Effect of clinical staging on the prognosis of patients with esophageal carcinoma receiving radical radiation therapy
10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.20131612
- VernacularTitle:临床分期对根治性放疗食管癌患者预后的影响
- Author:
Jingwei SU
;
Zhikun LIU
;
Pei JIA
;
Shuchai ZHU
;
Wenbin SHEN
;
Juan LI
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
esophageal carcinoma;
radiation therapy;
clinical stage;
prognosis;
gross tumor volume
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology
2014;(15):984-988
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
This study aims to determine a reasonable clinical staging standard for patients with esophageal carcinoma who were receiving non-surgical treatment. The patients were staged on the basis of the (2004 and 2009 editions of clinical staging stan-dards. The prognosis of patients with different staging standards, as well as the effect of gross tumor volume-tumor (GTV-T) on clinical T stage and prognosis, was observed. Methods:Data on 219 patients with esophageal carcinoma who were receiving radical radiothera-py were retrospectively analyzed. Prior to radiotherapy, all patients underwent examinations, including esophageal barium meal and po-sitioning CT scan, for use in the radiation treatment planning system to outline the target range and to calculate the volume of GTV-T. All patients were staged with the use of the aforementioned clinical staging standards. Prognostic outcomes of the patients were ob-served. Results:For all patients, the one-, three-, and five-year overall survival rates were 70.8%, 35.6%, and 20.7%, respectively. The survival curve resolution of patients who were staged with the use of the 2009 edition of clinical staging standards was better than that of the patients who were staged with the use of the 2004 edition. Survival difference was significant (χ2=29.497, P<0.001). The clinical T stage positively correlated with GTV-T (r=0.615, P<0.001). GTV-T could thus affect prognosis at different T stages. Conclusion:Both esophageal carcinoma clinical staging standards could reflect the prognosis of patients undergoing radiotherapy, but the 2009 edi-tion appeared more accurate than the 2004 edition.
