ABSTRACT
Objective: Retrospectively analyzed the esophageal carcinoma (EC) patients with esophageal perforation (EP) after radiotherapy to discuss the treatment and prognosis. Methods: Data of patients with EC who had EP after radiotherapy in Hebei Cancer Hospital were collected from 2001 to 2020 and retrospectively analyzed. All analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 18. 0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill., USA). P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 94 patients with EC were enrolled, among which 72 were males and 22 were females, with a median age of 62 (38-82) years. The tumor was located in the upper thoracic in 45 patients, middle thoracic in 45 patients, and lower thoracic in 4 patients. There were 30 cases of tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) and 64 cases of esophagomediastinal fistula (EMF). All patients died within 11 months (median: two months) after EP. After EP, 48 patients were treated by tube feeding (include nasal feeding and gastrostomy), 26 patients by esophageal stenting, and 20 patients by fluid infusion therapy, and their one, three, and six months survival rates after EP were 81.3%, 31.3%, and 12.5% (P = 0.000). In the TEF group, the one, three, and six month survival rates after EP of tube feeding, esophageal stenting and fluid infusion groups were 88.2%, 17.6%, 11.8%; 45.5%, 27.3%, 0%; and 50.0%, 50.0%, 0% (P = 0.345). In the EMF group, the one, three, and six months survival rates after EP of this three groups were 77.4%, 38.7%, 12.9%; 26.7%, 20.0%, 6.7%; and 22.2%, 11.1%, 0% (P=0.002), respectively. Conclusion: Most patients with EP after radiotherapy died within six months, with low survival and poor prognosis. Tube feeding therapy can achieve relatively good survival, especially for patients with EMF. The survival of patients treated by tube feeding therapy is significantly better than the survival of those treated by other methods.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can only be implemented on the new generation linacs such as the Varian Trilogy® and Elekta Synergy®. This prevents most existing linacs from delivering VMAT. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a conventional linear accelerator delivering constant dose rate and constant angular spacing intensity-modulated arc therapy (CDR-CAS-IMAT) for treating cervical cancer.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Twenty patients with cervical cancer previously treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using Varian Clinical 23EX were retreated using CDR-CAS-IMAT. The planning target volume (PTV) was set as 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Plans were evaluated based on the ability to meet the dose volume histogram. The homogeneity index (HI), target volume conformity index (CI), the dose to organs at risk, radiation delivery time, and monitor units (MUs) were also compared. The paired t-test was used to analyze the two data sets. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 software.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Compared to the IMRT group, the CDR-CAS-IMAT group showed better PTV CI (0.85 ± 0.03 vs. 0.81 ± 0.03, P = 0.001), clinical target volume CI (0.46 ± 0.05 vs. 0.43 ± 0.05, P = 0.001), HI (0.09 ± 0.02 vs. 0.11 ± 0.02, P = 0.005) and D95 (5196.33 ± 28.24 cGy vs. 5162.63 ± 31.12 cGy, P = 0.000), and cord D2 (3743.8 ± 118.7 cGy vs. 3806.2 ± 98.7 cGy, P = 0.017) and rectum V40 (41.9 ± 6.1% vs. 44.2 ± 4.8%, P = 0.026). Treatment time (422.7 ± 46.7 s vs. 84.6 ± 7.8 s, P = 0.000) and the total plan Mus (927.4 ± 79.1 vs. 787.5 ± 78.5, P = 0.000) decreased by a factor of 0.8 and 0.15, respectively. The IMRT group plans were superior to the CDR-CAS-IMAT group plans considering decreasing bladder V50 (17.4 ± 4.5% vs. 16.6 ± 4.2%, P = 0.049), bowel V30 (39.6 ± 6.5% vs. 36.6 ± 7.5%, P = 0.008), and low-dose irradiation volume; there were no significant differences in other statistical indexes.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Patients with cervical cancer treated with CDR-CAS-IMAT using Varian Clinical 23EX can get equivalent or superior dose distribution compared to those treated with IMRT. CDR-CAS-IMAT has a less treatment time and MU, which can reduce the uncertainty factor and patient discomfort in treatment.</p>
