BACKGROUND: Platinum-based primary or adjuvant chemoradiation is the treatment of choice for patients with cervical cancer. However, despite national guidelines and international recommendations, many aspects in diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of patients with cervical cancer are not based on valid data. METHODS: To evaluate the current patterns of care for patients with cervical cancer in Germany, a questionnaire with 25 items was sent to 281 radiooncologic departments and out-patient health care centers. RESULTS: The response rate was 51%. While 87% of institutions treat 0-25 patients/year, 12 % treat between 26 and 50 and only 1% treat more than 50 patients/year. In 2011, the stage distribution of 1,706 treated cervical cancers were IB1, IB2, IIA, IIB, IIIA/IIIB, and IV in 11, 12, 11, 22, 28, and 16%, respectively. CT (90%) and MRI (86%) are mainly used as staging procedures in contrast to PET-CT with 14%. Interestingly, 27% of institutions advocate surgical staging prior to chemoradiation. In the majority of departments 3D-based (70%) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (76%) are used for percutaneous radiation, less frequently volumetric arc techniques (26%). Nearly all colleagues (99.3%) apply conventional fractioning of 1.8-2 Gy for external-beam radiotherapy, in 19% combined with a simultaneous integrated boost. Cisplatinum mono is used as a radiosensitizer with 40 mg/m(2) weekly by 90% of radiooncologists. For boost application in the primary treatment, HDR (high-dose rate) brachytherapy is the dominant technique (84%). In patients after radical hysterectomy pT1B1/1B2, node negative and resection in sound margins adjuvant chemoradiation is applied due to the occurrence of 1-4 other risk factors in 16-97%. There is a broad spectrum of recommended primary treatment strategies in stages IIB and IVA. CONCLUSION: Results of the survey underline the leading role but also differences in the use of chemoradiation in the treatment of cervical cancer patients in Germany.
BACKGROUND:Platinum-based primary or adjuvant chemoradiation is the treatment of choice for patients with cervical cancer. However, despite national guidelines and international recommendations, many aspects in diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of patients with cervical cancer are not based on valid data. METHODS: To evaluate the current patterns of care for patients with cervical cancer in Germany, a questionnaire with 25 items was sent to 281 radiooncologic departments and out-patient health care centers. RESULTS: The response rate was 51%. While 87% of institutions treat 0-25 patients/year, 12 % treat between 26 and 50 and only 1% treat more than 50 patients/year. In 2011, the stage distribution of 1,706 treated cervical cancers were IB1, IB2, IIA, IIB, IIIA/IIIB, and IV in 11, 12, 11, 22, 28, and 16%, respectively. CT (90%) and MRI (86%) are mainly used as staging procedures in contrast to PET-CT with 14%. Interestingly, 27% of institutions advocate surgical staging prior to chemoradiation. In the majority of departments 3D-based (70%) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (76%) are used for percutaneous radiation, less frequently volumetric arc techniques (26%). Nearly all colleagues (99.3%) apply conventional fractioning of 1.8-2 Gy for external-beam radiotherapy, in 19% combined with a simultaneous integrated boost. Cisplatinum mono is used as a radiosensitizer with 40 mg/m(2) weekly by 90% of radiooncologists. For boost application in the primary treatment, HDR (high-dose rate) brachytherapy is the dominant technique (84%). In patients after radical hysterectomy pT1B1/1B2, node negative and resection in sound margins adjuvant chemoradiation is applied due to the occurrence of 1-4 other risk factors in 16-97%. There is a broad spectrum of recommended primary treatment strategies in stages IIB and IVA. CONCLUSION: Results of the survey underline the leading role but also differences in the use of chemoradiation in the treatment of cervical cancerpatients in Germany.
Authors: Laurie Elit; Anthony W Fyles; Michaela C Devries; Thomas K Oliver; Michael Fung-Kee-Fung Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-06-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: D Denschlag; B Gabriel; C Mueller-Lantzsch; C Tempfer; K Henne; G Gitsch; A Hasenburg Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Peter G Rose; Shamshad Ali; Charles W Whitney; Rachelle Lanciano; Frederick B Stehman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Esther R Nijhuis; Ate G J van der Zee; Bertha A in 't Hout; Jantine J Boomgaard; Joanne A de Hullu; Elisabeth Pras; Harry Hollema; Jan G Aalders; Hans W Nijman; Pax H B Willemse; Marian J E Mourits Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: W A Peters; P Y Liu; R J Barrett; R J Stock; B J Monk; J S Berek; L Souhami; P Grigsby; W Gordon; D S Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M P Schmid; R Pötter; P Brader; A Kratochwil; G Goldner; K Kirchheiner; A Sturdza; C Kirisits Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Luiza Bondar; Laura Velema; Jan Willem Mens; Ellen Zwijnenburg; Ben Heijmen; Mischa Hoogeman Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: R Ordoñez; L A Henríquez-Hernández; M Federico; A Valenciano; B Pinar; M Lloret; E Bordón; C Rodríguez-Gallego; P C Lara Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-12-22 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Stefan Rieken; Florian Simon; Daniel Habermehl; Jan Oliver Dittmar; Stephanie E Combs; Klaus Weber; Jürgen Debus; Katja Lindel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 3.621