The Analysis of Late-course Hyperfractionation Radiotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

席许平,肖锋,罗乐,李云,刘雯,杨凤娇,廖遇平,胡炳强
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-7171.2010.09.006
2008-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To evaluate the clinical efficacy and side reaction results of late-course hyperfractionation radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Methods:120 patients with NPC were divided into conventional fractionation group and Late-course hyperfractionation radiotherapy group randomely.60 patients in Late-course hyperfractionation radiotherapy group were treated with conventional face-neck joint portal until the dose to 36Gy/20f in 4 weeks first,and then received hyperfractionation radiotherapy: 1.15-1.2Gy/f,twice daily with 6-8 hours interval between the two fractions,to the total dose of 74.2-76.7Gy in 7.5 weeks.60 patients in conventional fractionation group received conventional radiotherapy: 2.0Gy/f,5 fractions a week to a total dose of 69Gy-72Gy in 7.5 weeks.Results:The regression rates in the nasopharynx were 98.3% in the late-course hyperfractionation radiotherapy group and 96.6% in the conventional fractionation group after 6 months of radiotherapy respectively.The 1,3,and 5-year local control rates and survival rates in late-course hyperfractionation radiotherapy group were 100%,94.86%,81.36% and 100%,90%,74.61%,respectively.And those in conventional fractionation group were 100%,93.22%,62.21% and 100%,78.94%,58.8%,respectively.There was significant difference between the two groups(P0.01).On the `Contrary,no significant difference in acute mucusitis or late complications was found between the two groups(P0.05).For NPC the local control rate and survival rate of late-course hyperfractionation radiotherapy are higher than those of conventional fractionation.Recurrence rate of conventional fractionation is higher than that of late-course hyperfractionation radiotherapy.While there is no significant difference in the distant metastasis rates between the two groups.Conclusion:Late-course hyperfractionation radio-therapy is superior to conventional fractionation radiotherapy.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?