同步加量调强与常规调强放射治疗食管癌的效果比较-《中国医学物理学杂志》

文章信息/Info

Title:: Therapeutic efficacy of simultaneous integrated boost versus conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy in esophageal cancer

Author(s):: GUO Hao; ZHOU Shuni; DING Hua; JIANG Xueping; RAN Ruizhi; Department of Oncology, the Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture (Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University), Enshi 445000, China

Keywords:: Keywords: simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy esophageal cancer therapeutic efficacy serum tumor factor prognosis adverse reaction

摘要:: 目的：探讨同步加量调强与常规调强放射治疗食管癌的效果。方法：回顾分析149例食管癌患者的临床资料，根据治疗方式不同将其分为同步组（n=77）和常规组（n=72），同步组患者予以同步加量调强放射治疗，常规组患者予以常规调强放射治疗。比较两组患者治疗后临床疗效、血清肿瘤因子鳞状细胞癌抗原（SCC）、糖类抗原125（CA125）、癌胚抗原（CEA）水平、体力状况评分（Karnofsky评分）、生活质量评分（SF-36评分）、不良反应。结果：治疗后，同步组临床总有效率高于常规组（93.51% vs 81.94%, P<0.05）；同步组血清肿瘤因子SCC、CA125、CEA水平均低于常规组（P<0.05）；同步组Karnofsky评分和SF-36评分均高于常规组（P<0.05）；同步组不良反应轻于常规组。结论：同步加量调强与常规调强放射治疗食管癌均有一定临床效果，但相较于常规调强放射治疗，同步加量调强放射治疗对食管癌患者临床效果更为理想，能有效控制血清肿瘤因子高表达，改善预后，且不良反应相对较少。

Abstract:: Abstract: Objective To investigate the therapeutic efficacy of simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) and conventional IMRT in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 149 cases of esophageal cancer. According to different treatment methods, they were divided into simultaneous group (n=77) and conventional group (n=72). The patients in simultaneous group were treated with SIB-IMRT, while those in conventional group received conventional IMRT. The clinical efficacy, levels of squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), physical fitness score (Karnofsky score), quality of life score (SF-36 score), and adverse reactions were compared between two groups after treatment. Results The total effective rate of simultaneous group was higher than that of conventional group (93.51% vs 81.94%, P<0.05). Compared with conventional group, simultaneous group had lower levels of SCC, CA125 and CEA (P<0.05), higher Karnofsky score and SF-36 score (P<0.05), and fewer cases of adverse reactions. Conclusion Both SIB-IMRT and conventional IMRT have certain clinical effects in the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, SIB-IMRT is advantageous over IMRT in therapeutic efficacy for SIB-IMRT can effectively control the high expression of serum tumor factors, improve the prognosis, and reduce the incidence of adverse reactions.