
| Age at diagnosis (yrs) | ≤60 | 174 | 63 |
| > 60 | 103 | 37 | |
| Growth pattern | Superficial | 81 | 29 |
| Exophytic | 121 | 44 | |
| Invasive | 75 | 27 | |
| Site | Side | 254 | 92 |
| Tip | 1 | 0 | |
| Lower | 20 | 7 | |
| Upper | 2 | 1 | |
| Leukoplakia | Absent | 67 | 24 |
| Present | 210 | 76 | |
| Tumor thickness (mm) | ≤5 | 106 | 38 |
| 6–10 | 97 | 35 | |
| 11–15 | 40 | 14 | |
| > 15 | 34 | 12 | |
| Maximum diameter (mm) | ≤30 | 196 | 71 |
| > 30 | 81 | 29 | |
| Brachytherapy source | 192Ir hairpin | 104 | 38 |
| 226Ra needle | 162 | 58 | |
| 137Cs needle | 11 | 4 | |
| Brachytherapy dose (Gy) | ≤70 | 216 | 78 |
| > 70 | 61 | 22 | |
| Brachytherapy plane | Single | 242 | 87 |
| Double | 32 | 12 | |
| Volume | 3 | 1 | |
| External irradiation | + | 45 | 16 |
| - | 232 | 84 |
Figure 3Survival curves for 277 patients with T2 tongue carcinoma treated with an 192Ir, 137Cs or 226Ra needle; Disease- related survival (); and relapse- free survival ().
Figure 4Relapse free survival for 277 patients treated with brachytherapy alone (); and with brachytherapy following external irradiation ().
Figure 5Survival curves for 277 patients with T2 tongue carcinoma treated with an 192Ir, 137Cs or 226Ra needle; Regional disease-free survival (); and distant metastasis-free survival ().
Patients' Current Status
| Alive, with no evidence of disease | 207 |
| Alive with clinical evidence of disease | 0 |
| Dead of disease | 29 |
| Dead of other causes | 41 |
Univariate Analysis; significant factors
| Growth pattern | |||||||
| Superficial vs. exophytic | 2.84 | <0.001 | 5.16 | 0.03 | 1.49 | 0.15 | |
| Superficial vs. invasive | 3.92 | <0.001 | 7.54 | 0.01 | 3.39 | <0.001 | |
| Tumor thickness (mm) | |||||||
| ≤5 vs. 6–10 | 1.76 | 0.19 | 2.08 | 0.15 | 2.87 | <0.001 | |
| ≤5 vs. 10–15 | 3.02 | 0.02 | 2.80 | 0.08 | 3.10 | <0.001 | |
| ≤5 vs. > 15 | 3.57 | <0.001 | 3.93 | 0.01 | 5.02 | <0.001 | |
| Brachytherapy source | |||||||
| 192Ir vs. 137Cs | 1.25 | 0.76 | 1.29 | 0.81 | 3.74 | <0.001 | |
| 192Ir vs. 226Ra | 0.81 | 0.52 | 1.22 | 0.61 | 1.23 | 0.33 | |
| Brachytherapy dose (Gy) | |||||||
| ≤70vs. > 70 | 1.24 | 0.54 | 1.24 | 0.61 | 1.03 | 0.91 | |
| UHR: unadjusted hazard ratio | |||||||
Multivariate Analysis; significant factors
| Growth pattern | |||||||
| Superficial vs. exophytic | 2.17 | 0.84 | 4.93 | 0.06 | 0.70 | 0.15 | |
| Superficial vs. invasive | 3.15 | 0.02 | 7.69 | 0.02 | 1.26 | <0.001 | |
| Tumor thickness (mm) | |||||||
| ≤5 vs. 6–10 | 0.82 | 0.62 | 1.02 | 0.98 | 2.85 | <0.001 | |
| ≤5 vs. 10–15 | 2.10 | 0.09 | 1.25 | 0.73 | 3.02 | <0.001 | |
| ≤5 vs. > 15 | 1.24 | 0.66 | 1.93 | 0.33 | 5.47 | <0.001 | |
| AHR: adjusted hazard ratio | |||||||
Figure 1An acrylic resin spacer.
Figure 2A spacer attached to the lower teeth.