Sequential chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage I/II extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type

25Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this report is to summarize our clinical experience of patients with stage I/II extranodal natural killer (NK)/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, treated using sequential chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (SCRT) or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Methods: Forty-three patients with stage I/II extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, who received SCRT (16 patients) or CCRT (27 patients) were included in the present analysis. Results: The median follow-up time was 39 months (range, 4-171 months) for all patients, 77 months (range, 4-171 months) for the SCRT group, and 31 months (range, 6-132 months) for the CCRT group. There were no statistically significant differences between the SCRT and CCRT groups with regard to the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) (56% vs. 41%, P=0.823) and 3-year overall survival (OS) (75% vs. 59%, P=0.670). Univariate analysis revealed that patients with tumors confined to the nasal cavity and patients achieved complete remission had better PFS and OS rates, regardless of the treatment sequence. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with tumors confined to the nasal cavity and patients aged ≤60 years had better OS rates. Conclusion: The effect of SCRT and CCRT are similar in terms of survival outcomes of patients with stage I/II extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type. Our results show that tumors confined to the nasal cavity and an age ≤60 years were associated with a better prognosis. © 2013 Korean Society of Hematology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lee, J., Kim, C. Y., Park, Y. J., & Lee, N. K. (2013). Sequential chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage I/II extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type. Blood Research, 48(4), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.5045/br.2013.48.4.274

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free