Anupama Chundury1, Anthony Apicelli1, Todd DeWees1, Matthew Powell2, David Mutch2, Premal Thaker2, Clifford Robinson1, Perry W Grigsby3, Julie K Schwarz4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA; Division of Nuclear Medicine, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: jschwarz@radonc.wustl.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate local control, survival outcomes, and toxicity after intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for recurrent chemorefractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2014, 33 patients were treated with IMRT for recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients received a median of 3 chemotherapy regimens prior to IMRT (range, 1-12) with 11 (33%) undergoing concurrent therapy. Local control (LC), recurrence free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated via Kaplan-Meier method. Toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03. Impact of patient characteristics on outcomes was evaluated via Cox's proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Median follow up was 23.7 months. Forty-nine sites were treated to a median dose of 5040cGy (range, 4500-7000). Nine (18%) of the 49 sites had in-field failures. Two year actuarial LC, RFS, and OS were 82%, 11%, and 63%, respectively. Seventeen patients had both a pre and post-treatment FDG-PET/CT; 6 (35%) had a complete metabolic response while 11 (65%) had a partial metabolic response. Acute ≥ grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities occurred in 2 (6%) patients, late ≥ grade 3 GI toxicities occurred in 12 (36%), acute ≥ grade 3 hematological toxicities occurred in 5 (15%) and late ≥ grade 3 hematological toxicities occurred in 14 (42%). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT for recurrent chemorefractory ovarian cancer is associated with excellent local control and limited radiation related toxicity. Future studies will be required to determine which subpopulation will benefit most from IMRT and whether alternative techniques such as stereotactic body radiotherapy may be feasible.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate local control, survival outcomes, and toxicity after intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for recurrent chemorefractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2014, 33 patients were treated with IMRT for recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients received a median of 3 chemotherapy regimens prior to IMRT (range, 1-12) with 11 (33%) undergoing concurrent therapy. Local control (LC), recurrence free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated via Kaplan-Meier method. Toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03. Impact of patient characteristics on outcomes was evaluated via Cox's proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Median follow up was 23.7 months. Forty-nine sites were treated to a median dose of 5040cGy (range, 4500-7000). Nine (18%) of the 49 sites had in-field failures. Two year actuarial LC, RFS, and OS were 82%, 11%, and 63%, respectively. Seventeen patients had both a pre and post-treatment FDG-PET/CT; 6 (35%) had a complete metabolic response while 11 (65%) had a partial metabolic response. Acute ≥ grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities occurred in 2 (6%) patients, late ≥ grade 3 GI toxicities occurred in 12 (36%), acute ≥ grade 3 hematological toxicities occurred in 5 (15%) and late ≥ grade 3 hematological toxicities occurred in 14 (42%). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT for recurrent chemorefractory ovarian cancer is associated with excellent local control and limited radiation related toxicity. Future studies will be required to determine which subpopulation will benefit most from IMRT and whether alternative techniques such as stereotactic body radiotherapy may be feasible.
Authors: Roberto C Delgado Bolton; Nicolas Aide; Patrick M Colletti; Annamaria Ferrero; Diana Paez; Andrea Skanjeti; Francesco Giammarile Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anish A Butala; Roshal R Patel; Shwetha Manjunath; Nawar A Latif; Ashley F Haggerty; Joshua A Jones; Neil K Taunk Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-11-25
Authors: Hua Yang; Kaishuo Zhang; Zi Liu; Tao Wang; Fan Shi; Jin Su; Jintao Zhang; Juanyue Liu; Li Dai Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 4.379