Page 30 - ARNM-3-3
P. 30
Advances in Radiotherapy
& Nuclear Medicine Brachytherapy versus external beam in local dose escalation
Main results The prescribed dose was not found to be a significant prognostic factor for mortality. In the PDR and VMAT groups, 39 (18.1%) vs. 21 (9.8%) patients, respectively, developed G>3 late dysphagia, (p=0.01). No other significant differences were observed in the investigated G>3 side effects The performance status scales were not significantly different for the two treatment groups. Similarly, with respect to the
Median FU 78.1 months - 3.5 y
Late toxicity Mucosal ≥G2: IMRT: 34%
- - IRT: 25%;
Acute toxicity Xerostomia IRT: 6.7%; IMRT: 30%;
- - ≥G2: p=0.02
OS At 3 y, IRT: 65%; IMRT: 68%
- -
CSS
- - - Abbreviations: CK: Cyberknife; CSS: Cancer-specific survival; DFS: Disease-free survival; DMFS: Distant metastasis-free survival; EBRT: External beam radiotherapy; fr: Fractions; FU: Follow-up; G: Grade; Gy: gray; HDR: High-dose rate; IMRT: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; IRT: Interventional radiotherapy; LC: Local control; n: numbers; OS: Overall survival; PDR: Pulsed-dose rate;
DMFS7DFS At 5 y, PDR: 74.8%; VMAT: 72.7%; p=0.58 At 5 y, IRT: 61%; EBRT: 43% At 3 y, IRT: 59%; IMRT: 53% pts: Patients; QoL: Quality of life; Rand: Randomized; Retr: Retrospective; VMAT: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy; y: Years; 2D: Two-dimensional, vs.: Versus.
LC IRT: 85%; EBRT: 55% IRT: 66.2%;
At 5 y, PDR: 77.8%; VMAT: 73.7%; p=0.24 At 5 y, At 3 y, IMRT: 56.4%
Boost treatment PDR: 9.9 Gy/15 fr; VMAT: 6.8 Gy/3 fr HDR: 20 Gy/4 fr; PDR: 22 Gy; EBRT: 70 Gy/35 fr IRT: 21 Gy/7 fr; IMRT: 20 Gy
n pts PDR: 133; VMAT: 110 IRT: 157; EBRT: 77 IRT: 44; IMRT: 46
Study Retr Retr Rand
Table 5. (Continued) Period Authors 2011 – Embring et al. 27 2018 1999 – Nijdama et al. 28 2001 2010 – Budrukkar 2020 et al. 29
Volume 3 Issue 3 (2025) 22 doi: 10.36922/ARNM025160017
