Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFranklin, J
dc.contributor.authorPluetschow, A
dc.contributor.authorPaus, M
dc.contributor.authorSpecht, L
dc.contributor.authorAnselmo, A P
dc.contributor.authorAviles, A
dc.contributor.authorBiti, G
dc.contributor.authorBogatyreva, T
dc.contributor.authorBonadonna, G
dc.contributor.authorBrillant, C
dc.contributor.authorCavalieri, E
dc.contributor.authorDiehl, V
dc.contributor.authorEghbali, H
dc.contributor.authorFermé, C
dc.contributor.authorHenry-Amar, M
dc.contributor.authorHoppe, R
dc.contributor.authorHoward, Scott C
dc.contributor.authorMeyer, R
dc.contributor.authorNiedzwiecki, D
dc.contributor.authorPavlovsky, S
dc.contributor.authorRadford, John A
dc.contributor.authorRaemaekers, J
dc.contributor.authorRyder, W David J
dc.contributor.authorSchiller, P
dc.contributor.authorShakhtarina, S
dc.contributor.authorValagussa, P
dc.contributor.authorWilimas, J
dc.contributor.authorYahalom, J
dc.date.accessioned2009-07-06T11:02:57Z
dc.date.available2009-07-06T11:02:57Z
dc.date.issued2006-12
dc.identifier.citationSecond malignancy risk associated with treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma: meta-analysis of the randomised trials. 2006, 17 (12):1749-60 Ann. Oncol.en
dc.identifier.issn0923-7534
dc.identifier.pmid16984979
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/annonc/mdl302
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/72551
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Despite several investigations, second malignancy risks (SMR) following radiotherapy alone (RT), chemotherapy alone (CT) and combined chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) remain controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We sought individual patient data from randomised trials comparing RT versus CRT, CT versus CRT, RT versus CT or involved-field (IF) versus extended-field (EF) RT for untreated HL. Overall SMR (including effects of salvage treatment) were compared using Peto's method. RESULTS: Data for between 53% and 69% of patients were obtained for the four comparisons. (i) RT versus CRT (15 trials, 3343 patients): SMR were lower with CRT than with RT as initial treatment (odds ratio (OR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.62-0.98 and P = 0.03). (ii) CT versus CRT (16 trials, 2861 patients): SMR were marginally higher with CRT than with CT as initial treatment (OR = 1.38, CI 1.00-1.89 and P = 0.05). (iii) IF-RT versus EF-RT (19 trials, 3221 patients): no significant difference in SMR (P = 0.28) although more breast cancers occurred with EF-RT (P = 0.04 and OR = 3.25). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of CT in addition to RT as initial therapy for HL decreases overall SMR by reducing relapse and need for salvage therapy. Administration of RT additional to CT marginally increases overall SMR in advanced stages. Breast cancer risk (but not SMR in general) was substantially higher after EF-RT. Caution is needed in applying these findings to current therapies.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectCanceren
dc.subject.meshCombined Modality Therapy
dc.subject.meshHodgkin Disease
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshNeoplasms, Second Primary
dc.subject.meshRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic
dc.titleSecond malignancy risk associated with treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma: meta-analysis of the randomised trials.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentGerman Hodgkin Study Group, University of Cologne, Germany. jeremy.franklin@uk-koeln.deen
dc.identifier.journalAnnals of oncologyen
html.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Despite several investigations, second malignancy risks (SMR) following radiotherapy alone (RT), chemotherapy alone (CT) and combined chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) remain controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We sought individual patient data from randomised trials comparing RT versus CRT, CT versus CRT, RT versus CT or involved-field (IF) versus extended-field (EF) RT for untreated HL. Overall SMR (including effects of salvage treatment) were compared using Peto's method. RESULTS: Data for between 53% and 69% of patients were obtained for the four comparisons. (i) RT versus CRT (15 trials, 3343 patients): SMR were lower with CRT than with RT as initial treatment (odds ratio (OR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.62-0.98 and P = 0.03). (ii) CT versus CRT (16 trials, 2861 patients): SMR were marginally higher with CRT than with CT as initial treatment (OR = 1.38, CI 1.00-1.89 and P = 0.05). (iii) IF-RT versus EF-RT (19 trials, 3221 patients): no significant difference in SMR (P = 0.28) although more breast cancers occurred with EF-RT (P = 0.04 and OR = 3.25). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of CT in addition to RT as initial therapy for HL decreases overall SMR by reducing relapse and need for salvage therapy. Administration of RT additional to CT marginally increases overall SMR in advanced stages. Breast cancer risk (but not SMR in general) was substantially higher after EF-RT. Caution is needed in applying these findings to current therapies.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record