Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

±¹¼Ò ÁøÇàµÈ ÀڱðæºÎ¾ÏÀÇ ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á¿Í Àú¿ë·® cisplatin Ç׾Ͽä¹ý µ¿½ÃÄ¡·á½Ã ±Þ¼ºµ¶¼º ¹× Ãʱâ¹ÝÀÀ Æò°¡ Low Dose Cisplatin as a Radiation Sensitizes in Management of Locally Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix : Evaluation of Acute Toxicity and Early Response

´ëÇѹæ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇÐȸÁö 1999³â 17±Ç 2È£ p.113 ~ 119
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±èÇåÁ¤/Hun Jung Kim Á¶¿µ°©/±èö¼ö/±è¿ìö/À̼®È£/³ëÁرÔ/Young Kap Cho/Chul Su Kim/Woo Chul Kim/Suk Ho Lee/John Kyu Loh

Abstract

¸ñ Àû : ±¹¼ÒÀûÀ¸·Î ÁøÇàµÈ ÀڱðæºÎ¾Ï ȯÀÚ¿¡¼­ Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ cisplatinÀ» ¹æ»ç¼± ¹Î°¨Á¦·Î
»ç¿ëÇÏ¿© ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á¿Í µ¿½Ã Ä¡·áÇÏ¿´À» ¶§ÀÇ ±Þ¼ºµ¶¼º Æò°¡¿Í Ãʱâ¹ÝÀÀÀ» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇÏ
¿© ¿¬±¸¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù.
´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý : º» ¿¬±¸´Â 1996³â 12¿ùºÎÅÍ 1999³â 1¿ù±îÁö FIGO Rage ¥±B-¥²BÀÇ ÁøÇà
µÈ ÀڱðæºÎ¾Ï ȯÀÚ 38¸íÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 16¸íÀº ÀڱðæºÎ¾ÏÀÇ Å©±â°¡ 4§¯ÀÌ»óÀΠȯÀÚ
µé·Î ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á¿Í Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ cisplatinÀ» ¸ÅÀÏ µ¿½Ã¿¡ Ä¡·áÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, ³ª¸ÓÁö ȯÀÚ¿¡¼± ¹æ»ç
¼± Ä¡·á ´Üµ¶À¸·Î Ä¡·áÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á´Â °ñ¹Ý°­¿¡ ¿ÜºÎ ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á·Î 4500
cGy(3060c0y½ÃÇà ÀÌÈÄ midline block Ãß°¡), Àڱÿ·Á¶Á÷À¸·Î ħ¹üÀÌ ÀÖ´Â °æ¿ì¿¡´Â Àڱÿ·
Á¶Á÷À¸·Î ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á ºÎÀ§¸¦ ÁÙ¿© 900-1000cGy Ãß°¡ Ä¡·á¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´°í, ³»ºÎ Ä¡·á´Â
Ir192°í¼±·® ±ÙÁ¢ Ä¡·á±â(micro-Selectron HDR)·Î 6-7ȸÀÇ °­³»Á¶»ç(point
"A"¿¡ 3000 to 3500cGy, 500cGy/fx, 2ȸ/week)¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á¿Í Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ
cisplatinÀ» µ¿½Ã¿¡ »ç¿ëÇÑ ±º¿¡¼­´Â ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á ù³¯ºÎÅÍ ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á 20ÀÏ° µÇ´Â ³¯±îÁö
Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ cisplatin 10§·À» ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á 30ºÐÀü¿¡ Åõ¿©ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±Þ¼ºµ¶¼ºÀÇ Æò°¡´Â expanded
common toxicity criteria of the NCI Clinical TrialÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. Ãʱâ¹ÝÀÀÀÇ Æò°¡´Â ¹æ»ç
¼± Ä¡·á Á¾·á ÀÌÈÄ ÃÖ¼Ò 4ÁÖ ÀÌ»óÀÇ ÃßÀûÁ¶»ç°¡ °¡´ÉÇÑ »ç¶÷µéÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ½ÃÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù.
°á °ú : ±Þ¼ºµ¶¼º Æò°¡´Â Àüü 38¸í¿¡¼­ Æò°¡ °¡´ÉÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á¿Í Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ
cisplatinÀ» º´¿ëÇÑ ±º¿¡¼­ 16¸í Áß 6¸í(37.5%)¿¡¼­, ¹æ»ç¼± ´Üµ¶À¸·Î Ä¡·áÇÑ ±º¿¡¼­´Â 22¸í
Áß 1¸í(6.2%)¿¡¼­ 3µî±Þ ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¹éÇ÷±¸ °¨¼Ò¸¦ º¸¿´À¸¸ç, Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÇ¹Ì ÀÖ´Â Â÷À̸¦
º¸¿´´Ù.(p=0.030). 3µî±Þ ÀÌ»óÀÇ ±Þ¼º À§Àå°£ µ¶¼ºÀº Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ cisplatinÀ» º´¿ëÇÑ ±º¿¡¼­¸¸ 4
¸íÀÌ ÀÖ¾úÀ¸³ª, 20ÀÏÀÇ Ä¡·á Áß´Ü ÀÌÈÄ Áõ»óÀÌ ¿ÏÈ­µÇ¾î¼­ Ä¡·á¸¦ °è¼ÓÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç, Ä¡·á
Áß 5§¸ÀÌ»óÀÇ Ã¼Áß °¨¼Ò´Â ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á¿Í Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ cisplatinÀ» º´¿ëÇÑ ±º¿¡¼­´Â 16¸íÁß 3¸í
(18.7%), ¹æ»ç¼± ´Üµ¶À¸·Î Ä¡·áÇÑ ±º¿¡¼­´Â 22¸íÁß 2¸í(9.1%)À¸·Î Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÇ¹Ì ÀÖ´Â
Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù(P=0.63). Ãʱâ¹ÝÀÀÀº ÃßÀûÁ¶»ç°¡ 4ÁÖ ÀÌ»ó °¡´ÉÇÏ¿´´ø 34¸íÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸
·Î ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ cisplatinÀ» º´¿ëÇÑ ±º¿¡¼­ 14¸íÁß 11¸í (78%), ¹æ»ç¼± ´Üµ¶À¸·Î Ä¡·á
±º¿¡¼­ 20¸íÁß 16¸í(80%)À¸·Î Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î´Â ÀÇ¹Ì ÀÖ´Â Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù(P=0.126).
°á ·Ð : ±¹¼Ò ÁøÇàµÈ ÀڱðæºÎ¾Ï¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á¿Í Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ cisplatin º´¿ë¿ä¹ý Ä¡·á
½Ã 3µî±Þ ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¹éÇ÷±¸ °¨¼Ò°¡ ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á ´Üµ¶À¸·Î Ä¡·á½Ãº¸´Ù ¸¹¾ÒÀ¸³ª, 1ÁÖ ÀÌÇÏÀÇ Ä¡
·á Áß´Ü ÀÌÈÄ Ä¡·á¸¦ °è¼Ó ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç, 4µî±Þ ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¹éÇ÷±¸ °¨¼Ò¿Í Ä¡·á¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ »ç¸Á
Àº ¾ø¾ú´Ù. Ãʱâ¹ÝÀÀ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Æò°¡´Â Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ cisplatinº´¿ë±º¿¡¼­ 4§¯ ÀÌ»óÀÇ ÀڱðæºÎ¾ÏÀ»
°¡Áø ȯÀÚ°¡ ¸¹À½¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í ¾ç±º¿¡¼­ ºñ½ÁÇÑ Á¤µµÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀÀ» º¸¿´À¸¹Ç·Î ÁøÇàµÈ Àڱðæ
ºÎ¾ÏÀÇ Ä¡·á¿¡¼­ Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ cisplatinÀ» ¹æ»ç¼± ¹Î°¨Á¦·Î »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© Ä¡·á°á°úÀÇ Çâ»óÀ» ±â´ëÇÒ
¼ö ÀÖ°Ô µÇ¾ú´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ Àú¿ë·®ÀÇ cisplatin°ú ¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á¸¦ º´¿ë¿ä¹ý ÇÏ¿´À» ¶§ÀÇ Ä¡·áÈ¿°ú
¸¦ ÆÇÁ¤Çϱâ À§Çؼ­´Â phase ¥² study°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÏ´Ù.

Purpose : To evaluate possible acute toxicity and early response of concurrent
radiation therapy and low dose daily cisplatin as a radiosensitizer in patients with locally
advanced uterine cervical carcinomas.
Materials and Methods : From December 1996 to January 1999, 38 previously
untreated patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix
(from stage ¥±B to stage ¥²B) were treated at Inha University Hospital. All patients
underwent standard pretreatment staging procedures after the initial evaluation by
gynecologists and radiation oncologists. Sixteen Patients with huge cervical mass (>4
§¯) were submitted to the group treated with concurrent radiation therapy and low dose
daily cisplatin while the remainder was treated with radiation therapy alone. Radiation
therapy consisted of 4500 cGy external beam irradiation to whole pelvis (midline block
after 3060 cGy), 900¡­1000 cGy boost to involved parametrium, and high dose-rate
intracavitary brachytherapy (a total dose of 3000¡­3500 cGy f500 cGy per fraction to
point A, twice per week). In the group treated with low dose cisplatin concurrently, 10
§· of daily intravenous cisplatin was given from the 1st day of radiation therapy to the
20th day of radiation therapy. Acute toxicity was measured according to expanded
common toxicity criteria of the NCI (C) Clinical Trials. Early response data were
analyzed at minimum 4 weeks' follow-up after completion of the treatment protocol.
Results : Hematolgic toxicity was more prominent in patients treated with radiation
therapy and cisplatin. Six of 16 patients (37.5%) treated with radiation therapy and
cisplatin and one of 22 patients (4.5%) treated with radiation therapy alone experienced
grade 3 leukopenia. In Fisher's exact test, there was statistically significant difference
between two groups regarding leukopenia (p=0.030). There was no apparent difference in
the frequency of gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity between two groups
(p=0.066). Three of 16 patients (18.7%) treated with radiation therapy and cisplatin and
two of 22 patients (9.1%) treated with radiation therapy alone experienced more than 5
§¸ weight loss during the treatment. There was no statistically significant difference on
weight loss between two groups (p=0.63). Two patients on each group were not
evaluable for the early response because of incomplete treatment. The complete response
rate at four weeks' follow-up was 80% (16/20) for the radiation therapy alone group
and 78% (11/14) for the radiation therapy and cisplatin group. There was no statistically
significant difference in early response between two treatment groups (p=0.126).
Conclusion : This study led to the conclusion that the hematologic toxicity from the
treatment with concurrent radiation therapy and low dose daily cisplatin seems to be
more prominent than that from the treatment of radiation therapy alone. There was no
grade 4 hematologic toxicity or mortality in both groups. The hematologic toxicity in
both treatment groups seems to be well managable medically. Since the risk factors
were not balanced between two treatment groups, the direct comparison of early
response of both groups was not possible. However, preliminary results regarding early
response for patients with bulky cervical tumor mass treated with radiation therapy and
low dose daily cisplatin was encouraging. Longer follow-up is necessary to evaluate the
survival data. A phase ¥² study is needed to evaluate the efficacy of concurrent daily
low dose cisplatin with radiation therapy in bulky cervical cancer.

Å°¿öµå

ÀڱðæºÎ¾Ï; ¹æ»ç¼± ¹Î°¨Á¦; ¹æ»ç¼± Ç×¾ÏÈ­ÇÐ º´¿ë¿ä¹ý; Cervical cancer; Concurrent chemoradiotherapy; Radiation sensitizer;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS