Biomedical subjects

Sylvain Bourdin

Publications and source records attributed to Sylvain Bourdin.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Phase III randomized trial of very accelerated radiation therapy compared with conventional radiation therapy in squamous cell head and neck cancer: a GORTEC trial.

PURPOSE: With the aim to increase the dose intensity of radiation therapy (RT), and subsequently the locoregional control rate, a very accelerated RT regimen was compared with conventional RT in a series of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1994 and 1998, 268 patients with T3 or T4, N0 to N3 HNSCC (staged by 1997 International Union Against Cancer criteria) that was not eligible for surgery were randomly assigned to receive either conventional RT, delivering 70 Gy in 7 weeks to the primary tumor and 35 fractions of 2 Gy over 49 days, or to receive very accelerated RT, delivering 62 to 64 Gy in 31 to 32 fractions of 2 Gy over 22 to 23 days (2 Gy/fraction bid). RESULTS: The most common tumor site was the oropharynx and most of the patients (70%) had T4 and N1 to N3 tumors in 72% of patients. The main patient and tumor characteristics were well-balanced between the two arms. The median total doses were 63 Gy (accelerated) and 70 Gy (conventional), with a median overall time of 22 days and 48 days, respectively. Acute mucositis was markedly increased in the accelerated-RT arm (P < .001). The locoregional control rate was improved by 24% at 6 years with accelerated RT. In contrast, disease-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between the two arms. There was no difference in late effects between the two arms. CONCLUSION: The very accelerated RT regimen was feasible and provided a major benefit in locoregional control but had a modest effect on survival.

Carcinoma, Squamous Cell↗

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↗

PubMed2004

The GETUG 70 Gy vs. 80 Gy randomized trial for localized prostate cancer: feasibility and acute toxicity.

PURPOSE: To describe treatments and acute tolerance in a randomized trial comparing 70 Gy and 80 Gy to the prostate in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between September 1999 and February 2002, 306 patients were randomized to receive 70 Gy (153 patients) or 80 Gy (153 patients) in 17 institutions. Patients exhibited intermediate-prognosis tumors. If the risk of node involvement was greater than 10%, surgical staging was required. Previous prostatectomy was excluded, and androgen deprivation was not admitted. The treatment was delivered in two steps. PTV1-including seminal vesicles, prostate, and a 1-0.5-cm margin-received 46 Gy given with a 4-field conformal technique. PTV2, reduced to prostate with the same margins, irradiated with at least 5 fields. Dose was prescribed according to ICRU recommendations in the 70 Gy group, but adapted at the 80 Gy level. RESULTS: All patients but one in the 80 Gy arm completed the treatment. In the 70 Gy arm, the mean dose to the PTV2 was 69.5 Gy. In the 80 Gy arm, the mean dose in the PTV2 was 78.5 Gy. Acute toxicity according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale during treatment was reported in 306 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the two arms: 12% had no toxicity, 80% complained of bladder toxicity, and 70% complained of rectal symptoms. Two months after the end of treatment, 43% of the 70 Gy level and 48% of the 80 Gy level complained of side effects, including 24% and 20% of sexual disorders. There was 6% and 2% of Grade 3 urinary and rectal toxicity. Five patients required a 10-29-day suspension of the treatment. Acute Grade 2 and 3 side effects were related to PTV and CTV1 size, which was the only independent predictive factor in multivariate analysis. Toxicity was not related to the center, age, arm of treatment, or selected data from dose-volume histogram of organ at risk. CONCLUSION: Treatments were completed in respect to constraints. Acute toxicity was acceptable. Intensity of toxicity depended on target volumes.

Aged↗