| Publication |
Characteristics |
Number of ST |
Treatment groups |
Analysis methods |
conclusions ST |
conclusions NHL |
| Birdwell 1997 |
Stanford UMC (USA); 1961‐1994; MFU=10.9 yrs.; n=2441 |
25 gastrointestinal cancers |
RT, CRT. Total treatment |
RR compared with general population. No direct treatment comparisons. |
Risk of gastrointestinal cancer not significantly greater with CRT (RR 3.9, 95%CI 2.2‐5.6) than with RT (RR 2.0, CI 1.0‐3.4) |
|
| Enrici 1998 |
One centre (Rome); 1972‐1996; MFU=84 months; n=391 |
20 NHL |
A. RT, CT, CRT ‐ initials treatment, censored at relapse. B. RT, CT, CRT ‐ total treatment. |
Kaplan‐Meier and Cox regression |
|
No difference between treatment modalities |
| Hancock 1993 |
Stanford UMC (USA); 1961‐1990; MFU=10 yrs.; n=885 |
25 breast cancers |
RT, CRT. Total treatment |
RR compared with general population. No direct treatment comparisons. |
RT vs. CRT: Tendency of more breast cancers with CRT, but not significant.
RT: RR 3.5 (95% CI 1.9‐5.8), CRT: RR 5.7 (95% CI 3.1‐9.5). |
|
| Swerdlow 2001 |
Nested case‐control study; multi‐centre (Britain); 1963‐1995; n=5519 |
88 lung cancers |
RT, CT, CRT. Total treatment |
conditional logistic regression |
No significant differences in lung cancer risk between RT, CT, CRT. (exception: adenocarcinomas ‐ greater risk with CT than without.) Risk greater with MOPP than without MOPP |
|
| van Leeuwen 1995 |
Embedded case‐control study; 2 centres (Netherlands); 1966‐1986; n=1939 |
30 lung cancers |
RT, CT, CRT. RT dose to lung. Total treatment |
conditional logistic regression |
Risk of lung cancer tended to increase with increasing RT dose (p=0.01); RR(>9 Gy vs. 0) = 9.6. No significant differences between RT, CT, CRT |
|
