PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

René-Jean Bensadoun

Publications and source records attributed to René-Jean Bensadoun.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

French multicenter phase III randomized study testing concurrent twice-a-day radiotherapy and cisplatin/5-fluorouracil chemotherapy (BiRCF) in unresectable pharyngeal carcinoma: Results at 2 years (FNCLCC-GORTEC).

BACKGROUND: Unresectable carcinomas of the oropharynx and hypopharynx still have a poor long-term prognosis. Following a previous phase II study, this phase III multicenter trial was conducted between November 1997 and March 2002. METHODS: Nontreated, strictly unresectable cases were eligible. Twice-daily radiation: two fractions of 1.2 Gy/day, 5 days per week, with no split (D1-->D46). Total tumor doses: 80.4 Gy/46 day (oropharynx), 75.6 Gy/44 day (hypopharynx). Chemotherapy (arm B): Cisplatin 100 mg/m2 (D1, D22, D43); 5FU, continuous infusion (D1-->D5), 750 mg/m2/day cycle 1; 430 mg/m2/day cycles 2 and 3. RESULTS: A total of 163 evaluable patients. Grade 3-4 acute mucositis 82.6% arm B/69.5% arm A (NS); Grade 3-4 neutropenia 33.3% arm B/2.4% arm A (p < 0.05). Enteral nutrition through gastrostomy tube was more frequent in arm B before treatment and at 6 months (p < 0.01). At 24 months, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and specific survival (SS) were significantly better in arm B. OS: 37.8% arm B vs. 20.1% arm A (p = 0.038); DFS: 48.2% vs. 25.2% (p = 0.002); SS: 44.5% vs. 30.2% (p = 0.021). No significant difference between the two arms in the amount of side effects at 1 and 2 years. CONCLUSION: For these unresectable cases, chemoradiation provides better outcome than radiation alone, even with an "aggressive" dose-intensity radiotherapy schedule.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

[Radiation-induced mucositis of the aerodigestive tract: prevention and treatment. MASCC/ISOO mucositis group's recommendations].

Acute mucositis is the main intensity-limiting toxicity in the management of head and neck (H&N) and digestive track carcinomas with radiotherapy. New radiation modalities (hyperfractionation and/or acceleration) as well as combined modality regimens in this situation induce higher rates of acute toxicity. Hyperfractionation for example allows higher control rates, with few late toxicities, but it slightly increases acute mucositis. The addition of chemotherapy introduces systemic toxicity and can exacerbate local tissue reactions when used concurrently with radiation. Mucositis is recognized as the principal limiting factor to further treatment intensification. As local-regional control and overall survival are related to dose-intensity in this case, further research into the assessment, analysis, prevention and treatment of mucosal toxicity is not only crucial to the improvement in quality of life, but certainly to improved rates of disease control as well. Several topical and systemic treatments are directed to the decrease and the acceptance of this acute toxicity, but few have shown significant preventive effect. Improvement of technical aspects of H&N radiotherapy (3D conformal radiation, intensity-modulated radiotherapy) should have a major impact in the prevention of mucositis. The efficacy of low level laser therapy in the management of such a toxicity could hence yield important development of this method in the field of oncology. MASCC/ISOO mucositis group's recommendations for the management of acute radiation-induced mucositis are here summarized.

Digestive System Diseases↗
PubMed2006

[The cost of intensity modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancers: results of the 2002 STIC study].

An economic evaluation of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in head and neck cancer was carried out to assess the cost of treatment and compare it to reimbursement paid to hospitals in the French Prospective Payment System. Planning required in average 20 hours of work for the physician and 6 hours for the radiation oncologist. Radiation consisted of 33 fractions in average and required 29 hours of work for the radiotherapy technician, 8 hours for the physician and 3 hours for the radiation oncologist. Mean cost of IMRT treatment was estimated at euro 10,916 (euro 2,773 for planning and euro 8,143 for radiation). The variability of costs was important and was in a large extent attributable to learning effects. As more patients were treated, unit cost of treatment was decreasing. In the French Prospective Payment System, mean reimbursement of IMRT was euro 6,987. For 70 % of the patients, reimbursement did not offset the cost of treatment. A financial support for hospitals implementing the technique is essential during the whole learning period.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2005

In vivo measurements with MOSFET detectors in oropharynx and nasopharynx intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of in vivo measurements with metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters for oropharynx and nasopharynx intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: During a 1-year period, in vivo measurements of the dose delivered to one or two points of the oral cavity by IMRT were obtained with MOSFET dosimeters. Measurements were obtained during each session of 48 treatment plans for 21 patients, all of whom were fitted with a custom-made mouth plate. Calculated and measured values were compared. RESULTS: A total of 344 and 452 measurements were performed for the right and left sides, respectively, of the oral cavity. Seventy percent of the discrepancies between calculated and measured values were within +/-5%. Uncertainties were due to interfraction patient positions, intrafraction patient movements, and interfraction MOSFET positions. Nevertheless, the discrepancies between the measured and calculated means were within +/-5% for 92% and 95% of the right and left sides, respectively. Comparison of these discrepancies and the discrepancies between calculated values and measurements made on a phantom revealed that all differences were within +/-5%. CONCLUSION: Our experience demonstrates the feasibility of in vivo measurements with MOSFET dosimeters for oropharynx and nasopharynx IMRT.

Calibration↗
PubMed2005

Prognostic impact of the epidermal growth factor receptor levels for patients with larynx and hypopharynx cancer.

The aim of this study was to analyse prognostic factors for disease free interval (DFI) and overall survival (OS) among patients with larynx and hypopharynx cancer requiring a total laryngectomy. Three groups of patients were studied according to the type of treatment they received. Fifty-eight patients had total laryngectomy, 71 patients had organ preservation treatment including induction chemotherapy followed by exclusive radiotherapy, 26 patients received induction chemotherapy followed by salvage total laryngectomy. The studied potential prognostic factors were age, gender, performans status, primary tumor localization, T status, N status, tumor volume and tumoral EGFR level (fmol/mg protein). The multivariate analysis showed that both N status and tumor volume were significant for DFI and OS. EGFR level was significant only for patients treated by induction chemotherapy and exclusive radiotherapy (p = 0.05 and 0.05 for DFI and OS length, respectively). Among this group, patients with tumor EGFR levels lower and higher than 100 fmol/mg protein had 53% versus 22% and 51% versus 18% 5-year of DFI and OS rates, respectively (Log rank test: p = 0.001 and 0.0001). EGFR determination appears to be a powerful prognostic parameter for patients treated by induction chemotherapy followed by exclusive radiotherapy. Laryngectomy seems to erase the prognostic impact of EGFR expression. These results profile the use of EGFR targeting therapy for this category of patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Is routine triple endoscopy for head and neck carcinoma patients necessary in light of a negative chest computed tomography scan?

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to analyze the results obtained by triple endoscopy during the initial evaluation of a primary carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: A total of 487 patients with a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck was studied. None of the patients had evidence of metastasis or a second primary tumor on the thoracic computed tomography (CT) scan or chest X-ray. All patients underwent a triple endoscopy including nasopharyngoscopy, laryngoscopy, pharyngoscopy, bronchoscopy, and esophagoscopy. RESULTS: A synchronous primary invasive carcinoma of the lung and esophagus was diagnosed in 5 patients (1%) and 10 patients (2%), respectively. In addition, nine lesions were considered to be a regional extension of the primary tumor to the esophagus, and nine in situ carcinomas were observed. It is interesting to note that a significant correlation was found between the risk of a second synchronous esophageal carcinoma and the initial location of the primary head and neck carcinoma (P = 0.002, chi-square test). Esophageal carcinoma was observed in 1.3% of the patients with an oropharyngeal tumor, 2% of the patients with a laryngeal tumor, none of the patients with a tumor of the oral cavity, and 9.2% of the patients with a hypopharyngeal tumor. CONCLUSIONS: The role of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy in the presence of a normal thoracic CT scan has been questioned because of the relatively low incidence of a second esophageal and/or lung primary tumor. Nonetheless, based on the same incidence criterion, it appears reasonable to schedule a routine esophagoscopy for those patients with a squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharynx.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

[2003 Update of Standards, Options and Recommendations for management of patients with salivary gland malignant tumors (excluding lymphoma, sarcoma and melanoma) (summary report)].

CONTEXT: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, which started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French Regional Cancer Centers, and specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: To update clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with salivary gland malignant tumors previously validated in 1997. These recommendations cover diagnosis, classification, treatment and follow-up of patients with these tumors. METHODS: The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts who define the CPG s according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations project. Once the guidelines has been defined, the document is submitted for review by independent reviewers. RESULTS: This article is a summary version of the full document presenting the updated clinical practice guidelines with algorithms. The main questions addressed by the expert group in this update concern the place of fine needle aspiration biopsy in preoperative diagnosis, the place of cervical lymph node area surgical treatment, the place of postoperative irradiation and neutron therapy in the treatment of unresectable tumors and also the place of medical imaging, especially RMI, for the diagnosis of these tumors.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2002

[Standards, options and recommendations for nutritional support in bone marrow transplant patients].

CONTEXT: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French cancer centers and specialists from French public university and general hospitals and private clinics. Its main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and outcome for cancer patients. The methodology is based on literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. OBJECTIVES: To develop, according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations, clinical practice guidelines for nutritional support in bone marrow transplant patients. METHODS: Data were identified by searching Medline , web sites and the personal reference lists of members of the expert groups, then submitted for review to 75 independent reviewers. RESULTS: The main recommendations for nutritional support in bone marrow transplant patients are: 1) Nutritional evaluation and monitoring may be proposed to bone-marrow transplant recipients (options). 2) Nutritional evaluation consists of body weight assessment and percent weight loss evaluation (standard, expert agreement). 3) Nutritional monitoring should include daily weight monitoring, clinical monitoring of hydration and assessment of daily dietary intake (standard, expert agreement). 4) Artificial nutrition is recommended in immuno-suppressed bone marrow transplant patients. This is not systematically indicated in other situation (standard). 5) Artificial nutrition, intravenous hydration and oral nutrition can be proposed to bone-marrow transplant recipients (option). 6) There is no standard modality for artificial nutrition (level of evidence B 1). Exclusive enteral or parenteral nutrition and enteral plus parenteral nutrition may be proposed to bone-marrow transplant patients (options). 7) Lipid intake representing up to 30% of the non-protein caloric intake should be supplied to patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation (standard, level of evidence B1). 8) Oral supplementation with nitrogen substrates or glutamine is not recommended. Parenteral glutamine supplementation may be proposed (option).

Algorithms↗