Sharon M Lu1, Christine Chang-Halpenny2, Julie Hwang-Graziano2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: sharon.m.lu@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerance of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy delivered in sequential (chemotherapy followed by radiation) versus "sandwich" fashion (chemotherapy, interval radiation, and remaining chemotherapy) after surgery in patients with FIGO stage III uterine endometrioid adenocarcinoma. METHODS: From 2004 to 2011, we identified 51 patients treated at our institution fitting the above criteria. All patients received surgical staging followed by adjuvant chemoradiation (external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without high-dose rate (HDR) vaginal brachytherapy (VB)). Of these, 73% and 27% of patients received their adjuvant therapy in sequential and sandwich fashion, respectively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in clinical or pathologic factors between patients treated with either regimen. Thirty-nine (76%) patients had stage IIIC disease. The majority of patients received 6 cycles of paclitaxel with carboplatin or cisplatin. Median EBRT dose was 45 Gy and 54% of patients received HDR VB boost (median dose 21 Gy). There were no significant differences in the estimated 5-year overall survival, local progression-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival between the sequential and sandwich groups: 87% vs. 77% (p=0.37), 89% vs. 100% (p=0.21), and 78% vs. 85% (p=0.79), respectively. No grade 3-4 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicities were reported in either group. There was a trend towards higher incidence of grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity in the sandwich group. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant chemoradiation for FIGO stage III endometrioid uterine cancer given in either sequential or sandwich fashion appears to offer equally excellent early clinical outcomes and acceptably low toxicity.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerance of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy delivered in sequential (chemotherapy followed by radiation) versus "sandwich" fashion (chemotherapy, interval radiation, and remaining chemotherapy) after surgery in patients with FIGO stage III uterine endometrioid adenocarcinoma. METHODS: From 2004 to 2011, we identified 51 patients treated at our institution fitting the above criteria. All patients received surgical staging followed by adjuvant chemoradiation (external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without high-dose rate (HDR) vaginal brachytherapy (VB)). Of these, 73% and 27% of patients received their adjuvant therapy in sequential and sandwich fashion, respectively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in clinical or pathologic factors between patients treated with either regimen. Thirty-nine (76%) patients had stage IIIC disease. The majority of patients received 6 cycles of paclitaxel with carboplatin or cisplatin. Median EBRT dose was 45 Gy and 54% of patients received HDR VB boost (median dose 21 Gy). There were no significant differences in the estimated 5-year overall survival, local progression-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival between the sequential and sandwich groups: 87% vs. 77% (p=0.37), 89% vs. 100% (p=0.21), and 78% vs. 85% (p=0.79), respectively. No grade 3-4 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicities were reported in either group. There was a trend towards higher incidence of grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity in the sandwich group. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant chemoradiation for FIGO stage III endometrioid uterine cancer given in either sequential or sandwich fashion appears to offer equally excellent early clinical outcomes and acceptably low toxicity.
Authors: Daniela Matei; Virginia Filiaci; Marcus E Randall; David Mutch; Margaret M Steinhoff; Paul A DiSilvestro; Katherine M Moxley; Yong M Kim; Matthew A Powell; David M O'Malley; Nick M Spirtos; William Small; Krishnansu S Tewari; William E Richards; John Nakayama; Ursula A Matulonis; Helen Q Huang; David S Miller Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ursula A Matulonis; Helen Q Huang; Virginia L Filiaci; Marcus Randall; Paul A DiSilvestro; Katherine M Moxley; Jeffrey M Fowler; Matthew A Powell; Nick M Spirtos; Krishnansu S Tewari; William E Richards; John M Nakayama; David G Mutch; David S Miller; Daniela Matei; Lari B Wenzel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Yi-Jou Tai; Heng-Cheng Hsu; Ying-Cheng Chiang; Yu-Li Chen; Chi-An Chen; Wen-Fang Cheng Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jennifer McEachron; Nancy Zhou; Christina Spencer; Lisa Shanahan; Carolyn Chatterton; Pankaj Singhal; Yi Chun Lee Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.401