PURPOSE: The use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity is increasing, but no large-scale direct comparison has been reported between conventional external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and IMRT. METHODS: Between January 1996 and December 2010, 319 consecutive adult patients with primary nonmetastatic extremity STS were treated with limb-sparing surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) at a single institution. Conventional EBRT was used in 154 patients and IMRT in 165 with similar dosing schedules. Median follow-up time for the cohort was 58 months. RESULTS: Treatment groups were comparable in terms of tumor location, histology, tumor size, depth, and use of chemotherapy. Patients treated with IMRT were older (P = .08), had more high-grade lesions (P = .05), close (< 1 mm) or positive margins (P = .04), preoperative radiation (P < .001), and nerve manipulation (P = .04). Median follow-up was 90 months for patients treated with conventional EBRT and 42 months for patients treated with IMRT. On multivariable analysis adjusting for patient age and tumor size, IMRT retained significance as an independent predictor of reduced LR (hazard ratio = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.89; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Despite a preponderance of higher-risk features (especially close/positive margin) in the IMRT group, IMRT was associated with significantly reduced local recurrence compared with conventional EBRT for primary STS of the extremity.
PURPOSE: The use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity is increasing, but no large-scale direct comparison has been reported between conventional external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and IMRT. METHODS: Between January 1996 and December 2010, 319 consecutive adult patients with primary nonmetastatic extremity STS were treated with limb-sparing surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) at a single institution. Conventional EBRT was used in 154 patients and IMRT in 165 with similar dosing schedules. Median follow-up time for the cohort was 58 months. RESULTS: Treatment groups were comparable in terms of tumor location, histology, tumor size, depth, and use of chemotherapy. Patients treated with IMRT were older (P = .08), had more high-grade lesions (P = .05), close (< 1 mm) or positive margins (P = .04), preoperative radiation (P < .001), and nerve manipulation (P = .04). Median follow-up was 90 months for patients treated with conventional EBRT and 42 months for patients treated with IMRT. On multivariable analysis adjusting for patient age and tumor size, IMRT retained significance as an independent predictor of reduced LR (hazard ratio = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.89; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Despite a preponderance of higher-risk features (especially close/positive margin) in the IMRT group, IMRT was associated with significantly reduced local recurrence compared with conventional EBRT for primary STS of the extremity.
Authors: K M Alektiar; J Velasco; M J Zelefsky; J M Woodruff; J J Lewis; M F Brennan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Irene Karam; Slobodan Devic; Marc Hickeson; David Roberge; Robert E Turcotte; Carolyn R Freeman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Linda Hong; Kaled M Alektiar; Margie Hunt; Ennapadam Venkatraman; Steven A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kaled M Alektiar; Linda Hong; Murray F Brennan; Cesar Della-Biancia; Samuel Singer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eric D Miller; Xiaokui Mo; Nicole T Andonian; Karl E Haglund; Douglas D Martin; David A Liebner; James L Chen; Obiajulu H Iwenofu; Arnab Chakravarti; Thomas J Scharschmidt; Joel L Mayerson; Raphael E Pollock; Meng Xu-Welliver Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Mohamed H Abouarab; Iman L Salem; Magdy M Degheidy; Dominic Henn; Christoph Hirche; Ahmad Eweida; Matthias Uhl; Ulrich Kneser; Thomas Kremer Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Rick L M Haas; Aisha B Miah; Cécile LePechoux; Thomas F DeLaney; Elizabeth H Baldini; Kaled Alektiar; Brian O'Sullivan Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Michael R Folkert; Dana L Casey; Sean L Berry; Aimee Crago; Nicola Fabbri; Samuel Singer; Kaled M Alektiar Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 5.344