BACKGROUND: To evaluate outcome after intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-RT) as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 57 patients with LAPC were treated with IMRT and chemotherapy. A median total dose of 45 Gy to the PTV_baseplan and 54 Gy to the PTV_boost in single doses of 1.8 Gy for the PTV_baseplan and median single doses of 2.2 Gy in the PTV_boost were applied. Outcomes were evaluated and compared to a large cohort of patients treated with 3D-RT. RESULTS: Overall treatment was well tolerated in all patients and IMRT could be completed without interruptions. Median overall survival was 11 months (range 5-37.5 months). Actuarial overall survival at 12 and 24 months was 36 % and 8 %, respectively. A significant impact on overall survival could only be observed for a decrease in CA 19-9 during treatment, patients with less pre-treatment CA 19-9 than the median, as well as weight loss during treatment. Local progression-free survival was 79 % after 6 months, 39 % after 12 months, and 13 % after 24 months. No factors significantly influencing local progression-free survival could be identified. There was no difference in overall and progression-free survival between 3D-RT and IMRT. Secondary resectability was similar in both groups (26 % vs. 28 %). Toxicity was comparable and consisted mainly of hematological toxicity due to chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: IMRT leads to a comparable outcome compared to 3D-RT in patients with LAPC. In the future, the improved dose distribution, as well as advances in image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) techniques, may improve the use of IMRT in local dose escalation strategies to potentially improve outcome.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate outcome after intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-RT) as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 57 patients with LAPC were treated with IMRT and chemotherapy. A median total dose of 45 Gy to the PTV_baseplan and 54 Gy to the PTV_boost in single doses of 1.8 Gy for the PTV_baseplan and median single doses of 2.2 Gy in the PTV_boost were applied. Outcomes were evaluated and compared to a large cohort of patients treated with 3D-RT. RESULTS: Overall treatment was well tolerated in all patients and IMRT could be completed without interruptions. Median overall survival was 11 months (range 5-37.5 months). Actuarial overall survival at 12 and 24 months was 36 % and 8 %, respectively. A significant impact on overall survival could only be observed for a decrease in CA 19-9 during treatment, patients with less pre-treatment CA 19-9 than the median, as well as weight loss during treatment. Local progression-free survival was 79 % after 6 months, 39 % after 12 months, and 13 % after 24 months. No factors significantly influencing local progression-free survival could be identified. There was no difference in overall and progression-free survival between 3D-RT and IMRT. Secondary resectability was similar in both groups (26 % vs. 28 %). Toxicity was comparable and consisted mainly of hematological toxicity due to chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: IMRT leads to a comparable outcome compared to 3D-RT in patients with LAPC. In the future, the improved dose distribution, as well as advances in image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) techniques, may improve the use of IMRT in local dose escalation strategies to potentially improve outcome.
Authors: Thomas J Howard; Joseph E Krug; Jian Yu; Nick J Zyromski; C Max Schmidt; Lewis E Jacobson; James A Madura; Eric A Wiebke; Keith D Lillemoe Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Edgar Ben-Josef; Mathew Schipper; Isaac R Francis; Scott Hadley; Randall Ten-Haken; Theodore Lawrence; Daniel Normolle; Diane M Simeone; Christopher Sonnenday; Ross Abrams; William Leslie; Gazala Khan; Mark M Zalupski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J F Pingpank; J P Hoffman; E A Ross; H S Cooper; N J Meropol; G Freedman; W H Pinover; T E LeVoyer; A R Sasson; B L Eisenberg Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2001 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Edgar Ben-Josef; Anthony F Shields; Ulka Vaishampayan; Vainutis Vaitkevicius; Basil F El-Rayes; Patrick McDermott; Jay Burmeister; Todd Bossenberger; Philip A Philip Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael T Milano; Steven J Chmura; Michael C Garofalo; Carla Rash; John C Roeske; Phillip P Connell; Oh-Hoon Kwon; Ashesh B Jani; Ruth Heimann Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher H Crane; Kathryn Winter; William F Regine; Howard Safran; Tyvin A Rich; Walter Curran; Robert A Wolff; Christopher G Willett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K A Kessel; D Habermehl; C Bohn; A Jäger; R O Floca; L Zhang; N Bougatf; R Bendl; J Debus; S E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-10-31 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: S Dobiasch; S Kampfer; R Burkhardt; D Schilling; T E Schmid; J J Wilkens; S E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: S Dobiasch; S Kampfer; D Habermehl; M N Duma; K Felix; A Strauss; D Schilling; J J Wilkens; S E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Giuseppe Belfiore; Maria Paola Belfiore; Alfonso Reginelli; Raffaella Capasso; Francesco Romano; Giovanni Pietro Ianniello; Salvatore Cappabianca; Luca Brunese Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-02-04 Impact factor: 3.064