Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add filters








Language
Year range
1.
Rev. venez. oncol ; 31(1): 60-78, mar. 2019. ilus, tab, graf
Article in Spanish | LILACS, LIVECS | ID: biblio-1048494

ABSTRACT

Experiencia 15 años tratamiento neoadyuvante vs., adyuvante ADC recto. MÉTODO: 223 pacientes ADC recto tratamiento RT QT período 2000-2015, divididos 3 grupos: 1. Tratamiento adyuvante (110), 2. ratamiento neoadyuvante (93), 3. Tratamiento neoadyuvante no operados (20). RT administrada técnica conformada 3D todos los pacientes excepto 3 RT intensidad modulada, dosis 4 500-4 600 cGy fracciones diarias 180-200 cGy, a pelvis técnica 4 campos, reducción sitio lesión macroscópica (RT neoadyuvante) o áreade nastomosis (RT adyuvante) 5 000-5 040 cGy. Esquemas QT más utilizados 5FU, 5FU-leucovorina, capecitabina sola o combinación oxaliplatino. RESULTADOS: Mayoría estadio III, mayor IIIB grupo neoadyuvante, 44 % vs. 30 % grupo adyuvante. Sobrevida global 5 años grupo RT-QT adyuvante 69,03 % vs. 81,24 % grupo RT-QT neoadyuvante, resultado no estadísticamente significativo (P=0,37) sobrevida libre enfermedad 5 años 80 % grupo RT-QT neoadyuvante vs. 56 % pacientes grupo RT-QT adyuvante, diferencia estadísticamente significativa (P=0,000392). 20 tratamiento neoadyuvante no cirugía, sobrevida global 5 años 50 %, resultados inferiores a tratamiento adyuvante y neoadyuvante. 59,2 % grupo neoadyuvante 86,4 % adyuvante se pudo preservar el esfínter. Toxicidad aguda más frecuente gastrointestinal, grado II-III, mayor grupo adyuvante (57 % vs. 45 %). Complicaciones crónicas GI, grado III, 2 pacientes grupo adyuvante 1 grupo neoadyuvante, grado IV. 2 grupo adyuvante 1 neoadyuvante. CONCLUSIONES: En 223 pacientes ADC recto, no se encontraron diferencias significativas SG tratamiento adyuvante vs., neoadyuvante pero SLE fue superior grupo tratamiento neoadyuvante. Toxicidad parece menor con tratamiento preoperatorio(AU)


OBJECTIVE: 15 years' experience treatment ADC rectal with adjuvant RT-CT vs., neoadjuvant RT-CT. METHOD: 223 patients rectal ADC treated with RT-CT surgery, during 2000-2015. Divided 3 groups: 1. Adjuvant therapy (110). 2. Neoadjuvant therapy (93) 3. Neoadjuvant therapy without surgery (20). Three D conformal RT used all patients except 3 treated with intensity modulated RT, doses 4 500-4 600 with 180-200 cGy daily fractions pelvis 4 field technique, 5 000- 5 040 cGy boost rectal tumor or the anastomosis. Chemotherapy more frequently was 5FU, 5FU-leucovorin, capecitabine alone or oxaliplatin. RESULTS: Majority stage III, IIIB was more frequent neoadjuvant group, 44 % vs., 30 % adjuvant group. 5 years overall survival was 69.03 % adjuvant RT-CT vs. 81.24 % with neoadjuvant RT-QT (P=0.37 disease free survival was higher neoadjuvant therapy, 80 % vs. 56 %, (P=0.000392). 20 treated neoadjuvant RT-CT no surgery, had 50 % OS 5 years, lower than adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. Grade II-III acute gastrointestinal toxicity was more common in patients with adjuvant therapy, 57 % vs. 45 % neoadjuvant therapy. One patient in each group grade IV, acute GI toxicity. Chronic grade III GI toxicity occurred, 2 with adjuvant therapy one neoadjuvant therapy, grade IV also 1 patient with preoperative RT-CT in 2 postoperative RT-CT. CONCLUSIONS: 223 rectal ADC, did not show significant difference in OS between adjuvant RT-CT and neoadjuvant RT-CT but DFS was higher with preoperative therapy. Toxicity seems lower in group treated with neoadjuvant therapy(AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Radiotherapy , Adenocarcinoma/physiopathology , Adenocarcinoma/radiotherapy , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Neoadjuvant Therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL