Abstract
Although a large number of influential studies that have been conducted worldwide on locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) have employed the treatment modality of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), an advanced as well as highly conformal technology known as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has attracted increasing attention from the radiotherapy research community. This is because of the clear advantages of IMRT, including decrease in radiation dose that reaches critical cardiopulmonary organs. These two treatment modalities need to be investigated with regard to their effect on local control rate and patient survival. In addition, related clinical factors also need to be explored. Data from a total of 431 patients with locally advanced EC, who underwent radiation therapy between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013, were included in the present study. Two hundred and ninety-three patients received 3D-CRT, while 138 patients received IMRT. We constructed propensity score matches to make the two groups be comparable (136 patients in 3D-CRT group and 138 patients in IMRT group. Kaplan–Meier analysis was conducted to evaluate the endpoint of overall survival (OS). A Cox proportional hazards model was employed to analyze the relationship between the associated factors and the outcomes via univariate and multivariate approaches. The mean follow-up period was 36.2 months, and the median follow-up period was 23 months. For the IMRT group, the median OS was 31 months, and the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 70.3%, 50.0%, and 42.8%, respectively, while for the 3D-CRT group, the median OS was 22 months, and the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 63.2%, 41.0%, and 35.4%, respectively (p < 0.05). The univariate analysis revealed that quit drinking, chemotherapy, and concurrent chemotherapy were significant risk factors for the prognosis of EC (p < 0.05), as well as the radiation therapy technique used (p=0.052). The multivariate analysis indicated that chemotherapy and quit drinking were independent predictive factors for OS. OS is found to be significantly better in the IMRT group, compared with that of the 3D-CRT group. Even though these outcomes need further validation, IMRT should be considered preferentially as a therapeutic option for EC, in combination with chemotherapy and persuading patients to quit drinking.
Highlights
It is reported that 572,034 new esophageal cancer (EC) cases have been diagnosed worldwide during 2018, with EC being the eighth most common malignancy and the sixth most likely cause of cancer-related deaths [1]
Along with the development of contemporary techniques, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) uses linear accelerators to manipulate the photon beams of radiation to conform to the shape of a tumor, in order to securely, as well as painlessly deliver exact radiation doses to a tumor, while decreasing the dose delivered to adjacent normal tissues. e distinct dose-metric advantages of IMRT have been proven by several studies [3,4,5,6]
IMRT is costlier to implement and is logistically more challenging, from treatment planning to the physics quality assurance procedure. erefore, due to the limited scientific data to support the supremacy of IMRT, 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) techniques have been extensively recognized as the present standard of care
Summary
It is reported that 572,034 new esophageal cancer (EC) cases have been diagnosed worldwide during 2018, with EC being the eighth most common malignancy and the sixth most likely cause of cancer-related deaths [1]. Two-dimensional (2D) treatment planning is accepted as the standard of care in the past. Considerable doses are still received by normal tissues due to absence of dose variation for each of the three to five beams used for treatment. Along with the development of contemporary techniques, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) uses linear accelerators to manipulate the photon beams of radiation to conform to the shape of a tumor, in order to securely, as well as painlessly deliver exact radiation doses to a tumor, while decreasing the dose delivered to adjacent normal tissues. IMRT is costlier to implement and is logistically more challenging, from treatment planning to the physics quality assurance procedure. Erefore, due to the limited scientific data to support the supremacy of IMRT, 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) techniques have been extensively recognized as the present standard of care IMRT is costlier to implement and is logistically more challenging, from treatment planning to the physics quality assurance procedure. erefore, due to the limited scientific data to support the supremacy of IMRT, 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) techniques have been extensively recognized as the present standard of care
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
