• Korean Journal of Head & Neck Oncology
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.93-96
• /
• 2013

원격 전이된 비인두암 환자에서 주요한 치료 방법은 고식적 항암화학치료에 국한되어왔다. 그러나 적극적인 항암화학치료로 비인두암 환자 중 많은 환자에서 치료 반응을 보이며, 치료 반응을 보인 환자군에서는 국소 제어가 중요한 문제가 된다. 본 저자들은 원격 전이 된 환자 1예를 보고하고자 한다. 환자는 큰 크기의 다발성 전이가 있었으나 항암화학요법으로 관해 상태를 보였다. 이후 공고화 항암화학방사선요법을 추가하였고 현재 30개월 간 무병상태이다. 원격전이된 비인두암에서 공고화 항암화학방사선 요법의 역할에 대하여 문헌 고찰을 통해 논의하고자 한다.

• Korean Journal of Head & Neck Oncology
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.21-28
• /
• 2015

서론: 국소 진행성 두경부암 환자에서 선행 항암요법 후 동시 항암화학방사선요법은 원격 전이를 줄이고, 국소병변을 줄여 방사선 치료의 효과를 높이거나, 기관의 기능을 보존할 목적으로 시도된다. 선행 항암요법의 약제로 는 docetaxel, cisplatin, fluorouracil (DPF) 삼제요법이 가장 효과적인 것으로 알려져 있다. 선행 항암요법 후 동시 항암화학방사선요법과 표준치료인 동시화학방사선요법을 비교한 3상 연구들이 모두 선행 항암요법이 더 낫다는 결과를 보여 주지 못하였지만, 이 연구들은 충분한 환자를 모집하지 못하고 조기 종료된 불완전한 연구라는 한계가 있었다. 이에 저자들은 DPF 선행 항암요법 후 동시 화학방사선요법과 표준치료인 동시 화학방사선요법을 비교하는 메타분석을 시행하였다. 대상 및 방법: 체계적 문헌고찰을 통해 국소진행성 두경부암 환자를 대상으로 시행된 DPF 선행 항암요법 후 동시화학방사선요법과 현재 표준치료인 동시화학방사선요법을 비교한 5개의 3상 연구 결과를 분석하였다. 대상환자는 862 명이었고, 분석 결과 DPF 선행 항암요법 후 동시화학방사선요법은 표준치료와 비교하였을 때 반응률, 2년 및 3년 생존율, 2년 및 3년 무진행 생존율, 점막염 및 빈혈 발생 빈도에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 없었다. 하지만, 완전관해율과 3~4도의 백혈구감소증 및 혈소판 감소증의 빈도는 선행 항암요법 시행군에서 더 높았다. 결론: 국소진행성 두경부암의 치료에서 DPF 선행 항암요법 후 동시 항암화학방사선요법을 시행하는 것은 표준치료인 항암화학방사선요법에 비해 생존율 개선을 보이지 못하였다. 선행항암치료를 추가하는 것이 특정 환자군에서 효과가 있을지에 대해서는 추가적인 연구가 필요하다.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.223-229
• /
• 2006

$\underline{Purpose}$: Combined modality therapy including chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy is considered the standard of care for the treatment of stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of paclitaxel and cisplatin with induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy for stage IIIB NSCLC. $\underline{Materials\;and\;Methods}$: Between July 2000 and October 2005, thirty-nine patients with stage IIIB NSCLC were treated with two cycles of induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy. The induction chemotherapy included the administration of paclitaxel ($175\;mg/m^2$) by intravenous infusion on day 1 and treatment with cisplatin ($75\;mg/m^2$) by intravenous infusion on day 1 every 3 weeks. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy included the use of paclitaxel ($60\;mg/m^2$) plus cisplatin ($25\;mg/m^2$) given intravenously for 6 weeks on day 43, 50, 57, 71, 78 and 85. Thoracic radiotherapy was delivered with 1.8 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of $54{\sim}59.4\;Gy$ in $6{\sim}7$ weeks (median: 59.4 Gy). $\underline{Results}$: The follow up period was $6{\sim}63$ months (median: 21 months). After the induction of chemotherapy, 41.0% (16 patients) showed a partial response and 59.0% (23 patients) had stable disease. After concurrent chemoradiotherapy, 10.3% (4 patients) had a complete response, 41.0% (16 patients) had a partial response, and the overall response rate was 51.3% (20 patients). The 1-, 2-, 3-year overall survival rates were 66.7%, 40.6%, and 27.4% respectively, with a median survival time of 20 months. The 1-, 2-, 3-year progression free survival rates were 43.6%, 24.6%, and 24.6%, respectively, with median progression free survival time of 10.7 months. Induction chemotherapy was well tolerated. Among 39 patients who completed the entire treatment including chemoradiotherapy, 46.3% (18 patients) had esophagitis greater than grade 3 and 28.2% (11 patients) had radiation pneumonitis greater than grade 3. $\underline{Conclusion}$: Paclitaxel and cisplatin with induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy for stage IIIB NSCLC seems to be an effective treatment. Occurrence of esophagitis and pneumonitis represents a significant morbidity and suggests a modification of the treatment regimen, either with the chemotherapy schedule or with radiotherapy treatment planning.

• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.65-69
• /
• 2008

Surgery is the only curative modality for the treatment of gastric cancer. There has been no drastic improvement in the treatment of gastric cancer with chemotherapy. Clinical trials have attempted to demonstrate the benefit of the preoperative chemotherapy for gastric cancer. The benefit of the use of preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy has been demonstrated for other solid cancers such as breast cancer, esophageal cancer and rectal cancer. Despite the rationale of the use of preoperative chemotherapy for patients with gastric cancer, the evidence of positive results with the use of preoperative chemotherapy has not been clear. Recently the British Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Cancer Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) study demonstrated the survival benefit of preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy. However, this study had several problems with the use of a heterogeneous population of patients, the method of surgery and the use of perioperative chemotherapy. Further studies with new drugs are warranted to determine the role of pre-operative chemotherapy for patients with gastric cancer.

• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.57-64
• /
• 2008

In gastric cancer, the only potentially curative treatment is surgery that attempts to achieve curative (R0) resection. However, despite the use of curative resection, a recurrence develops in a high percentage of patients, especially in cases of serosa and/or lymph node involvement. As a strategy to improve the survival of the patients with resectable advanced gastric cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been evaluated in several phase II trials and a few phase III trials. The results of these trials have confirmed the feasibility and safety of this approach with no apparent increase in surgical complications. Recently, the findings of a large phase III randomized trial (MAGIC trial) have indicated that compared to the use of surgery alone, perioperative chemotherapy, using both a neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategy, decreased the number of T and N stage cancers and improved survival. The results of another recent phase III trial (FNLCC 94012/FFCD 9703) also showed that compared to the use of surgery alone, perioperative chemotherapy improved the R0 resection rate and survival. In both trials, the improved outcomes may be attributed to the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy because of poor compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy. These results cannot be directly translated to clinical practice in Korea due to differences in surgical techniques and outcomes. However, the findings of a few small phase II and III trials performed in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer in Korea have also suggested that neoadjuvant chemotherapy would result in the improvement of the R0 resection rate and down-staging of the disease. More effective chemotherapy regimens are needed in future large randomized trials to determine the subset of patients that will benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy and to determine the extent of benefit.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.64-70
• /
• 2009

Purpose: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. However, the introduction of gemcitabine and the recognition of a benefit in patients with advanced disease stimulated the design of trials that compare chemotherapy alone to concurrent chemoradiation. Therefore, we evaluated role of CCRT for locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. Materials and Methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis of treatment results for patients with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer between January 2000 and January 2008. The radiation was delivered to the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes with a 1~2 cm margin at a total dose of 36.0~59.4 Gy (median: 54 Gy). The chemotherapeutic agent delivered with the radiation was 5-FU (500 mg/$m^2$). The patients who underwent chemotherapy alone received gemcitabine (1,000 mg/$m^2$) alone or gemcitabine with 5-FU. The follow-up period ranged from 2 to 38 months. The survival and prognostic factors were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test, respectively. Results: Thirty-four patients received concurrent chemoradiotherapy, whereas 21 patients received chemotherapy alone. The median survival time was 12 months for CCRT patients, compared to 11 months for chemotherapy alone patients (p=0.453). The median progression-free survival was 8 months for CCRT patients, compared to 5 months for chemotherapy alone patients (p=0.242). The overall response included 9 partial responses for CCRT and 1 partial response for chemotherapy alone. In total, 26% of patients from the CCRT group experienced grade 3~4 bowel toxicity. In contract, no grade 3~4 bowel toxicity was observed in the chemotherapy alone group. The significant prognostic factors of overall survival were lymph node status, high CA19-9, and tumor location. Conclusion: The response rate and progression-free survival were more favorable in the CCRT group, when compared with the chemotherapy alone group. Therefore, radiation therapy seems to be an effective tool for local tumor control.

• Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.11-21
• /
• 1996

항암치료에 있어 내성기전은 암세포의 종류에 따라 다양하며 동일세포라도 내성이 생긴 항암제에 따라 그 기능이 다른 것으로 보고되고 있으며 세포종류 및 항암제에 따른 각각의 내성기전을 완전히 알기란 그리 쉬운 일이 아니다. 그러나 임상치료에 있어서 항암제의 적용은 대개 내성 생성이 잘 안되는 즉 교차내성이 적게 일어나는 약제끼리의 선택이 화학요법에 유리하며 재발방지의 지표가 될 수 있으며 내성억제가 가능한 약제의 개발이 중요하다. 또 암에 따른 정확한 내성기전을 잘 밝힘으로서 내성을 방지할 수 있는 target 약제를 함께 병용 개발하는 것이 암의 치료의 지름길이 될 수 있다.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.133-139
• /
• 2009

Purpose: This study was designed to analyze the outcome and toxicity of thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) and chemotherapy for patients who suffer with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively studied 35 patients with LS-SCLC. TRT was administered once daily (1.8 to 2 Gy per fraction) and it was directed to the primary tumor for a total 50 to 66 Gy in 6 to 7 weeks. The patients received four cycles of etoposide plus cisplatin. TRT was begun on day 1 of the first cycle of chemotherapy in the concurrent arm and after the fourth cycle in the sequential arm. Results: The median progression-free survival time was 16.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.0 to 24.1 months) for the sequential arm, and 26.3 months (95% CI, 16.6 to 35.9 months) for the concurrent arm. The 2-year progression-free survival rate was 16.0 percent for the sequential arm and 50.0 percent for the concurrent arm (p=0.0950 by log-rank test). Leukopenia was more severe and more frequent in the concurrent arm than in the sequential arm. However, severe esophagitis was infrequent in both arms. The radiotherapy was interrupted more frequently in the concurrent arm than in the sequential arm due to hematologic toxicities (p=0.001). Conclusion: This study suggests that concurrent TRT with etoposide plus cisplatin is more effective for the treatment of LS-SCLC than sequential TRT. However, there is a significant increase in the risk of toxicities, and radiotherapy was frequently interrupted in the concurrent arm due to hematologic toxicities.

• 대한두경부종양학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2004.11a
• /
• pp.257-257
• /
• 2004

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.151-159
• /
• 2007

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to present the treatment results and to identify possible prognostic indicators in patients with locally advanced hypopharyngeal carcinoma. Materials and Methods: Between October 1985 to December 2000, 90 patients who had locally advanced stage IV hypopharyngeal carcinoma were studied retrospectively. Twelve patients were treated with radiotherapy alone, 65 patients were treated with a combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and 13 patients were treated with surgery and postoperative radiotherapy with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Total radiation dose ranged from 59.0 to 88.2 Gy (median 70 Gy) for radiotherpay alone. Most patients had ciplatin and 5-fluorouracil, and others had cisplatin and pepleomycin or vincristin. Median follow-up period was 15 months. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival rate and Cox proportional hazard model for multivariate analysis of prognostic factors. Results: Overall 3-and 5-year survival rates were 27% and 17%, respectively. The 2-year locoregional control rates were 33% for radiotherapy alone, 32% for combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and 81 % for combined surgery and radiotherapy (p=0.006). The prognostic factors affecting overall survival were T stage, concurrent chemoradiation and treatment response. Overall 3-and 5-year laryngeal preservation rates in combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy were 26% and 22%, respectively. Of these, the 5-year laryngeal preservation rates were 52% for concurrent chemoradiation group (n=11), and 16% for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy (n=54, p=0.012). Conclusion: Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy showed better results than radiotherapy alone or with chemotherapy. Radiotherapy combined with concurrent chemotherapy is an effective modality to achieve organ preservation in locally advanced hypopharyngeal cancer. Further prospective randomized studies will be required.