2013•PubMedRequires access

[Comparison of side effects of intensity modulated radiotherapy and conventional radiotherapy in 69 cases with nasopharyngeal carcinoma].

Hailin Zhong, Guomou Chen, Danping Lin, Guodao Chen

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the side effects of intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. METHOD: Sixty nine cases of nasopharyngeal carcinoma were random selected by stages,with 32 cases in IMRT group and 37 cases in conventional radiotherapy group. The target areas in IMRT group were nasopharyngeal carcinoma, parapharyngeal space and neck lymphatic area with the fractional dose of 2.00-2.12 Gy per time, for 33-35 times. The cases in conventional radiotherapy group were given facio-cervical field radiation, DT 40-60 Gy per time, for 20-30 times. The reinforcing dosage in lateral facial field increased to DT 70 Gy in the nasopharyngeal area. The prophylactic irradiation dose of the neck was DT 50-55 Gy. RESULT: The incidence of dry mouth one year after radiotherapy in the IMRT and conventional radiotherapy groups were 9.38% (3/32) and 94.59% (35/37) respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.01). The incidence of difficulty in opening mouth in the IMRT and conventional radiotherapy groups were 6.25% (2/32) and 72.97% (27/37) respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups(P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared with the conventional radiotherapy, IMRT may improve the control rate and obviously de creases the side effects. It could be recommended for the radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To compare the side effects of intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. METHOD: Sixty nine cases of nasopharyngeal carcinoma were random selected by stages,with 32 cases in IMRT group and 37 cases in conventional radiotherapy group. The target areas in IMRT group were nasopharyngeal carcinoma, parapharyngeal space and neck lymphatic area with the fractional dose of 2.00-2.12 Gy per time, for 33-35 times. The cases in conventional radiotherapy group were given facio-cervical field radiation, DT 40-60 Gy per time, for 20-30 times. The reinforcing dosage in lateral facial field increased to DT 70 Gy in the nasopharyngeal area. The prophylactic irradiation dose of the neck was DT 50-55 Gy. RESULT: The incidence of dry mouth one year after radiotherapy in the IMRT and conventional radiotherapy groups were 9.38% (3/32) and 94.59% (35/37) respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.01). The incidence of difficulty in opening mouth in the IMRT and conventional radiotherapy groups were 6.25% (2/32) and 72.97% (27/37) respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups(P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared with the conventional radiotherapy, IMRT may improve the control rate and obviously de creases the side effects. It could be recommended for the radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the side effects of intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. METHOD: Sixty nine cases of nasopharyngeal carcinoma were random selected by stages,with 32 cases in IMRT group and 37 cases in conventional radiotherapy group. The target areas in IMRT group were nasopharyngeal carcinoma, parapharyngeal space and neck lymphatic area with the fractional dose of 2.00-2.12 Gy per time, for 33-35 times. The cases in conventional radiotherapy group were given facio-cervical field radiation, DT 40-60 Gy per time, for 20-30 times. The reinforcing dosage in lateral facial field increased to DT 70 Gy in the nasopharyngeal area. The prophylactic irradiation dose of the neck was DT 50-55 Gy. RESULT: The incidence of dry mouth one year after radiotherapy in the IMRT and conventional radiotherapy groups were 9.38% (3/32) and 94.59% (35/37) respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.01). The incidence of difficulty in opening mouth in the IMRT and conventional radiotherapy groups were 6.25% (2/32) and 72.97% (27/37) respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups(P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared with the conventional radiotherapy, IMRT may improve the control rate and obviously de creases the side effects. It could be recommended for the radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Key concepts: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma, Radiation therapy, Medicine, Parapharyngeal space, Carcinoma, Nuclear medicine, Radiology, Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Comparison of side effects of intensity modulated radiotherapy and conventional radiotherapy in 69 cases with nasopharyngeal carcinoma]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens