Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¿ø¹ß¼º °£¾ÏÀÇ ±¹¼Ò ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á ½Ã ¼±·®¹ÝÀÀ °ü°è Dose Response Relationship in Local radiotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

´ëÇѹæ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇÐȸÁö 2001³â 19±Ç 2È£ p.118 ~ 126
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹ÚÈñö/Hee Chul Park ¼ºÁø½Ç/Çѱ¤Çù/ÀüÀçÀ±/¹®¿µ¸í/¼ÛÀç¼®/¼­Ã¢¿Á/Jinsil Seong/Kwang Hyub Han/Chae Yoon Chon/Young Myoung Moon/Jae Seok Song/Chang Ok Suh

Abstract

¸ñÀû: º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â ¿ø¹ß¼º °£¾ÏÀÇ ±¹¼Ò ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á ½Ã Á¶»ç¼±·®À» ³ô¿©ÁØ °ÍÀÌ Á¾¾çÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀÀÇ Çâ»óÀ» À¯µµÇÏ¿´´ÂÁö ºÐ¼®ÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ, Àú»ê·®À» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´ø ȯÀÚµé°ú °í¼±·®À» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´ø ȯÀÚµéÀÇ Á¾¾çÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀ ¹× ºÎÀÛ¿ë°ú ÀÌ¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ÀÎÀÚµéÀ»
ºÐ¼®ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ÇâÈÄ ÀûÀýÇÑ Á¶»ç¼±·® ¹üÀ§¸¦ °áÁ¤Çϴµ¥ À¯¿ëÇÑ ±âÁØÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý: ´ë»ó ȯÀÚÀÇ ¼±Á¤ ±âÁØÀº ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·áÀÇ °ú°Å·ÂÀÌ ¾ø´Â °æ¿ì, °£¿ÜÀüÀÌ°¡ ¾ø´Â
°æ¿ì, °£°æº¯ÁõÀÇ Á¤µµ°¡ Child's class A ¶Ç´Â B±ºÀÎ °æ¿ì, Á¾¾çÀÌ Àüü °£ ¿ëÀûÀÇ 2/3¸¦
³ÑÁö ¾Ê´Â °æ¿ì, Àü½Å¼öÇ൵°¡ ECOG 3±â ÀÌ»óÀ¸·Î ¾àÈ­µÇÁö ¾ÊÀº °æ¿ì·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 1992³â 1
¿ùºÎÅÍ 2000³â 3¿ù±îÁö ¿ø¹ß¼º °£¾Ï¿¡ ±¹¼Ò ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á¸¦ ½ÃÇà ¹ÞÀº ȯÀÚµé Áß 158¸íÀÌ ¿¬
±¸ ´ë»ó¿¡ Æ÷ÇԵǾú´Ù. Á¶»ç¿µ¿ªÀº Á¾¾ç°ú ÁÖº¯ ºÎÀ§ 2~3 cm¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ¿´°í ÀÏÀÏ 1.8 Gy ¾¿
ÁÖ 5ȸ Á¶»çµÇ¾ú´Ù. ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á Àü°ú Á¾·á ÈÄ 4~6ÁÖ°ÀÇ ÄÄÇ»ÅÍ ´ÜÃþ ÃÔ¿µ ¿µ»ó ¹× Àڱ⠰ø
¸í ¿µ»ó, °£µ¿¸Æ Ç÷°ü ÃÔ¿µ ¿µ»ó µîÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Á¶»ç¿µ¿ª ³»ÀÇ Á¾¾çÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
ÁÖ 1 ȸ Ç÷¾× °Ë»ç¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿© ¸»ÃÊ Ç÷¾× Ç÷±¸¼ö ¹× °£±â´ÉÀ» °üÂûÇÏ¿´´Ù. Ä¡·áÀÇ Á¾·á ÈÄ
üÁß Áõ°¡, º¹¼ö, °£Á¾´ë µîÀÇ ¼Ò°ßÀ» °üÂûÇÏ¿´°í 4ÁÖ¿Í 8ÁÖ¿¡ °£ ±â´É °Ë»ç¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù.
À§Àå°ü°ü°èÀÇ ºÎÀÛ¿ëÀº »óºÎÀ§Àå°ü ³»½Ã°æÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿© È®ÀÎÇÏ¿´´Ù. Á¾¾çÀÇ °üÇØ Àüµµ¿¡ µû
¶ó ¹ÝÀÀ±º°ú ºñ¹ÝÀÀ±ºÀ¸·Î ±¸ºÐÇÑ ÈÄ Á¶»ç¼±·®ÀÇ ºÐÆ÷¸¦ Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ, ¿¬±¸
´ë»óÀ» Á¶»ç¼±·®¿¡ µû¶ó ¼¼ ±ºÀ¸·Î ºÐ·ùÇÏ°í Á¾¾çÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀ°ú ÀÓ»óÀû Ư¼ºÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
°á°ú: Á¾¾çÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀÀº 106¸íÀÌ ºÎºÐ °üÇظ¦ º¸¿©¼­ ¹ÝÀÀ±ºÀÇ ºñÀ²Àº 67.1%À̾ú´Ù. ¿ÏÀü °üÇØ
´Â ¾ø¾ú´Ù. Á¾¾çÀÌ 50% ÀÌÇÏ·Î °¨¼ÒµÈ °æ¿ì°¡ 41¸í(25.9%), Á¾¾çÀÇ ÁøÇàÀ» º¸ÀÎ °æ¿ì°¡ 11
¸í(7%)À̾ú´Ù. ¹ÝÀÀ±ºÀÇ Æò±Õ Á¶»ç¼±·®Àº 50.1¡¾6.6 GyÀ̾ú°í ºñ¹ÝÀÀ±ºÀÇ Æò±Õ Á¶»ç¼±·®Àº
44.3¡¾9.0 Gy·Î Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÇ¹Ì ÀÖ´Â Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. ´Ùº¯·® ºÐ¼®¿¡¼­µµ Á¶»ç¼±·®ÀÌ
p-value 0.001·Î À¯ÀÏÇÏ°Ô ÀÇ¹Ì ÀÖ´Â ÀÎÀÚ·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. Á¾¾çÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀ·üÀº Á¶»ç¼±·®ÀÌ 40 Gy
¹Ì¸¸ÀÎ ±º¿¡¼­ 29.2%, 40 Gy¿¡¼­ 50 Gy»çÀÌÀÎ ±º¿¡¼­ 68.6%, 50 Gy¸¦ ³Ñ´Â ȯÀÚ ±º¿¡¼­
77.1%·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. Á¾¾çÀÇ Å©±â´Â 40 Gy ¹Ì¸¸ÀÎ ±º¿¡¼­ 9.8¡¾2.6cm, 40 Gy¿¡¼­ 50Gy»çÀÌÀÎ
±º¿¡¼­ 77.1%·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. Á¾¾çÀÇ Å©±â´Â 40 Gy ¹Ì¸¸ÀÎ ±º¿¡¼­ 9.8¡¾2.6 cm, 40 Gy¿¡¼­ 50
Gy»çÀÌÀÎ ±º¿¡¼­ 9.8¡¾2.6 cm, 50Gy¸¦ ³Ñ´Â ȯÀÚ ±º¿¡¼­ 8.3¡¾3.2 cm ·Î °í¼±·®À» Á¶»çÇÑ
±º¿¡¼­ ÀÛ¾Ò´Ù. °£¹®¸Æ Ç÷ÀüÁõÀº °¢°¢ 66.7%, 64.7%, 37.3%¿¡¼­ ¾ç¼ºÀ¸·Î 50 Gy¸¦ ³Ñ´Â ¼±
·®ÀÌ Á¶»çµÈ ±º¿¡¼­ »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î °£¹®¸Æ Ç÷ÀüÁõÀÇ ¾ç¼º·üÀÌ ³·¾Ò´Ù. ¹æ»ç¼± °£¿°, ½ÊÀÌÁöÀåÀÇ
±Ë¾çÀº Á¶»ç¼±·®À» Áõ°¡½Ãų¼ö·Ï Áõ°¡ÇÏ´Â °æÇâÀ» ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù. °æ¹ÌÇÑ Á¤µµÀÇ º¹¼ö°¡ ¹ß»ý
Çϰųª ÀüÇüÀûÀÎ ¹æ»ç¼± °£¿°ÀÇ ¹ß»ý, À§Àå°ü°èÀÇ ¿°Áõ µîÀÌ Ä¡·á Àü °£°æº¯ÁõÀÌ ½ÉÇÒ¼ö·Ï
ÇöÀúÈ÷ ¸¹ÀÌ ¹ß»ýÇÏ´Â °æÇâÀ» º¸¿´´Ù.
°á·Ð: ¿ø¹ß¼º °£¾Ï¿¡¼­ ±¹¼Ò ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì °í¼±·®ÀÌ Á¶»çµÉ¼ö·Ï ¹ÝÀÀ±ºÀÇ ºñ
À²ÀÌ Áõ°¡ÇÏ´Â ¼±·®¹ÝÀÀ °ü°è°¡ ¼º¸³ÇÔÀ» È®ÀÎÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. °í¼±·®ÀÌ Á¶»çµÉ¼ö·Ï ´ë»ó ÇÑ
ÀÚÀÇ Á¾¾çÀÇ Å©±â°¡ ÀÛ¾Ò°í °£¹®¸Æ Ç÷ÀüÁõÀÇ ºñÀ²µµ Àû¾ú´Âµ¥ ÀÌ´Â º´±â°¡ ³·Àº °æ¿ì ¿ÏÄ¡
¸¦ ¸ñÇ¥·Î ¿ÀÈ÷·Á °í¼±·®À» Åõ¿©ÇÏ´Â °æÇâ ¶§¹®À¸·Î »ý°¢µÇ¾ú´Ù. Á¶»ç¼±·®ÀÌ 50 Gy¸¦ ³Ñ´Â
°æ¿ì Á¶»ç¼±·®ÀÇ Áõ°¡¿¡ µû¸¥ ¹ÝÀÀ·üÀÇ Çâ»óÀÌ ÇöÀúÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº ¹Ý¸é ¹æ»ç¼± °£¿°ÀÇ ¹ß»ýÀº
°£°æº¯ÁõÀÇ Á¤µµ¿¡ Å©°Ô ¿µÇâÀ» ¹Þ´Â´Ù´Â Á¡À» °í·ÁÇÒ ¶§, Á¶»ç¼±·®ÀÇ Áõ°¡´Â ¹Ýµå½Ã Ä¡·á
¸¦ ¹Þ´Â ´ë»ó ȯÀÚÀÇ °£±â´É°ú °£°æº¯ÁõÀÇ Á¤µµ µîÀ» °í·ÁÇÏ¿© Á¶½É½º·´°Ô ÁøÇàµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÒ
°ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢µÈ´Ù.

Purpose: In this study, it was investigated whether dose response relation existed or not in local radiotherapy for primary hepatocellular carcinoma.
Materials and Methods: From January 1992 to March 2000, 158 patients were included in
present study. Exclusion criteria included the presence of extrahepatic metastasis, liver
cirrhosis of Child's class C, tumors occupying more than two thirds of the entire liver,
and performance status on the ECOG scale of more than 3. Radiotherapy was given to
the field including tumor with generous margin using 6, 10-MV X-ray, Mean tumor
dose was 48.2¡¾7.9 Gy in daily 1.8 Gy fractions. Tumor response was based on
diagnostic radiologic examinations such as CT scan, MR imaging, hepatic artery
angiography at 4~8 weeks following completion of treatment, Statistical analysis was
done to investigate the existence of dose response relationship of local radiotherapy
when it was applied to the treatment of primary hepatocellular carcinoma.
Results: An objective response was observed in 106 of 158 patients, giving a response
rate of 67.1%. Statistical analysis revealed that total dose was the most significant
factor in relation to tumor response when local radiotherapy was applied to the
treatment of primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Only 29.2% showed objective response in
patients treated with dose less than 40 Gy, while 68.6% and 77.1% showed major
response in patients with 40~50 Gy and more than 50 Gy, respectively. child-Pugh
classification was significant factor in the development of ascites, overt radiation induced
liver disease and gastroenteritis. Radiation dose was an important factor for development
of radiation induced gastroduodenal ulcer.
Conclusion: Present study showed the existence of dose response relationship in local
radiotherapy for primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Only radiotherapy dose was a
significant factor to predict the objective response. Further study is required to predict
the maximal tolerance dose in consideration of liver function and non-irradiated liver
volume

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹ß¼º °£¾Ï; ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á; ¼±·®¹ÝÀÀ °ü°è; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Radiotherapy; Dose response relationship;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS