Pelvic RT Versus Prophylactic Extended-field RT in Patients With Cervical Cancer

Author(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 66-68
Author(s):  
Dhanalakshmi Thiyagarajan ◽  
Michael Hughes ◽  
Frank Tamarkin ◽  
Israel Zighelboim

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuhua Zhao ◽  
Gong Li ◽  
Lei Gao

Abstract Background: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of extended-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (EF-IMRT) and dosage boost for positive lymph nodes, prognostic factors, treatment failure, and toxicity for Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIICr and IVA cervical cancer patients with positive regional lymph nodes.Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 34 patients with stage IIICr and IVA who had received treatment in our institute between 2013 and 2016. Patients with stage IVA cervical cancer who had been enrolled in the analysis all had positive regional lymph nodes (pelvic or/and para-aortic). All 34 patients were treated with EF-IMRT and simultaneously integrated boost-IMRT (SIB-IMRT) for lymph node metastasis with concurrent chemotherapy and brachytherapy. Positive regional lymph nodes (short-axis diameter ≥5 mm in computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) remaining after SIB-IMRT were then treated with sequential boost-IMRT (SeB-IMRT). The prognostic factors for overall survival (OS); disease-free survival (DFS); local control rate (LCR); regional control rate (RCR); distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), including age, FIGO stage, pretreatment hemoglobin (HB) level, tumor size, para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastasis, point A equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2 dose), concurrent chemotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy cycles, were analyzed.Results: Complete response (CR) was achieved in 31 (91.2%) patients with acceptable adverse effects. Notably, the three-year OS, DFS, LCR, RCR, DMFS for these patients were 73.5%, 70.6%, 88.1%, 87.9%, and 81.6%, respectively. In particular, the three-year OS, DFS, LCR, RCR, and DMFS of patients with positive PALNs was 41.7%, 33.3%, 65.6%, 72.2%, and 60.2%, respectively. The corresponding values in patients without positive PALNs were 90.9%, 90.9%, 100%, 95.5%, and 90.9%, respectively.Conclusions: Our study suggested that the EF-IMRT and nodal dosage boost decreased regional node failure and that patients with stage IIIC1r and IVA cervical cancer without PALN metastasis who received EF-IMRT and SIB-IMRT with or without SeB-IMRT had a significant survival advantage in terms of the DFS and OS.


Author(s):  
Komsan Thamronganantasakul ◽  
Narudom Supakalin ◽  
Chumnan Kietpeerakool ◽  
Porjai Pattanittum ◽  
Pisake Lumbiganon

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 498-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Suprasert ◽  
J. Srisomboon ◽  
K. Charoenkwan ◽  
S. Siriaungul ◽  
S. Khunamornpong ◽  
...  

The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of stages IB–IIA cervical cancer patients whose radical hysterectomy (RH) was abandoned for positive pelvic nodes detected during the operation compared with those found to have positive nodes after the operation. Among 242 patients with planned RH and pelvic lymphadenectomy (RHPL) for stages IB–IIA cervical cancer, 23 (9.5%) had grossly positive nodes. RH was abandoned, and complete pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed. Of these 23 patients, 22 received adjuvant chemoradiation, and the remaining 1 received adjuvant radiation. Four patients with positive para-aortic nodes were additionally treated with extended-field irradiation. When compared with 35 patients whose positive nodes were detected after the operation, there were significant differences regarding number of positive nodes and number of patients receiving extended-field irradiation. Complications in both groups were not significantly different, but the 2-year disease-free survival was significantly lower in the abandoned RH group compared with that of the RHPL group (58.5% versus 93.5%, P = 0.01). In conclusion, the survival of stages IB–IIA cervical cancer patients whose RH was abandoned for grossly positive pelvic nodes was significantly worse than that of patients whose node metastasis was identified after the operation. This is because the abandoned RH group had worse prognostic factors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document