Quality of life of locally advanced cervical cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation versus chemoradiation alone (CIRCE trial): a randomized phase II trial

Fernanda Nunes de Arruda, Samantha da Costa, Renata Bonadio, Abraão Dornellas, Daniela Pereira, Geertruida H de Bock, Maria Del Pilar Estevez Diz, Fernanda Nunes de Arruda, Samantha da Costa, Renata Bonadio, Abraão Dornellas, Daniela Pereira, Geertruida H de Bock, Maria Del Pilar Estevez Diz

Abstract

Objective: The CIRCE trial (NCT01973101) investigated the efficacy, safety, and quality of life of the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine to standard chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer (stages IIB-IVA). The impact of both treatment arms on quality of life is reported in the present study.

Methods: Patients completed the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire QLQ-C30 and CX24 before treatment and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment. Linear mixed models were fitted to analyze differences in quality of life over time and between groups. Differences in mean quality of life scales >10 points and p<0.05 were considered clinically relevant and statistically significant, respectively. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histological diagnosis of locally advanced invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages IIB-IVA; (2) signed informed consent to participate in the CIRCE trial; and (3) answered at least one quality of life questionnaire. Excluded were patients who did not complete any quality of life questionnaire. Relevant exclusion criteria for the CIRCE trial included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >2 and peripheral neuropathy >2. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to assess differences between groups in quality of life at baseline. To evaluate differences between treatment arms, linear mixed models were fitted using the transformed quality of life scores as a dependent variable and time of follow-up and study arm as factors.

Results: A total of 107 patients were enrolled (n=55 neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm; n=52 chemoradiation arm). Quality of life compliance rates were higher for the chemoradiation group at every assessment time (ranging from 75-86.5% in the chemoradiation arm vs 55-81.8% in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm). For quality of life results at baseline, no statistically significant difference between the groups was seen. For both groups, most scales showed improvements over time, except for worsening of the summary score, sexual enjoyment, peripheral neuropathy, and menopausal symptoms. For chemoradiation, body image was lower (p<0.001) and patients presented more lymphedema (p<0.001) and sexual worry (p<0.001) at 12 months compared with baseline. Comparing study arms, neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed significantly lower scores in the menopausal symptoms scale (p=0.03) and higher scores for sexual/vaginal functioning (p=0.01). At 12 months, clinical differences were seen only for body image and menopausal symptoms scale, with neoadjuvant chemotherapy presenting better body image scores and a lower burden of menopausal symptoms.

Conclusion: After treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer, patients improved in most quality of life aspects. However, worsening was observed in sexual enjoyment, peripheral neuropathy, and menopausal symptoms. To improve patients' quality of life, efforts should be made to prevent and treat these long term effects of locally advanced cervical cancer treatment.

Keywords: quality of life (PRO)/palliative care; uterine cervical neoplasms.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© IGCS and ESGO 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design and treatment modalities for each study arm.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flowchart of compliance with quality of life questionnaires. The number of responders at each time assessment is presented as well as compliance rates, in parentheses.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Quality of life scales over time of follow-up. Mean scores are represented by group at each time point. CRT, chemoradiation; EORTC European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; NACT, neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

References

    1. INCA Available: [Accessed assessed in October 2018].
    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. . Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492
    1. Naga Ch P, Gurram L, Chopra S, et al. . The management of locally advanced cervical cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2018;30:323–9. 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000471
    1. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al. . Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1137–43. 10.1056/NEJM199904153401501
    1. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al. . Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage Ib cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1154–61. 10.1056/NEJM199904153401503
    1. Peters WA, Liu PY, Barrett RJ, et al. . Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1606–13. 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.8.1606
    1. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, et al. . Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage 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. 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.5.1339
    1. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al. . Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1144–53. 10.1056/NEJM199904153401502
    1. Vale C, Tierney JF, Stewart LA, et al. . Chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer meta-analysis collaboration reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5802–12.
    1. Dueñas-González A, Zarbá JJ, Patel F, et al. . Phase III, open-label, randomized study comparing concurrent gemcitabine plus cisplatin and radiation followed by adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin versus concurrent cisplatin and radiation in patients with stage IIb to IVA carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1678–85. 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.9663
    1. Dueñas-Gonzalez A, Lopez-Graniel C, Gonzalez A, et al. . A phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin combination as induction chemotherapy for untreated locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2001;12:541–7. 10.1023/A:1011117617514
    1. Termrungruanglert W, Tresukosol D, Vasuratna A, et al. . Neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin followed by radical surgery in (bulky) squamous cell carcinoma of cervix stage IB2. Gynecol Oncol 2005;97:576–81. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.01.048
    1. Duenas-Gonzalez A, Lopez-Graniel C, Gonzalez-Enciso A, et al. . Concomitant chemoradiation versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical carcinoma: results from two consecutive phase II studies. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1212–9. 10.1093/annonc/mdf196
    1. Bergman AM, Ruiz van Haperen VW, Veerman G, et al. . Synergistic interaction between cisplatin and gemcitabine in vitro. Clin Cancer Res 1996;2:521–30.
    1. da Costa SCS, Bonadio RC, Gabrielli FCG, et al. . Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine followed by chemoradiation versus chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer: a randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:3124–31. 10.1200/JCO.19.00674
    1. Ye S, Yang J, Cao D, et al. . A systematic review of quality of life and sexual function of patients with cervical cancer after treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014;24:1146–57. 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000207
    1. de Azevedo CRAS, Thuler LCS, de Mello MJG, et al. . Phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2017;146:560–5. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.07.006
    1. McCormack M, Kadalayil L, Hackshaw A, et al. . A phase II study of weekly neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 2013;108:2464–9. 10.1038/bjc.2013.230
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. . The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:365–76. 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
    1. Greimel ER, Kuljanic Vlasic K, Waldenstrom A-C, et al. . The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire cervical cancer module: EORTC QLQ-CX24. Cancer 2006;107:1812–22. 10.1002/cncr.22217
    1. Giesinger JM, Kieffer JM, Fayers PM, et al. . Replication and validation of higher order models demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:79–88. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.007
    1. EORTC Quality of Life Group website Available: [Accessed Oct 2018].
    1. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, et al. . Eortc QLQ-C30 scoring manual. Brussels: EORTC publications, 2001.
    1. Fregnani CMS. Propriedades psicométricas de dois instrumentos para avaliação dA qualidade de vida relacionada saúde em mulheres com câncer de COLO de útero. Ribeirão Preto: Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto 2013.
    1. Paiva CE, Carneseca EC, Barroso EM, et al. . Further evaluation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 psychometric properties in a large Brazilian cancer patient cohort as a function of their educational status. Support Care Cancer 2014;12:2151–60. 10.1007/s00520-014-2206-3
    1. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, et al. . Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:139–44. 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.1.139
    1. Dahiya N, Acharya AS, Bachani D, et al. . Quality of life of patients with advanced cervical cancer before and after chemoradiotherapy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016;17:3095–9.
    1. Ferrandina G, Mantegna G, Petrillo M, et al. . Quality of life and emotional distress in early stage and locally advanced cervical cancer patients: a prospective, longitudinal study. Gynecol Oncol 2012;124:389–94. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.09.041
    1. Aredes MA, Garcez MR, Chaves GV. Influence of chemoradiotherapy on nutritional status, functional capacity, quality of life and toxicity of treatment for patients with cervical cancer. Nutr Diet 2018;75:263–70. 10.1111/1747-0080.12414
    1. Korfage IJ, Essink-Bot M-L, Mols F, et al. . Health-related quality of life in cervical cancer survivors: a population-based survey. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:1501–9. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.06.1905
    1. Ploch E. Hormonal replacement therapy in patients after cervical cancer treatment. Gynecol Oncol 1987;26:169–77. 10.1016/0090-8258(87)90270-8
    1. Singh P, Oehler MK. Hormone replacement after gynaecological cancer. Maturitas 2010;65:190–7. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.11.017
    1. Bergmark K, Åvall-Lundqvist E, Dickman PW, et al. . Vaginal changes and sexuality in women with a history of cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1383–9. 10.1056/NEJM199905063401802

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe