A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Dose Escalation Using Contact X-ray Brachytherapy After External Beam Radiotherapy as Nonsurgical Treatment Option for Rectal Cancer: Outcomes From a Single-Center Experience. | LitMetric

Purpose: To review the outcomes of rectal cancer patients treated with a nonsurgical approach using contact x-ray brachytherapy (CXB) when suspicious residual disease (≤3 cm) was present after external beam chemoradiation therapy/radiation therapy (EBCRT/EBRT).

Methods And Materials: Outcome data for rectal cancer patients referred to our institution from 2003 to 2012 were retrieved from an institutional database. These patients were referred after initial local multidisciplinary team discussion because they were not suitable for, or had refused, surgery. All selected patients received a CXB boost after EBCRT/EBRT. Most patients received a total of 90 Gy of CXB delivered in 3 fractions over 4 weeks.

Results: The median follow-up period was 2.5 years (range 1.2-8.3). Of 345 consecutive patients with rectal cancer referred to us, 83 with suspicious residual disease (≤3 cm) after EBCRT/EBRT were identified for a CXB boost. Their median age was 72 years (range 36-87), and 58 (69.9%) were men. The initial tumor stages were cT2 (n = 28) and cT3 (n = 55), and 54.2% were node positive. A clinical complete response (cCR) was achieved in 53 patients (63.8%) after the CXB boost that followed EBCRT/EBRT. Of these 53 patients, 7 (13.2%) developed a relapse after achieving a cCR, and the 6 patients (11.6%) with nonmetastatic regrowth underwent salvage surgery (100%). At the end of the study period, 69 of 83 patients (83.1%) were cancer free.

Conclusions: Our data suggest that a CXB boost for selected patients with suspicious residual disease (≤3 cm) after EBCRT/EBRT can be offered as an alternative to radical surgery. In our series, patients with a sustained cCR had a low rate of local regrowth, and those with nonmetastatic regrowth could be salvaged successfully. This approach could provide an alternative treatment option for elderly or comorbid patients who are not suitable for surgery and those with rectal cancer who wish to avoid surgery.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.10.022DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rectal cancer
20
cxb boost
16
patients
13
suspicious residual
12
residual disease
12
disease ≤3 cm
12
contact x-ray
8
x-ray brachytherapy
8
external beam
8
treatment option
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!