Long-Term Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial Comparing Concurrent Single Agent Cisplatin, Cisplatin-Based Combination Chemotherapy, or Hydroxyurea During Pelvic Irradiation for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study
ABSTRACT We report the long-term survival and toxicity of a randomized phase III study comparing cisplatin alone with cisplatin, flurouracil, and hydroxyurea versus hydroxyurea concurrent with pelvic irradiation for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer with pathologically negative para-aortic nodes.
Comparisons of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between treatment arms utilized Kaplan-Meier and log-rank statistics. Relative risk estimates adjusting for prognostic factors were determined using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Pearson's 2 test was used to assess differences in adverse events.
The analysis included 526 patients. The median follow-up among surviving patients was 106 months. Consistent with the original report, improvement in PFS and OS was evident for both cisplatin-containing arms compared with hydroxyurea (P < .001). Analogous results were seen for stage IIB and for stage III disease (each P < .025). The relative risk of progression of disease or death was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.75) with cisplatin and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.67) with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy compared with hydroxyurea. Among 518 patients who received radiation, acute (grade 3 or 4) gastrointestinal or urologic toxicities occurred in 66 with cisplatin (19.1%) and 29 with hydroxyurea (16.8%). Delayed radiation toxicity occurred in six patients who received cisplatin (1.7%) and two who received hydroxyurea (1.2%; P = .680).
Cisplatin-based chemotherapy during pelvic radiation therapy improves long-term PFS and OS among locally advanced cervical cancer patients collectively and for stage IIB and III disease, individually. There was no observed increase in late toxicity with cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy.
- SourceAvailable from: ocean.kisti.re.kr[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Aims: To evaluate the adverse effect and survival outcome of weekly and triweekly cisplatin with radiotherapy in treatment of cervical cancer. Methods: After an extensive literature search between 1995-2011,we analyzed 7 studies to compare weekly cisplatin and triweekly cisplatin combined radiotherapy. Results: Our analysis established that weekly cisplatin has a lower risk of hematologic toxicity than triweekly cisplatin with concurrent radiotherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer. However, there were no differences in progression free survival and overall survival between weekly cisplatin and triweekly cisplatin (p>0.05). Conclusions: Weekly cisplatin combined with concurrent radiation has lower risk in hematologic toxicity than triweekly cisplatin, but does not improve survival. Triweekly cisplatin treatment has longer intervals and is therefore more convenient. Clinicians and patients can choose either weekly cisplatin or triweekly cisplatin combined radiotherapy for cervical cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 09/2012; 13(9):4301-4. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.9.4301 · 2.51 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the clinical efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and intracavity brachytherapy in comprehensive treatment for young patients with stage Ib2 cervical cancer. One hundred and twelve young patients with stage Ib2 cervical cancer were enrolled retrospectively in our hospital from January 2003 to June 2005. They were categorized into three groups according to preoperative regimens, including the concurrent chemoradiotherapy group (Group 1, n=38), the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Group 2, n=49), and the intracavity brachytherapy group (Group 3, n=25). Radical hysterectomy was performed following these regimens. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy were given according to pelvic lymph node metastasis, deep cervical stromal invasion, intravascular cancer emboli, histological grading, vaginal stump and positive surgical margin. The cancer disappearance and superficial muscle invasion rates were statistically significantly better in the concurrent chemoradiotherapy group than in the other two groups (P<0.01). No statistically significant difference was noted in the deep muscle invasion rate, surgical time and intraoperative blood loss among three groups, but significantly more postoperative complications occurred in the concurrent chemoradiotherapy group. The 2-year pelvic recurrence was statistically significantly lower in the concurrent chemoradiotherapy group compared to other two groups, while the 5-year survival was higher. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is efficacious for young patients with stage Ib2 cervical cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 04/2012; 13(4):1487-9. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.4.1487 · 2.51 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to investigate the early outcome of Endostar combined with chemoradiotherapy for advanced cervical cancer. Fifty-two cases (FIGO IIb to IVa) were divided randomly into two groups, receiving chemoradiotherapy alone (CRT group) and Endostar combined with chemoradiotherapy (CRT+E group). For the patients in the CRT+E group, Endostar was administered daily with the dosage of 7.5 mg/m2, and cisplatin was administered weekly with the dosage of 20 mg/m2 during the radiation. The regimens lasted for 4 weeks with no difference in chemoradiotherapy between the two groups. The early outcome complete remission rate was 73.1%, partial remission rate was 23.1% and the total response rate was 96.2% in CRT+E group, a significnat improvement on the 34.6%, 42.3% and 76.9%, respectively, in the CRT group. One year survive rates were 100% and 84.6% in the CRT+E group and CRT groups, the difference being significant. Endostar combined with chemoradiotherapy can improve the early outcome of the advanced cervical cancer, and adverse effects were not encountered.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 03/2012; 13(3):923-6. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.3.923 · 2.51 Impact Factor