PURPOSE: To compare the treatment and outcomes of cervical cancer patients treated withconcurrent chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT) in a multi-institutional trial or as standard care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 302 patients treated with CT-RT for locoregionally confined, intact cervical cancer between 1990 and 2005. Of the 302 patients, 76 were treated usingcisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (C/F) on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 90-01 (CT-RT(90-01)); 226 underwent CT-RT as standard care with either C/F [CT-RT(SC(C/F)); n = 115] or weekly cisplatin [CT-RT(SC(WC)); n = 111). RESULTS: The CT-RT(90-01) patients more often had tumors >or=6 cm and were less often diabetic than were the CT-RT(SC) patients. The CT-RT(SC(WC)) patients were more likely than the CT-RT(SC(C/F)) patients to be >or=60 years old or to have Stage III-IV disease. During treatment, CT-RT(SC(C/F)) patients experienced more Grade 2-3 neutropenia and were, therefore, less likely to receive 200 mg/m(2) cisplatin than were either CT-RT(SC(WC)) or CT-RT(90-01) patients (52% vs. 77% vs. 85%, respectively; p <0.001). At 5 years, the disease-specific survival rates were greater for patients treated with C/F [CT-RT(SC(C/F)), 75%; CT-RT(90-01), 79%] than for those treated with CT-RT(SC(WC)) (58%; p = 0.02). On multivariate analysis, C/F chemotherapy, cisplatin dose >or=200 mg/m(2), Stage I-II disease, and negative pelvic lymph nodes were independent predictors of improved disease-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS: Even within a large comprehensive cancer center, the high rates of chemotherapy completion achieved on a multi-institutional trial can be difficult to reproduce in standard practice. Although C/F toxicity was greater in the standard care patients, their outcomes were similar to those of patients treated with C/F on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 90-01.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the treatment and outcomes of cervical cancerpatients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT) in a multi-institutional trial or as standard care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 302 patients treated with CT-RT for locoregionally confined, intact cervical cancer between 1990 and 2005. Of the 302 patients, 76 were treated using cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (C/F) on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 90-01 (CT-RT(90-01)); 226 underwent CT-RT as standard care with either C/F [CT-RT(SC(C/F)); n = 115] or weekly cisplatin [CT-RT(SC(WC)); n = 111). RESULTS: The CT-RT(90-01) patients more often had tumors >or=6 cm and were less often diabetic than were the CT-RT(SC) patients. The CT-RT(SC(WC)) patients were more likely than the CT-RT(SC(C/F)) patients to be >or=60 years old or to have Stage III-IV disease. During treatment, CT-RT(SC(C/F)) patients experienced more Grade 2-3 neutropenia and were, therefore, less likely to receive 200 mg/m(2) cisplatin than were either CT-RT(SC(WC)) or CT-RT(90-01) patients (52% vs. 77% vs. 85%, respectively; p <0.001). At 5 years, the disease-specific survival rates were greater for patients treated with C/F [CT-RT(SC(C/F)), 75%; CT-RT(90-01), 79%] than for those treated with CT-RT(SC(WC)) (58%; p = 0.02). On multivariate analysis, C/F chemotherapy, cisplatin dose >or=200 mg/m(2), Stage I-II disease, and negative pelvic lymph nodes were independent predictors of improved disease-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS: Even within a large comprehensive cancer center, the high rates of chemotherapy completion achieved on a multi-institutional trial can be difficult to reproduce in standard practice. Although C/F toxicity was greater in the standard care patients, their outcomes were similar to those of patients treated with C/F on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 90-01.
Authors: Yun Liang; Karen Messer; Brent S Rose; John H Lewis; Steve B Jiang; Catheryn M Yashar; Arno J Mundt; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tahir Yusufaly; Austin Miller; Ana Medina-Palomo; Casey W Williamson; Hannah Nguyen; Jessica Lowenstein; Charles A Leath; Ying Xiao; Kevin L Moore; Katherine M Moxley; Carlos M Chevere-Mourino; Tony Y Eng; Tarrick Zaid; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nina A Mayr; Zhibin Huang; Jian Z Wang; Simon S Lo; Joline M Fan; John C Grecula; Steffen Sammet; Christina L Sammet; Guang Jia; Jun Zhang; Michael V Knopp; William T C Yuh Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brent S Rose; Bulent Aydogan; Yun Liang; Mete Yeginer; Michael D Hasselle; Virag Dandekar; Rounak Bafana; Catheryn M Yashar; Arno J Mundt; John C Roeske; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Casey W Williamson; Igor Sirák; Ronghui Xu; Lorraine Portelance; Lichun Wei; Rafal Tarnawski; Umesh Mahantshetty; Elena S Heide; Catheryn M Yashar; Michael T McHale; Walter Bosch; Jessica Lowenstein; Cheryl C Saenz; Steve Plaxe; Ramez Eskander; John Einck; Arno J Mundt; Jyoti Mayadev; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lucas K Vitzthum; Elena S Heide; Helen Park; Casey W Williamson; Paige Sheridan; Minh-Phuong Huynh-Le; Igor Sirak; Lichun Wei; Rafal Tarnawski; Umesh Mahantshetty; Cammie Nguyen; Jyoti Mayadev; Catheryn M Yashar; Assuntina G Sacco; Loren K Mell Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 6.244