6628 Node negative T1–2 anal cancer: radiotherapy alone or concomitant radio-chemotherapy?

2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 398
Author(s):  
T. Zilli ◽  
U. Schick ◽  
M. Ozsahin ◽  
P. Gervaz ◽  
A. Roth ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Zilli ◽  
Ulrike Schick ◽  
Mahmut Ozsahin ◽  
Pascal Gervaz ◽  
Arnaud D. Roth ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (12) ◽  
pp. 1421-1428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Janssen ◽  
Jürgen Meier zu Eissen ◽  
Gerd Kolbert ◽  
Michael Bremer ◽  
Johann Hinrich Karstens ◽  
...  

1989 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hendrik Martijn ◽  
Robert J.L. Caspers ◽  
Kees Welvaart ◽  
Cock v.d. Velde ◽  
Jo Hermans ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 191 (11) ◽  
pp. 845-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Henkenberens ◽  
Daniela Meinecke ◽  
Stoll Michael ◽  
Michael Bremer ◽  
Hans Christiansen

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4065-4065
Author(s):  
Sabine Kathrin Mai ◽  
Miriam Reuschenbach ◽  
Martine Ottstadt ◽  
Grit Welzel ◽  
Marcus Trunk ◽  
...  

4065 Background: Evaluation of the HPV infection- and transformation-status as a predictor of the response to definitive radio-chemotherapy for anal cancer. Methods: 80 patients (54 fm, 26 m) with histologically confirmed anal cancer and known HPV-Infection- (determined by PCR) and p16-expression-status (determined by immunohistochemistry) were analyzed. All pts. were treated with definitive radio-chemotherapy (RCT) with 5-FU/MMC, median age 60ys (35–86), median follow up 54mo (4–180). 41 pts. were HPV+ and p16+ (group 1), 10 pts. were HPV-/p16+ (group 2), 9 pts. were HPV+/p16- (group 3) and 17 pts. were HPV+/p16- (group 4). Endpoints were local control (LC) at 5ys and overall survival (OS) at 5ys. In addition to HPV/p16 status, the influence of T-stage and tumor localization (canal vs. margin) was analyzed. Results: More women than men were HPV+ (fm 77% vs. m 33%) while gender was evenly distributed among HPV-pts. (fm 48% vs. m 53%). Upon univariate analysis, gender, HPV+ and p16+ were significant predictors of both LC and OS (p<0.05) while T-Stage was predictive for LC (p<0.05). Upon multivariate analysis, gender and T-Stage significantly influenced LC (w85.2% vs. m54.9%, p=0.028; <T3 84.2% vs ≥ T3 48,1%, p=0,019). OS was significantly influenced by gender (w95% vs. m59.2%, p=0.005), while the influence of HPV/p16-status did not reach significance when all four groups were analyzed simultaneously in this moderately sized cohort. Upon direct univariate comparison of HPV+/p16+ und HPV-/p16-pts, both gender and combined HPV/p16-positivity had a significant influence on LC and OS. Upon multivariate analysis, combined HPV/p16-positivity resulted in better LC (HPV+/p16+: 85% vs. HPV-/p16-: 38.7%, p=0.003), while, as a consequence of moderate patient numbers, only gender significantly predicted OS (fm93.7% vs. m62.6%, p=0.015). Viral status, however, showed a trend for significance. Conclusions: The data from one of the largest monocentric series treated with a uniform treatment regimen suggest that HPV-status predicts response to RCT in pts. with anal cancer. Patients with tumors not associated with HPV whatsoever (HPV-/P16-) have both inferior LC and a clear trend for inferior OS and might require an intensified treatment regimen.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document