AIM: To compare dosimetry, efficacy, and toxicity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with para-aortic field radiotherapy in patients with para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastasis of cervical cancer. METHODS: This prospective study examined 60 patients with cervical cancer with PALN metastasis who underwent whole-pelvis radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy between November 1, 2004 and May 31, 2008. After 3 cycles of chemotherapy, patients were serially allocated into two groups and treated with IMRT or para-aortic field RT at doses of 58-68 Gy and 45-50 Gy, respectively. Treatment response was evaluated and toxicities were assessed. Patients in the IMRT group were treated with both para-aortic field RT and IMRT in order to compare the exposure dose of organs at risk. RESULTS: In the IMRT group, the mean dose delivered to the planning target volume was 67.5 Gy. At least 99% of the gross tumor volume received effective coverage and radical dose (median, 63.5 Gy; range, 54.5-66) during treatment. IMRT plans yielded better dose conformity to the target and better sparing of the spinal cord and small intestine than para-aortic field RT. The IMRT patients experienced less acute and chronic toxicities. The IMRT group also had higher 2- and 3-year survival rates than the para-aortic RT group (2-year, 58.8% vs 25.0%, P = 0.019; 3-year, 36.4% vs 15.6%, P = 0.016). However, no significant difference was found in 1-year survival (67.7% vs 51.3%, P =0.201). The median survival in the IMRT group was 25 months (range, 3 to 37 months). The actuarial overall survival, disease-free survival, and locoregional control rates at 2 years were 67%, 77%, and 88%, respectively, in the IMRT group. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT provides better clinical outcomes than para-aortic field radiotherapy in patients with PALN metastasis. However, cervical local and distal recurrence remain a problem. Long-term follow-up and studies involving more patients are needed to confirm our results.
AIM: To compare dosimetry, efficacy, and toxicity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with para-aortic field radiotherapy in patients with para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastasis of cervical cancer. METHODS: This prospective study examined 60 patients with cervical cancer with PALN metastasis who underwent whole-pelvis radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy between November 1, 2004 and May 31, 2008. After 3 cycles of chemotherapy, patients were serially allocated into two groups and treated with IMRT or para-aortic field RT at doses of 58-68 Gy and 45-50 Gy, respectively. Treatment response was evaluated and toxicities were assessed. Patients in the IMRT group were treated with both para-aortic field RT and IMRT in order to compare the exposure dose of organs at risk. RESULTS: In the IMRT group, the mean dose delivered to the planning target volume was 67.5 Gy. At least 99% of the gross tumor volume received effective coverage and radical dose (median, 63.5 Gy; range, 54.5-66) during treatment. IMRT plans yielded better dose conformity to the target and better sparing of the spinal cord and small intestine than para-aortic field RT. The IMRT patients experienced less acute and chronic toxicities. The IMRT group also had higher 2- and 3-year survival rates than the para-aortic RT group (2-year, 58.8% vs 25.0%, P = 0.019; 3-year, 36.4% vs 15.6%, P = 0.016). However, no significant difference was found in 1-year survival (67.7% vs 51.3%, P =0.201). The median survival in the IMRT group was 25 months (range, 3 to 37 months). The actuarial overall survival, disease-free survival, and locoregional control rates at 2 years were 67%, 77%, and 88%, respectively, in the IMRT group. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT provides better clinical outcomes than para-aortic field radiotherapy in patients with PALN metastasis. However, cervical local and distal recurrence remain a problem. Long-term follow-up and studies involving more patients are needed to confirm our results.
Authors: Raef S Ahmed; Robert Y Kim; Jun Duan; Streelatha Meleth; Jennifer F De Los Santos; John B Fiveash Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K K Fu; T F Pajak; A Trotti; C U Jones; S A Spencer; T L Phillips; A S Garden; J A Ridge; J S Cooper; K K Ang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Dora L W Kwong; Edmond H N Pow; Jonathan S T Sham; Anne S McMillan; Lucullus H T Leung; W Keung Leung; Daniel T T Chua; Ashley C K Cheng; Po M Wu; Gordon K H Au Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Inga S Grills; Di Yan; Alvaro A Martinez; Frank A Vicini; John W Wong; Larry L Kestin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lucas Gomes Sapienza; Maria José Leite Gomes; Vinicius Fernando Calsavara; Mario M Leitao; Glauco Baiocchi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: David S Lakomy; Juliana Wu; Bhavana V Chapman; Zhiqian Henry Yu; Belinda Lee; Ann H Klopp; Anuja Jhingran; Patricia J Eifel; Lilie L Lin Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-12-25