cisplatin -etoposide (PE). Distant recurrence developed in 3 operated and 1 stage 3 cases. Among patients with metastatic disease, 14 (% 66.6) were treated with PE as first line, while 7 (%33.3) with other platin based regimens. Progression free survival (PFS) with PE was 5.1 (95% CI, 2.3-5.2) months, and 4.8 (95% CI, 0.2-5.4) months with other regimens. OS with PE was 12.4 (95% CI, 2.7-11.3) months, while it was 18.4 (95% CI, 1.5-34.5) months with other regimens. There were no significant difference between these two groups' for PFS or OS (p¼0.83; p¼0.28, respectively). In all stage 4 patients, 44% received only one line CT. Median follow up time for whole group was 34.7 months, 24 patients died, and OS was 13 months. Conclusion: In our study, <60 age and de novo metatatic disease were determined as independent prognostic factors for OS. There was no significant difference between groups receiving PE and other platinum based regimens in terms of PFS or OS. Interpreting our results was difficult due to limited sample size.
IMRT or non-IMRT group. The overall survival (OS), loco-regional recurrence free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) were calculated from the date of diagnosis. Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with survival and adjust for covariates (P value <0.1 in the univariate analysis). Results: A total of 65 patients were eligible, including 30 with IMRT and 35 with non-IMRT. Patients in the IMRT group had a higher proportion of pathologic N1 stage (30.0% vs. 8.6%, P Z 0.058). Other baseline characters (age, sex, tumor location, T stage (T1-2 vs. T3-4), and Charlson/ Deyo comorbidity score) were well balanced. The 5-and 10-year OS of the IMRT group were 89.4% (95%CI: 70.6%-96.5%) and 83.9% (95%CI: 61.4%-93.8%), which were significantly superior to those of the non-IMRT group (78.2 % [95%CI: 59.4%-89.0%] and 50.3 % [95%CI: 30.2%-67.4%]; P Z 0.031). IMRT was associated with significantly improved 5and 10-year LRFS in comparison with non-IMRT (5-year: 96.3% [95%CI: 76.5%-99.5%] vs. 68.7% [95%CI: 49.4%-81.9%]; 10-year: 89.9% [95% CI: 63.6%-97.5%] vs. 44.4% [95%CI: 22.4%-64.3%]; P Z 0.002). Only 2 of 30 patients (6.6%) developed loco-regional recurrence after IMRT, whereas 14 of 35 (40.0%) failed locally in the non-IMRT group. No difference in DMFS was observed between IMRT and non-IMRT groups (P Z 0.680). There were no statistical differences in OS as for RT dose or adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable analysis identified IMRT as an independent favorable factor of OS (HR Z 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11-0.85, P Z 0.022) and LRFS (HR Z 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04-0.81, P Z 0.025) after adjusting for T stage (P Z 0.100 on univariable analysis) and tumor size (P Z 0.033). Conclusion: IMRT was an effective treatment which might confer superior local control and survival benefit in the setting of postoperative TACC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.