Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Fine-Tuning Low-Dose Total Skin Electron Therapy for Optimal Management of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma: A Comparative Analysis of Regimens.
Laughlin, Brady S; Van Der Walt, Charles; Mangold, Aaron R; Breen, William G; Rosenthal, Allison C; Lester, Scott; Hoppe, Bradford; Peterson, Jennifer; Bogan, Aaron; Rule, William G.
Afiliación
  • Laughlin BS; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
  • Van Der Walt C; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
  • Mangold AR; Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
  • Breen WG; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
  • Rosenthal AC; Department of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
  • Lester S; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
  • Hoppe B; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
  • Peterson J; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
  • Bogan A; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
  • Rule WG; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Adv Radiat Oncol ; 9(7): 101502, 2024 Jul.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38846486
ABSTRACT

Purpose:

Low-dose total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT) is a proven treatment for managing cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and Sezary syndrome with skin burden. We performed a retrospective comparison of response rates and time to progression for patients receiving low-dose TSEBT based on dose per fractionation, total dose, and stage. Methods and Materials One hundred and ten patients with CTCL and Sezary syndrome were treated with 135 courses of low-dose (400-1500 cGy) TSEBT or subtotal skin electron therapy at multiple centers of a single institution between August 2003 and June 2023. Patients were stratified according to total dose, dose per fraction, and stage.

Results:

The median follow-up was 301 days (IQR, 141, 767). The median age at treatment was 69.9 years (range, 29.7-96.5). T-stage distribution was as follows 3 (2.7%) T1, 74 (67.3%) T2, 16 (14.5%) T3, and 17 (15.5%) T4. American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition stage distribution was as follows 3 (2.7%) IA, 53 (48.2%) IB, 3 (2.7%) IIA, 16 (14.5%) IIB, 8 (7.3%) IIIA, 19 (17.3%) IVA, and 8 (7.3%) IVB. There was no significant difference in disease distribution between patients treated with different fractionation schemes. The overall response rate was 89.6%. Forty-four courses (32.6%), 34 courses (25.2%), and 43 (31.9%) resulted in a complete, near-complete, and partial response, respectively. Fourteen courses (10.4%) resulted in no clinical response. For all patients, the median time to response was 43.0 days (IQR, 23.0-70). The median time to skin progression for all patients was 107.5 days (IQR, 67.8-233.5).

Conclusions:

This analysis demonstrated that CTCL patients treated with low-dose radiation therapy delivered over various fractionation schemes had similar overall response rates and median time to progression.

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Adv Radiat Oncol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Adv Radiat Oncol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article