PURPOSE: To evaluate the acute toxicity of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for dose escalation with helical tomotherapy (HT) in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 20 patients (FIGO IB1 pN1-IIIB) underwent primary chemoradiation. Prior to chemoradiation, a laparoscopic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was performed. A boost region was defined using titanium clips during staging for planning target volume (PTV-B). Patients were treated with five weekly fractions of 1.8 Gy to a total dose of 50.4 Gy to the tumor region and the pelvic (para-aortic) lymph node region (PTV-A), and five weekly fractions of 2.12 Gy to a total dose of 59.36 Gy to the PTV-B. Chemotherapy consisted of weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m(2). 19 patients underwent brachytherapy. Dose-volume histograms were evaluated and acute gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), and hematologic toxicity were documented (CTCAE v3.0). RESULTS: Pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastases were confirmed in nine and four patients, respectively. Five patients refused laparoscopic staging. The mean volume of PTV-A and PTV-B was 1,570 ± 404 cm(3) and 341 ± 125 cm(3), respectively. The mean dose to the bladder, rectum, and small bowel was 47.85 Gy, 45.76 Gy, and 29.71 Gy, respectively. No grade 4/5 toxicity was observed. Grade 2/3 hematologic toxicity occurred in 50% of patients and 5% experienced grade 3 diarrhea. There was no grade 3 GU toxicity. 19 patients underwent curettage 6-9 weeks after chemoradiation without any evidence of tumor. CONCLUSION: The concept of SIB for dose escalation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer is feasible with a low rate of acute toxicity. Whether dose escalation can translate into improved outcome will be assessed after a longer follow-up.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the acute toxicity of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for dose escalation with helical tomotherapy (HT) in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 20 patients (FIGO IB1 pN1-IIIB) underwent primary chemoradiation. Prior to chemoradiation, a laparoscopic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was performed. A boost region was defined using titanium clips during staging for planning target volume (PTV-B). Patients were treated with five weekly fractions of 1.8 Gy to a total dose of 50.4 Gy to the tumor region and the pelvic (para-aortic) lymph node region (PTV-A), and five weekly fractions of 2.12 Gy to a total dose of 59.36 Gy to the PTV-B. Chemotherapy consisted of weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m(2). 19 patients underwent brachytherapy. Dose-volume histograms were evaluated and acute gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), and hematologic toxicity were documented (CTCAE v3.0). RESULTS: Pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastases were confirmed in nine and four patients, respectively. Five patients refused laparoscopic staging. The mean volume of PTV-A and PTV-B was 1,570 ± 404 cm(3) and 341 ± 125 cm(3), respectively. The mean dose to the bladder, rectum, and small bowel was 47.85 Gy, 45.76 Gy, and 29.71 Gy, respectively. No grade 4/5 toxicity was observed. Grade 2/3 hematologic toxicity occurred in 50% of patients and 5% experienced grade 3 diarrhea. There was no grade 3 GU toxicity. 19 patients underwent curettage 6-9 weeks after chemoradiation without any evidence of tumor. CONCLUSION: The concept of SIB for dose escalation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer is feasible with a low rate of acute toxicity. Whether dose escalation can translate into improved outcome will be assessed after a longer follow-up.
Authors: Hilke Vorwerk; Daniela Wagner; Björn Seitz; Hans Christiansen; Hendrik A Wolff; Clemens F Hess Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Kathy L Baglan; Robert C Frazier; Di Yan; Raywin R Huang; Alvaro A Martinez; John M Robertson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Johannes C A Dimopoulos; Gertrude Schirl; Anja Baldinger; Thomas H Helbich; Richard Pötter Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Hilke Vorwerk; Daniela Wagner; Hans Christiansen; Clemens Friedrich Hess; Robert Michael Hermann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: F Heinzelmann; G Henke; M von Grafenstein; N Weidner; F Paulsen; A Staebler; S Brucker; M Bamberg; M Weinmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Bretislav Otahal; Martin Dolezel; Jakub Cvek; Ondrej Simetka; Jaroslav Klat; Lukas Knybel; Lukas Molenda; Eva Skacelikova; Ales Hlavka; David Feltl Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2014-05-01
Authors: Giuseppe Roberto D'Agostino; Rosa Autorino; Angelo Pompucci; Maria Carmen De Santis; Stefania Manfrida; Giuseppe Di Lella; Giovanna Mantini; Vincenzo Frascino; Silvia Chiesa; Alessio Albanese; Nicola Dinapoli; Luigi Azario; Alba Fiorentino; Vincenzo Valentini; Carmelo Anile; Mario Balducci Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Nam P Nguyen; Shane P Krafft; Paul Vos; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Misty Ceizyk; Siyoung Jang; Anand Desai; Dave Abraham; Lars Ewell; Christopher Watchman; Russ Hamilton; Beng-Hoey Jo; Ulf Karlsson; Lexie Smith-Raymond Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: K Vandecasteele; A Makar; R Van den Broecke; L Delrue; H Denys; K Lambein; B Lambert; M van Eijkeren; P Tummers; G De Meerleer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: M P Schmid; B Mansmann; M Federico; J C A Dimopoulous; P Georg; E Fidarova; W Dörr; R Pötter Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 3.621