Is adjuvant chemoradiotherapy overtreatment in cervical cancer patients with intermediate risk factors?

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, Korea.
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics (Impact Factor: 4.59). 03/2011; 79(3):794-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.11.019
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine whether adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improves the outcome of cervical cancer patients with intermediate risk factors.
Between January 2000 and June 2006, the medical records of 735 patients who had undergone radical surgery for Stage IB-IIA cervical cancer were reviewed retrospectively. Of the 735 patients, 172 with two or more intermediate risk factors (i.e., lymphovascular space involvement, deep stromal invasion, and tumor size≥2 cm) were grouped as follows according to the adjuvant treatment received: 34 patients, no further treatment; 49 patients, RT; and 89 patients, CRT. The significance of the clinical parameters and recurrence-free survival of each group were analyzed.
Of the 172 patients with any of the intermediate risk factors, 137 (79.6%) had two or more intermediate risk factors. Of the 172 patients, 12 developed recurrences (6.4%)->(7.0%), with 6 in the pelvis and 6 in distant sites. All 12 recurrences occurred in those who had two or more intermediate risk factors (sensitivity, 100%); however, only six recurrences were detected in patients who met the Gynecologic Oncology Group criteria for the intermediate-risk group (sensitivity, 50%; Z test, p<.05). A statistically significant difference was found in the 3-year recurrence-free survival rate among the no further treatment, RT, and CRT groups (67.5%, 90.5%, and 97.5%, respectively; p<.05). The incidence of Grade 3-4 hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities was not significantly different statistically between the RT and CRT groups (6.1% and 13.4%, respectively; p > .05).
Postoperative adjuvant CRT can improve the outcome of cervical cancer patients with intermediate risk factors, with low increase in toxicity.

  • Developmental Biology - DEVELOP BIOL. 01/2011; 356(1):213-213.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Platinum-based primary or adjuvant chemoradiation is the treatment of choice for patients with cervical cancer. However, despite national guidelines and international recommendations, many aspects in diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of patients with cervical cancer are not based on valid data. To evaluate the current patterns of care for patients with cervical cancer in Germany, a questionnaire with 25 items was sent to 281 radiooncologic departments and out-patient health care centers. The response rate was 51 %. While 87 % of institutions treat 0-25 patients/year, 12 % treat between 26 and 50 and only 1 % treat more than 50 patients/year. In 2011, the stage distribution of 1,706 treated cervical cancers were IB1, IB2, IIA, IIB, IIIA/IIIB, and IV in 11, 12, 11, 22, 28, and 16 %, respectively. CT (90 %) and MRI (86 %) are mainly used as staging procedures in contrast to PET-CT with 14 %. Interestingly, 27 % of institutions advocate surgical staging prior to chemoradiation. In the majority of departments 3D-based (70 %) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (76 %) are used for percutaneous radiation, less frequently volumetric arc techniques (26 %). Nearly all colleagues (99.3 %) apply conventional fractioning of 1.8-2 Gy for external-beam radiotherapy, in 19 % combined with a simultaneous integrated boost. Cisplatinum mono is used as a radiosensitizer with 40 mg/m(2) weekly by 90 % of radiooncologists. For boost application in the primary treatment, HDR (high-dose rate) brachytherapy is the dominant technique (84 %). In patients after radical hysterectomy pT1B1/1B2, node negative and resection in sound margins adjuvant chemoradiation is applied due to the occurrence of 1-4 other risk factors in 16-97 %. There is a broad spectrum of recommended primary treatment strategies in stages IIB and IVA. Results of the survey underline the leading role but also differences in the use of chemoradiation in the treatment of cervical cancer patients in Germany.
    Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 07/2013; · 4.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: In spite of the existence of guidelines and international recommendations, many aspects in the diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of patients with cervical cancer are not based on validated data. A broad spectrum of different opinions and procedures concerning the therapy for patients with cervical cancer is under controversial discussion by the responsible gynaecologists in German hospitals. Methods: The present study is intended to picture the current treatment situation for cervical cancer in Germany. For this purpose a specially developed questionnaire with questions divided into 19 subsections was sent to all 688 gynaecological hospitals in Germany. Results: The response rate to the questionnaire was 34 %. 91 % of the hospitals treated between 0 and 25 patients with cervical cancer per year. 7.5 % treated between 26 and 50 and 1.4 % of the hospitals more than 50 patients per year. The bimanual examination was the most frequently used staging method (98 %); PET-CT was the least used staging method (2.3 %). Interestingly 48 % of the hospitals used surgical staging. The great majority of the hospitals (71 %) used abdominal radical hysterectomy (Wertheim-Meigs operation) to treat their patients. TMMR via laparotomy was used by 13 %. 16 % of the hospitals performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomies. The sentinel concept was hardly used even in the early stages. It must be emphasised that in 74 % of the hospitals radical hysterectomies were performed even in cases with positive pelvic lymph nodes and in 43 % also in cases with positive paraaortic lymph nodes. The therapy of choice for FIGO IIB cancers is primary radiochemotherapy (RCTX) in 21 % of the hospitals; operative staging followed by radiochemotherapy in 24 % and treatment by radical hysterectomy followed by adjuvant RCTX was employed in this situation by 46 % of the hospitals. In 15-97 % of the hospitals for node-negative and in sano resected patients in stage pT1B1/1B2 after radical hysterectomy, an adjuvant RCTX is recommended when further risk factors exist (LVSI, tumour > 4 cm, age < 40 years, adenocarcinoma, S3). Conclusion: A broad spectrum of differing staging and therapy concepts is in use for patients with cervical cancer in Germany. A standardisation of therapy is needed. An update of national guidelines could help to achieve more transparency and a standardisation of treatment for patients with cervical cancer.
    Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 03/2013; 73(3):227-238. · 0.85 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 4, 2014