P R Ferreira1, A Braga-Filho, A Barletta, L A Ilha. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Hospital Sao Lucas da PUC, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. kanopus@cpovo.net
Abstract
PURPOSE: External irradiation followed by intracavitary therapy (EBIC) has been considered the standard treatment for stage III-B cancer of the uterine cervix. For different reasons, some patients are not suited for intracavitary therapy (ICT), and the treatment may be given entirely by external beam irradiation alone (EBRTA). The purpose of our study is to discuss treatment results and complications for patients undergoing EBIC or EBRTA. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective study was carried out on 202 eligible patients with stage III-B cancer of the uterine cervix admitted for radiotherapy from 1980-1997. Ninety-three patients were able to receive EBIC (50 Gy, 8 MV RX whole pelvis followed by one session of 38-45 Gy ICT to point A). The remaining received EBRTA (50-70 Gy for 5-9 or more weeks). Median follow-up procedure was 18.5 months (range: 4-182) for all patients and 26 months (range 4-147) for the patients at risk. RESULTS: The most frequent reason for precluding ICT was large residual tumor volume (32.1%). Ten-year overall survival rates, relapse free survival, and pelvic failure rate for the EBIC and EBRTA patients were, respectively, 22.5% x 15.6% (p = 0.0087), 23.5% x 14.8% (p = 0.005), and 51.6% x 68.8% (p = 0.005). However, when the same comparisons were performed with EBIC patients x EBRTA patients receiving a high dose schedule (60 Gy/6-8 wk to 70 Gy/7-9 wk), the results of the EBIC group remained higher, but the differences became insignificant: respectively, 22.5% x 18.9% (p = 0.17), 23.5% x 15.3% (p = 0.052), and 51.6% x 60.0% (p = 0.10). The distribution of complications was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found that EBIC was the best treatment modality in our patients with stage III-B cancer of the uterine cervix, whereas for patients who were not candidates for ICT, EBRTA with a high dose schedule appears to be an efficient and safe alternative.
PURPOSE: External irradiation followed by intracavitary therapy (EBIC) has been considered the standard treatment for stage III-B cancer of the uterine cervix. For different reasons, some patients are not suited for intracavitary therapy (ICT), and the treatment may be given entirely by external beam irradiation alone (EBRTA). The purpose of our study is to discuss treatment results and complications for patients undergoing EBIC or EBRTA. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective study was carried out on 202 eligible patients with stage III-B cancer of the uterine cervix admitted for radiotherapy from 1980-1997. Ninety-three patients were able to receive EBIC (50 Gy, 8 MV RX whole pelvis followed by one session of 38-45 Gy ICT to point A). The remaining received EBRTA (50-70 Gy for 5-9 or more weeks). Median follow-up procedure was 18.5 months (range: 4-182) for all patients and 26 months (range 4-147) for the patients at risk. RESULTS: The most frequent reason for precluding ICT was large residual tumor volume (32.1%). Ten-year overall survival rates, relapse free survival, and pelvic failure rate for the EBIC and EBRTApatients were, respectively, 22.5% x 15.6% (p = 0.0087), 23.5% x 14.8% (p = 0.005), and 51.6% x 68.8% (p = 0.005). However, when the same comparisons were performed with EBIC patients x EBRTApatients receiving a high dose schedule (60 Gy/6-8 wk to 70 Gy/7-9 wk), the results of the EBIC group remained higher, but the differences became insignificant: respectively, 22.5% x 18.9% (p = 0.17), 23.5% x 15.3% (p = 0.052), and 51.6% x 60.0% (p = 0.10). The distribution of complications was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found that EBIC was the best treatment modality in our patients with stage III-B cancer of the uterine cervix, whereas for patients who were not candidates for ICT, EBRTA with a high dose schedule appears to be an efficient and safe alternative.