Prophylactic Extended-Field Irradiation for Patients With Cervical Cancer Treated With Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis

Weiping Wang, Xiaoliang Liu, Qingyu Meng, Fuquan Zhang, Ke Hu, Weiping Wang, Xiaoliang Liu, Qingyu Meng, Fuquan Zhang, Ke Hu

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of prophylactic extended-field radiation therapy (RT) for cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

Methods: Records of patients with cervical cancer without para-aortic metastatic lymph nodes who were treated with definitive RT or CCRT between January 2011 and December 2014 were reviewed. Patients were classified into the pelvic RT and extended-field RT groups. An additional dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions was delivered to para-aortic lymph node regions for patients in the extended-field RT group. Cox regression and propensity-score matching (1:1) were used to compare the overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant failure, and para-aortic lymph node failure (PALNF) between the pelvic RT and extended-field RT groups.

Results: A total of 778 patients were analyzed. Of them, 624 patients were treated with pelvic RT and 154 patients received extended-field RT. The median follow-up period was 37.5 months. In multivariate analysis, extended-field RT was an independent prognostic factor of distant failure (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.26-0.90, P = 0.023) and PALNF (HR = 0.012, 95% CI = 0.00-0.49, P = 0.019). However, it was not significant in predicting OS (P = 0.546) and DFS (P = 0.187). With propensity-score matching, 108 pairs of patients were selected. The 3-year OS, DFS, local control, distant failure, and PALNF rates in the pelvic RT and extended-field RT groups were 87.1% and 85.7% (P = 0.681), 71.0% and 80.6% (P = 0.199), 86.6% and 85.0% (P = 0.695), 21.7% and 7.0% (P = 0.016), and 6.6% and 0% (P = 0.014), respectively. The incidences of grade 3 or greater chronic toxicities were 3.5% and 6.5% in the pelvic RT and extended-field RT groups, respectively (P = 0.097).

Conclusions: Prophylactic extended-field RT was associated with decreased distant failure and PALNF and showed a trend in improving DFS in patients with cervical cancer treated with CCRT.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The overall survival (A), disease-free survival (B), distant failure (C), and para-aortic LN failure (D) of 212 patients with cervical cancer treated with pelvic RT and extended-field RT after propensity-score matching. LN indicates lymph node.

References

    1. Liu Z, Hu K, Liu A, et al. Patterns of lymph node metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e4814.
    1. Han X, Wen H, Ju X, et al. Predictive factors of para-aortic lymph nodes metastasis in cervical cancer patients: a retrospective analysis based on 723 para-aortic lymphadenectomy cases. Oncotarget. 2017;8:51840–51847.
    1. Berman ML, Keys H, Creasman W, et al. Survival and patterns of recurrence in cervical cancer metastatic to periaortic lymph nodes (a Gynecologic Oncology Group study). Gynecol Oncol. 1984;19:8–16.
    1. Shim SH, Kim DY, Lee SJ, et al. Prediction model for para-aortic lymph node metastasis in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144:40–45.
    1. Liu B, Gao S, Li S. A comprehensive comparison of CT, MRI, positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/CT, and diffusion weighted imaging-MRI for detecting the lymph nodes metastases in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis based on 67 studies. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2017;82:209–222.
    1. Kang S, Kim SK, Chung DC, et al. Diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET for evaluation of paraaortic nodal metastasis in patients with cervical carcinoma: a metaanalysis. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:360–367.
    1. Wang W, Meng Q, Hou X, et al. Efficacy and toxicity of image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy combined with dose-escalated brachytherapy for stage IIB cervical cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8:102965–102973.
    1. Wang W, Hou X, Yan J, et al. Outcome and toxicity of radical radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy for elderly cervical cancer women. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:510.
    1. Rotman M, Pajak TF, Choi K, et al. Prophylactic extended-field irradiation of para-aortic lymph nodes in stages IIB and bulky IB and IIA cervical carcinomas. Ten-year treatment results of RTOG 79-20. JAMA. 1995;274:387–393.
    1. Haie C, Pejovic MH, Gerbaulet A, et al. Is prophylactic para-aortic irradiation worthwhile in the treatment of advanced cervical carcinoma? Results of a controlled clinical trial of the EORTC radiotherapy group. Radiother Oncol. 1988;11:101–112.
    1. Asiri MA, Tunio MA, Mohamed R, et al. Is extended-field concurrent chemoradiation an option for radiologic negative paraaortic lymph node, locally advanced cervical cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2014;6:339–348.
    1. Lee J, Lin JB, Chang CL, et al. Impact of para-aortic recurrence risk-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer with positive pelvic lymph nodes. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;148:291–298.
    1. Park SG, Kim JH, Oh YK, et al. Is prophylactic irradiation to para-aortic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer necessary. Cancer Res Treat. 2014;46:374–382.
    1. Oh J, Seol KH, Lee HJ, et al. Prophylactic extended-field irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy for pelvic lymph node-positive cervical cancer. Radiat Oncol J. 2017;35:349–358.
    1. Yap ML, Cuartero J, Yan J, et al. The role of elective para-aortic lymph node irradiation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014;26:797–803.
    1. Vargo JA, Kim H, Choi S, et al. Extended field intensity modulated radiation therapy with concomitant boost for lymph node-positive cervical cancer: analysis of regional control and recurrence patterns in the positron emission tomography/computed tomography era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90:1091–1098.
    1. Rose PG, Java J, Whitney CW, et al. Nomograms predicting progression-free survival, overall survival, and pelvic recurrence in locally advanced cervical cancer developed from an analysis of identifiable prognostic factors in patients from NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group randomized trials of chemoradiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2136–2142.
    1. Tseng JY, Yen MS, Twu NF, et al. Prognostic nomogram for overall survival in stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:174.e171–174.e177.
    1. Shim SH, Lee SW, Park JY, et al. Risk assessment model for overall survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128:54–59.
    1. Seo Y, Yoo SY, Kim MS, et al. Nomogram prediction of overall survival after curative irradiation for uterine cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79:782–787.
    1. Kang S, Nam BH, Park JY, et al. Risk assessment tool for distant recurrence after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: a Korean gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2369–2374.
    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;108:2464–2469.
    1. Singh RB, Chander S, Mohanti BK, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by chemoradiation in locally advanced cervical carcinoma: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:124–128.
    1. de Azevedo C, Thuler LCS, de Mello MJG, et al. Phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146:560–565.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren