Comparison of Temporary and Permanent Stent Placement with Concurrent Radiation Therapy in Patients with Esophageal Carcinoma

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Hoon Shin ◽  
Ho-Young Song ◽  
Jong Hoon Kim ◽  
Sung-Bae Kim ◽  
Gin Hyug Lee ◽  
...  
Cancer ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Göran M. Hambraeus ◽  
Claes E. Mercke ◽  
Erik Hammar ◽  
Torsten G. Landberg ◽  
Willy Wang-Andersen

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 395-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Yakami ◽  
Michihide Mitsumori ◽  
Heitetsu Sai ◽  
Yasushi Nagata ◽  
Masahiro Hiraoka ◽  
...  

1983 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Soga ◽  
Masao Fujimaki ◽  
Otsuo Tanaka ◽  
Koichi Sasaki ◽  
Masaki Kawaguchi ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-230
Author(s):  
Naoko Hashimoto ◽  
Jin Iwazawa ◽  
Hisashi Abe ◽  
Takashi Mitani ◽  
Kazufumi Kagawa

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 125-125
Author(s):  
Kristin Kowalchik ◽  
Elizabeth Johnson ◽  
George P. Kim ◽  
C. Daniel Smith ◽  
Siyong Kim ◽  
...  

125 Background: Treatment for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is radiation and chemotherapy, with or without surgery. Radiation has traditionally been delivered with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT). This study evaluates late toxicity in patients treated with IMRT as well as early outcomes and acute toxicity. Methods: This is a retrospective review of 32 patients with esophageal carcinoma treated with IMRT at Mayo Clinic Florida from 2008 -2012. Pathology includes squamous cell and adenocarcinomas. Tumor sites include middle and lower thoracic and GE junction. Clinical stages are TX-T3, N0-3, M0-1. All patients received at least one cycle of concurrent chemotherapy. IMRT dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions prescribed to a target volume including the tumor and regional lymphatics. IMRT plans utilized coplaner beams in a 7-9 beam arrangement or volumetric modulated arc therapy. Results: Median follow-up is 8.9 months (range 2.4-23.0) for all patients and 13.1 months (range 2.8-23.0 months) in surviving patients. Median patient age is 69 (range 46-87). Trimodality treatment was completed in 20 patients (62.5%). Surgery was either an open or minimally invasive esophagogastrectomy. The incidence of grade 3 or greater late toxicity at 1 year was 48% in surgery patients and 26% in non-surgery patients. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicity was esophageal strictures in 25%. The incidence of any grade 3 or greater acute toxicity was 65% in the surgery patients and 75% in the non-surgery patients. Overall survival (OS) for all patients at 18 months is 57% (CI 37-86%) and progression-free survival (PFS) is 60% (36-99%). OS and PFS for trimodality therapy at 12 months is 83% (66-100%) and 81% (63-100%) respectively and for bimodality therapy is 34% (12-93%) and 70% (33-100%) respectively. Conclusions: Increased late toxicity occurs in surgery patients, and increased acute toxicity in non-surgery patients. Lower survival in non-surgery patients may be due to early progression, morbidities which preclude surgery or improved survival with surgery. Overall, IMRT is a feasible treatment modality, which may be equally efficacious to 3D CRT for the treatment of esophageal carcinoma.


1979 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshihiko Inoue ◽  
S. Hori ◽  
Takehiro Inoue ◽  
K. Taniguchi ◽  
T. Kabuto ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 126-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saya Kurata ◽  
Shohei Tobu ◽  
Kazuma Udo ◽  
Mitsuru Noguchi

Objective: We examined the outcomes of patients undergoing ureteral stent placement for hydronephrosis that occurred during treatment for gynecological malignancies. Materials and Methods: From January 2004 to December 2009, we enrolled 33 patients with 45 ureters undergoing ureteral stent placement for hydronephrosis which occurred during treatment for gynecological malignancies. We examined the outcomes of the patients after stent placement. Results: The causes of hydronephrosis were obstruction of the urinary tract by a tumor (n = 22), obstruction due to lymph node swelling (n = 6), ureteral stenosis after radiation therapy (n = 4), and others (n = 1). The ureteral stent was inserted into both ureters in 12 cases, and into one ureter in 21 cases. Ureteral stents were replaced 1-26 times during the observation period (median 3 times). Eighteen (40%) ureteral stents were removed. The reasons for ureteral stent removal were hydronephrosis improvement (11 ureters, 24.4%), a change to nephrostomy (cystectomy: 1 ureter, progression of ureteral stenosis: 2 ureters), renal atrophy (3 ureters), and ureteral dilatation (1 ureter). All of the cases in which ureteral stent withdrawal due to hydronephrosis improvement were cases in which the ureter was compressed by a tumor and were lower ureteral obstructions. Twenty-one patients (64%) died due to cancer after stent placement. The periods from the first stent placement to death ranged from 1 to 58 months (median 18 months). Conclusion: Ureteral stent placement was associated with a poor prognosis in patients with gynecological malignancies. There were a few cases in which stent withdrawal became possible due to the improvement of hydronephrosis. In such cases, the withdrawal rate varied according to the cause and obstructive level.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document