Survival and toxicity of radical radiotherapy (with or without brachytherapy) for FIGO Stage I and II cervical cancer: a mono-institutional analysis

Purpose of investigation: To add to the existing outcome data regarding radical radiotherapy (RT) for FIGO Stage I and II cervical cancer in a mono-institutional series and to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of the addition of brachytherapy (BRA) to external-beam radio-therapy (EBRT). Materials and Methods: The authors report on 240 patients (pts) with FIGO Stage I and II cervical cancer, consecutively treated with radical RT from 1990 through 2009 at the Istituto del Radio “O. Alberti” (EBRT alone, 32, EBRT and BRA, 189, BRA alone, 19). BRA was delivered with low dose rate (LDR, 133.64%) until 2003 and then with high dose rate (HDR, 75.36%). RT was associated with concomitant chemotherapy (CHT), mainly weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m2, in 87 pts, mostly after 2000. The Chi-square test was used to compare the different variables, the Log-Rank test to compare the actuarial survival values, and the Cox-model for the multivariate analysis. Results: Five-year actuarial overall survival (OS) equalled 65%, disease specific survival (DSS) 77%. Regardless of disease stage, better DSS was evident in pts treated with EBRT and BRA compared with those treated with EBRT alone (82% and 58% respectively, p = 0.005); pts treated with concomitant CHT (dose intensity ≥ 50%) and higher RT doses (RT cumulative EQD2 ≥ 75 Gy) obtained better DSS. Complete response (CR) rate approached 88.4% (206/233 evaluable pts) and more than half of the subsequent failures (21/36) were in distant sites. Older patients and those given BRA had better OS and DSS, while BRA dose rate did not result related with these outcomes. Chronic G3/G4 toxicity involved more frequently the intestinal/rectal tract than other organs at risk. Rectal and vaginal serious chronic sequelae developed mainly in pts treated with EBRT and BRA and suggest the need for more advanced treatment techniques. Conclusions: the present mono-institutional analysis confirms the efficacy of radical RT for the treatment of cervical cancer and provides support to the role of BRA to obtain better outcomes. An effort to reduce long term toxicity of the treatment is needed.

Cervical cancer; Radical radiotherapy; Brachytherapy.

[1] Green J., Kirwan J., Tierney J., Vale C., Symonds P., Fresco L., et al.: “Concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for cancer of the uterine cervix (Review)”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2005; 4, CD002225.

[2] Whitney C.W., Sause W., Bundy B.N., Malfetano J.H., Hannigan E.V., Fowler W.C. Jr., et al.: “Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyhurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stages IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph-nodes. A Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study”. J. Clin. Oncol., 1999, 17, 1339.

[3] Rose P.G., Bundy B.N., Watkins E.B., Thigpen J.T., Deppe G., Maiman M.A., et al.: “Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer”. N. Engl. J. Med., 1999, 340, 1144.

[4] Morris M., Eifel P.J., Lu J., Grigsby P.W., Levenback C., Stevens R.E., et al.: “Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer”. N. Engl. J. Med., 1999, 340, 1137.

[5] Keys H.M., Bundy B.N., Stehman F.B., Muderspach L.I., Chafe W.E., Suggs C.L. 3rd., et al.: “Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma”. N Engl. J Med 1999, 340, 1154.

[6] Beriwal S., Gan G.N., Heron D.E., Selvaraj R.N., Kim H., Lalonde R., et al.: “Early clinical outcome with concurrent chemotherapy and extended-field, intensity-modulated radio-therapy for cervical cancer”. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 2007, 68, 166. Epub 2007 Feb 22.

[7] Stehman F.B., Ali S., Keys H.M., Muderspach L.I., Chafe W.E., Gallup D.G. et al.: “Radiation therapy with or without weekly cisplatin for bulky stage 1B cervical carcinoma: follow-up of a Gynecologic Oncology Group trial”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2007, 197, 503.

[8] Paley P.J., Goff B.A., Minudri R., Greer B.E., Tamimi H.K., Koh W.J.: “The prognostic significance of radiation dose and residual tumour in the treatment of barrel-shaped endophytic cervical carcinoma”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2000, 76, 373.

[9] Eifel PJ, Thoms WW Jr, Smith TL, Morris M, Oswald MJ.: “The relationship between brachytherapy dose and outcome in patients with bulky endocervical tumours treated with radiation alone”. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 1994, 28, 113.

[10] Stewart A.J., Viswanathan A.N.: “Current controversies in high-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer”. Cancer, 2006, 107, 908.

[11] Patel F.D., Sharma S.C., Negi P.S., Ghoshal S., Gupta B.D..: “Low dose rate vs. high dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinical trial”. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 1994, 28, 335.

[12] Hareyama M., Sakata K., Oouchi A., Nagakura H., Shido M., Someya M., Koito K.: “High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: A randomized trial”. Cancer, 2002, 94, 117.

[13] Wang X., Liu R., Ma B., Yang K., Tian J., Jiang L., et al.: “High dose rate versus low dose rate intracavity brachytherapy for locally advanced uterine cervix cancer”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2010, 7, CD007563. doi: 10.1002/ 14651858 .CD 007563 .pub2.

[14] Lertsanguansinchai P., Lertbutsayanukul C., Shotelersuk K., Khorprasert C., Rojpornpradit P., Chottetanaprasith T., et al.: “Phase III randomized trial comparing LDR and HDR brachytherapy in treatment of cervical carcinoma”. Int. J. Radiat. Onco. Biol. Phys., 2004, 59, 1424.

[15] Mazeron R, Gilmore J, Khodari W, Dumas I, Haie-Méder C.: “Locally advanced cervical cancer: should intensity-modulated radiotherapy replace brachytherapy?” Cancer Radiother., 2011, 15, 477. doi: 10.1016/j.canrad.2011.07.232. Epub 2011 Aug 30.[Article in French].

[16] Grigsby P.W.: “Primary radiotherapy for stage IB or IIA cervical cancer”. J. Natl.. Cancer Inst. Monogr., 1996, 21, 61

[17] Keys H., Gibbons S.K.: “Optimal management of locally advanced cervical carcinoma”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr., 1996, 21, 89.

[18] Landoni F., Maneo A., Colombo A., Placa F., Milani R., Perego P., et al.: “Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiother-apy for stage IB-IIA cervical cancer”. Lancet, 1997, 350, 535.

[19] National Cancer Institute: “Concurrent chemoradiation for cervical cancer. Clinical announcement”, Washington DC, February 22, 1999.

[20] Thomas G.M.: “Improved treatment for cervical cancer – Concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy”. N. Engl. J. Med., 1999, 340, 1198.

[21] Siegel C.L., Andreotti R.F., Cardenes H.R., Brown D.L., Gaffney D.K., Horowitz N.S., et al.: “ACR appropriateness criteria pretreatment planning of invasive cancer of the cervix”. J. Am. Coll. Radiol., 2012, 9, 395.