We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
High-dose rate and low-dose rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Final results of Osaka University Hospital.
Cancer 1993 October 16
BACKGROUND: High-dose rate (HDR) intracavitary radiation therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix has gradually found wider acceptance. In 1983, the authors first presented the results of prospective randomized comparative study of HDR versus low-dose rate (LDR) therapy. In the current study, the final results of this study with a longer follow-up are presented.
METHODS: From January 1975 through August 1983, 430 previously untreated patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Stages I-III were treated with either HDR 60Co therapy or LDR 137Cs therapy at our department. HDR was administered to a total of 259 patients: 32 patients in Stage I, 80 in Stage II, and 147 in Stage III. LDR was administered to a total of 171 patients: 28 patients in Stage I, 61 in Stage II, and 82 in Stage III.
RESULTS: The 5-year cause-specific survival rates of Stage I-III patients treated with HDR were 85%, 73%, and 53%, respectively. The corresponding figures for LDR were 93%, 78%, and 47%, respectively. There was no significant difference between these survival rates. Moderate-to-severe complications developed in 10% of the patients treated with HDR and 4% of those with LDR. This difference in the incidence of complications was statistically significant (P = 0.023).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment results in terms of cause-specific survival were equivalent for HDR and LDR treatment. However, the incidence of complications was higher for the HDR group, although within acceptable levels, than for the LDR group.
METHODS: From January 1975 through August 1983, 430 previously untreated patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Stages I-III were treated with either HDR 60Co therapy or LDR 137Cs therapy at our department. HDR was administered to a total of 259 patients: 32 patients in Stage I, 80 in Stage II, and 147 in Stage III. LDR was administered to a total of 171 patients: 28 patients in Stage I, 61 in Stage II, and 82 in Stage III.
RESULTS: The 5-year cause-specific survival rates of Stage I-III patients treated with HDR were 85%, 73%, and 53%, respectively. The corresponding figures for LDR were 93%, 78%, and 47%, respectively. There was no significant difference between these survival rates. Moderate-to-severe complications developed in 10% of the patients treated with HDR and 4% of those with LDR. This difference in the incidence of complications was statistically significant (P = 0.023).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment results in terms of cause-specific survival were equivalent for HDR and LDR treatment. However, the incidence of complications was higher for the HDR group, although within acceptable levels, than for the LDR group.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app