PURPOSE: Higher radiation doses to @entity5 might be possible by the steep dose gradient of an afterloading source. Structures at risk are not impaired by endoesophageal brachytherapy. Our experiences with endoesophageal afterloading in combination with external beam treatment are reported. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-four @entity1 were treated by this technique. All @entity1 suffered from an inoperable @entity189 (7 @entity420 , 47 @entity957 ). @entity1 were scheduled by @entity5 stage and medical condition into a curative group (21 @entity1 ) and into a palliative group (33 @entity1 ). Mean sum doses of 60.3 Gy (range 58-70 Gy) percutaneously and an additional endoluminal dose of 13.6 Gy (range 10-20 Gy) were applied endoluminally in the curative group and 44.9 Gy (range 14-53 Gy) plus 17.5 Gy (range 5-30 Gy), respectively, in the palliative group. Overall treatment time was 10 weeks (range 4.6-14.3 weeks) for the curative group and 9.3 weeks (range 4.1-13.9 weeks) for the palliative group. RESULTS: Six weeks after the end of therapy a radiological remission could be observed in 32/33 of the palliatively treated @entity1 (10 complete, 22 partial, 1 none). In 13 @entity1 of this group a local progression was observed after a median time of 7.1 months. Median survival of this group was 9 months. A radiological remission occurred in 18/21 of the curatively treated @entity1 (11 complete, 7 partial, 3 none). Median time to local progression (12 @entity1 ) was 4.5 months in this group and median survival was 7.7 months. The difference in time to progression reached a significant level (P = 0.05). The only favourable factors for survival were an incomplete or complete radiological remission (median survival 7.5 versus 11.4 months, P = 0.003) and stage I/II or III/IV (median survival 7.4 versus 12.6 months, P = 0.0024). The prior estimation of the treatment goal was not confirmed by survival data (curative, 7.7 months versus palliative, 9.0 months (not significant)). Eight of 54 minor and 8/54 (15%) major adverse events were observed. In four of these @entity1 major complications were caused by progressive @entity5 . CONCLUSIONS: Endoesophageal afterloading combination with percutaneous irradiation is a feasible save treatment in inoperable cases. @entity5 regression and functional results can be reached. The data suggest that higher endoluminal doses extend the time to local progression. In comparison with the literature survival can not be increased by this treatment technique. The best way to combine both treatment modalities has not yet been found.

Combined endoluminal and external irradiation of inoperable XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients'] @entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['oesophageal cancer', 'A good local tumour', 'tumour'] @entity957 :: ('MESH:D002294', 'Disease') :: ['squamous-cell carcinoma'] @entity189 :: ('MESH:D002277', 'Disease') :: ['oesophageal carcinoma'] @entity420 :: ('MESH:D000230', 'Disease') :: ['adenocarcinoma']
@entity189 :: (MESH:D002277,Disease) :: ['oesophageal carcinoma']
