• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.315-327
• /
• 2023

Purpose: Oxaliplatin, a component of the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) regimen, has a more favorable toxicity profile than cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). However, oxaliplatin can induce sensory neuropathy and cumulative, dose-related toxicities. Thus, the capecitabine maintenance regimen may achieve the maximum treatment effect while reducing the cumulative neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin. This study aimed to compare the survival of patients with advanced GC between capecitabine maintenance and observation after 1st line XELOX chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients treated with six cycles of XELOX for advanced GC in six hospitals of the Catholic University of Korea were randomized 1:1 to receive capecitabine maintenance or observation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed using a two-sided log-rank test stratified at a 5% significance level. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 32 and 31 patients were randomized into the maintenance and observation groups, respectively. After randomization, the median number of capecitabine maintenance cycles was 6. The PFS was significantly higher in the maintenance group than the observation group (6.3 vs. 4.1 months, P=0.010). Overall survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (18.2 vs. 16.5 months, P=0.624). Toxicities, such as hand-foot syndrome, were reported in some maintenance group patients. Maintenance treatment was a significant factor associated with PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.472; 95% confidence interval, 0.250-0.890; P=0.020). Conclusions: After 6 cycles of XELOX chemotherapy, capecitabine maintenance significantly prolonged PFS compared with observation, and toxicity was manageable. Maintenance treatment was a significant prognostic factor associated with PFS.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.237-246
• /
• 2004

Purpose: To investigate the effects of radiation dose-escalation on the treatment outcome, complications and the other prognostic variables for glioblastoma patients treated with 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Materials and Methods: Between Jan 1997 and July 2002, a total of 75 patients with histologically proven diagnosis of glioblastoma were analyzed. The patients who had a Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) of 60 or higher, and received at least 50 Gy of radiation to the tumor bed were eligible. All the patients were divided into two arms; Arm 1, the high-dose group was enrolled prospectively, and Arm 2, the low-dose group served as a retrospective control. Arm 1 patients received $63\~70$ Gy (Median 66 Gy, fraction size $1.8\~2$ Gy) with 3D-conformal radiotherapy, and Arm 2 received 59.4 Gy or less (Median 59.4 Gy, fraction size 1.8 Gy) with 2D-conventional radiotherapy. The Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) was defined by the surgical margin and the residual gross tumor on a contrast enhanced MRI. Surrounding edema was not included in the Clinical Target Volume (CTV) in Arm 1, so as to reduce the risk of late radiation associated complications; whereas as in Arm 2 it was included. The overall survival and progression free survival times were calculated from the date of surgery using the Kaplan-Meier method. The time to progression was measured with serial neurologic examinations and MRI or CT scans after RT completion. Acute and late toxicities were evaluated using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group neurotoxicity scores. Results: During the relatively short follow up period of 14 months, the median overall survival and progression free survival times were $15{\pm}1.65$ and $11{\pm}0.95$ months, respectively. The was a significantly longer survival time for the Arm 1 patients compared to those in Arm 2 (p=0.028). For Arm 1 patients, the median survival and progression free survival times were $21{\pm}5.03$ and $12{\pm}1.59$ months, respectively, while for Arm 2 patients they were $14{\pm}0.94$ and $10{\pm}1.63$ months, respectively. Especially in terms of the 2-year survival rate, the high-dose group showed a much better survival time than the low-dose group; $44.7\%$ versus $19.2\%$. Upon univariate analyses, age, performance status, location of tumor, extent of surgery, tumor volume and radiation dose group were significant factors for survival. Multivariate analyses confirmed that the impact of radiation dose on survival was independent of age, performance status, extent of surgery and target volume. During the follow-up period, complications related directly with radiation, such as radionecrosis, has not been identified. Conclusion: Using 3D-conformal radiotherapy, which is able to reduce the radiation dose to normal tissues compared to 2D-conventional treatment, up to 70 Gy of radiation could be delivered to the GTV without significant toxicity. As an approach to intensify local treatment, the radiation dose escalation through 3D-CRT can be expected to increase the overall and progression free survival times for patients with glioblastomas.