Digitalni repozitorij raziskovalnih organizacij Slovenije

Iskanje po repozitoriju
A+ | A- | Pomoč | SLO | ENG

Iskalni niz: išči po
išči po
išči po
išči po

Možnosti:
  Ponastavi


Iskalni niz: "ključne besede" (radiation therapy) .

1 - 2 / 2
Na začetekNa prejšnjo stran1Na naslednjo stranNa konec
1.
Implant-prosthetic rehabilitation after radiation treatment in head and neck cancer patients : a case-series report of outcome
Jasna Cotič, Jure Jamšek, Milan Kuhar, Nataša Ihan Hren, Andrej Kansky, Mutlu Özcan, Peter Jevnikar, 2017, izvirni znanstveni članek

Povzetek: Background. Slovenia has a high burden of head and neck cancer. Patients are mostly treated with surgery followed by radiation therapy. Advanced surgical and prosthodontic techniques have expanded the rehabilitation options. The aim of the study was to review the outcome of implant-prosthetic treatment after radiation therapy. Patients and methods. Twenty irradiated head and neck cancer patients who received a removable implantsupported denture at the University Medical Centre Ljubljana were included in the study. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox proportional hazard models and logistic regression were used to assess the implant survival and success rate. Results. Twenty patients had 100 implants inserted. The estimated implant survival rate was 96% after 1 year and 87% after 5 years. Failures were mostly observed before loading (91.2%). Implants inserted in the transplanted bone were significantly more likely to fail. Out of 89 implants supporting the dentures, 79 implants (88.7%) were successful, meaning that they were functionally loaded and exhibited no pain, radiolucency or progressive bone loss. Prosthetic treatment was significantly less successful in older patients. The attachment system and the number of implants did not have a statistically significant influence on the success rate. Conclusions. Implant-supported dentures have been shown to be a reliable treatment modality after head and neck cancer surgery and radiation therapy. Possible early failures should be communicated with the patients.
Ključne besede: head and neck cancer, radiation therapy, dental implants
Objavljeno v DiRROS: 03.06.2024; Ogledov: 122; Prenosov: 52
.pdf Celotno besedilo (586,82 KB)

2.
Induction gemcitabine in standard dose or prolonged low-dose with cisplatin followed by concurrent radiochemotherapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer : a randomized phase II clinical trial
Martina Vrankar, Matjaž Zwitter, Tanja Bavčar-Vodovnik, Ana Milič, Viljem Kovač, 2014, izvirni znanstveni članek

Povzetek: The optimal combination of chemotherapy with radiation therapy for treatment locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains an open issue. This randomized phase II study compared gemcitabine in two different schedules and cisplatin - as induction chemotherapy, followed by radiation therapy concurrent with cisplatin and etoposid. Patients and methods. Eligible patients had microscopically confirmed inoperable non-metastatic non-small cell lung cancer; fulfilled the standard criteria for platin-based chemotherapy; and signed informed consent. Patients were treated with 3 cycles of induction chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Two different aplications of gemcitabine were compared: patients in arm A received gemcitabine at 1250 mg/m2 in a standard half hour i.v. infusion on days 1 and 8; patients in arm B received gemcitabine at 250 mg/m2 in prolonged 6-hours i.v. infusion on days 1 and 8. In both arms, cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 2 was administered. All patients continued treatment with radiation therapy with 60-66 Gy concurrent with cisplatin 50 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 29 and 36 and etoposid 50 mg/m2 on days 1-5 and 29-33. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR) after induction chemotherapy; secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results. From September 2005 to November 2010, 106 patients were recruited to this study. No statistically signifficant differences were found in RR after induction chemotherapy between the two arms (48.1% and 57.4%, p = 0.34). Toxicity profile was comparable and mild with grade 3/4 neutropenia as primary toxicity in both arms. One patient in arm B suffered from acute peripheral ischemia grade 4 and an amputation of lower limb was needed. With a median follow-up of 69.3 months, progression-free survival and median survival in arm A were 15.7 and 24.8 months compared to 18.9 and 28.6 months in arm B. The figures for 1- and 3-year overall survival were 73.1% and 30.8% in arm A, and 81.5 % and 44.4% in arm B, respectively. Conclusions. Among the two cisplatin-based doublets of induction chemotherapy for inoperable NSCLC, both schedules of gemcitabine have a comparable toxicity profile. Figures for RR, PFS and OS are among the best reported in current literature. While there is a trend towards better efficacy of the treament with prolonged infusion of gemcitabine, the difference between the two arms did not reach statistical significance
Ključne besede: induction chemotherapy, non-small cell lung cancer, radiation therapy, randomized clinical trial
Objavljeno v DiRROS: 11.04.2024; Ogledov: 427; Prenosov: 318
.pdf Celotno besedilo (719,63 KB)

Iskanje izvedeno v 0.07 sek.
Na vrh