Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Survival analyses of different treatment modalities and clinical stage for hypopharyngeal carcinoma.
Lin, Tian-Yun; Lee, Tsung-Lun; Hsu, Yen-Bin; Tai, Shyh-Kuan; Wang, Ling-Wei; Yang, Muh-Hwa; Chu, Pen-Yuan.
Afiliação
  • Lin TY; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
  • Lee TL; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Hsu YB; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Tai SK; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Wang LW; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Yang MH; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Chu PY; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Front Oncol ; 13: 1109417, 2023.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36937435
ABSTRACT

Objective:

We investigated the effects of different treatment modalities and clinical stage for hypopharyngeal carcinoma (HPC) patients.

Methods:

Between February 2004 and December 2012, 167 HPC patients were reviewed. We calculated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), local failure-free survival (LFFS), regional failure-free survival (RFFS), and distant metastasis failure-free survival (DMFFS) using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared various survival outcomes between definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery-based therapy (SBT).

Results:

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between SBT (n = 102) and definitive CRT (n = 65) groups. The 5-year rates of OS (59.7% vs. 24.0%, p < 0.0001) and PFS (49.9% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.0002) were significantly better in patients who received SBT than in those who received definitive CRT. The SBT group also obtained better LFFS (p < 0.0001), RFFS (p = 0.0479), and DMFFS (p = 0.0110). We did similar analyses by different T-classification (T1-2, T3, and T4) and found that SBT had better OS (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0020), PFS (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0513), LFFS (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0075), RFFS (p = 0.1949 and p = 0.0826), and DMFFS (p = 0.0248 and p = 0.0436) in the T4 and T1-2 subgroups but similar OS (p = 0.9598), PFS (p = 0.5052), RFFS (p = 0.9648), and DMFFS (p = 0.8239) in T3 patients. Analyses by different overall stages revealed no differences between definitive CRT and SBT for stage III patients but significantly better results for stage IV patients who received SBT.

Conclusions:

SBT can obtain significant survival benefits when compared with definitive CRT for the whole cohort of patients. Definitive CRT has similar survival outcomes compared with SBT only for T3 tumors or overall stage III disease.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Front Oncol Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Taiwan

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Front Oncol Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Taiwan