Adisak Nartthanarung1, Duangmani Thanapprapasr. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Rama VI Road, Bangkok, Thailand.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to retrospectively compare outcomes for patients with cervical cancer who developed bone metastasis later after the primary treatment at the time of diagnosis of cervical cancer with concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) to radiation therapy alone (RT). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the patients with cervical cancer during the period from January 1998 to December 2007. Of these, 11 patients who received CCRT and 24 patients who received RT went on to develop bone metastasis. RESULTS: Among 4620 patients with cervical cancer, 51 patients had bone metastases. Sixteen patients were excluded including 10 patients with unavailable records and 6 patients who did not receive CCRT or RT at the time of diagnosis of cervical cancer. Thirty-five patients who had bone metastasis received primary treatment with CCRT or RT. The 2 groups of patients (CCRT vs RT) were similar in age, histologic cell type, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages. The characteristics of bone metastasis in both groups were also not significantly different. The patients who received CCRT did not have a better overall survival than the patients who received RT (median, 19 vs 22 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.68-23.32 vs 8.56-35.44). They were comparable in the interval from cervical cancer diagnoses to diagnoses of bone metastasis (CCRT group: median, 14 months; 95% CI, 9.14-18.86; RT group: median; 15 months; 95% CI, 10.20-19.80) and the survival after diagnosis of bone metastasis between both groups (CCRT group: median, 4 months; 95% CI, 0.76-7.24; RT group: median, 7 months; 95% CI, 4.70-9.30). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective analysis showed that there were no differences in survival benefits observed between the patients with cervical cancer who developed bone metastases later after the primary treatment with CCRT and RT.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to retrospectively compare outcomes for patients with cervical cancer who developed bone metastasis later after the primary treatment at the time of diagnosis of cervical cancer with concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) to radiation therapy alone (RT). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the patients with cervical cancer during the period from January 1998 to December 2007. Of these, 11 patients who received CCRT and 24 patients who received RT went on to develop bone metastasis. RESULTS: Among 4620 patients with cervical cancer, 51 patients had bone metastases. Sixteen patients were excluded including 10 patients with unavailable records and 6 patients who did not receive CCRT or RT at the time of diagnosis of cervical cancer. Thirty-five patients who had bone metastasis received primary treatment with CCRT or RT. The 2 groups of patients (CCRT vs RT) were similar in age, histologic cell type, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages. The characteristics of bone metastasis in both groups were also not significantly different. The patients who received CCRT did not have a better overall survival than the patients who received RT (median, 19 vs 22 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.68-23.32 vs 8.56-35.44). They were comparable in the interval from cervical cancer diagnoses to diagnoses of bone metastasis (CCRT group: median, 14 months; 95% CI, 9.14-18.86; RT group: median; 15 months; 95% CI, 10.20-19.80) and the survival after diagnosis of bone metastasis between both groups (CCRT group: median, 4 months; 95% CI, 0.76-7.24; RT group: median, 7 months; 95% CI, 4.70-9.30). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective analysis showed that there were no differences in survival benefits observed between the patients with cervical cancer who developed bone metastases later after the primary treatment with CCRT and RT.
Authors: Robert Foerster; Daniel Habermehl; Thomas Bruckner; Tilman Bostel; Ingmar Schlampp; Thomas Welzel; Juergen Debus; Harald Rief Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.481