| Literature DB >> 27986859 |
Tatsuya Ohno1, Shin-Ei Noda1, Noriyuki Okonogi1,2, Kazutoshi Murata1, Kei Shibuya1, Hiroki Kiyohara1, Tomoaki Tamaki1, Ken Ando1, Takahiro Oike1, Yu Ohkubo1, Masaru Wakatsuki1, Jun-Ichi Saitoh1, Takashi Nakano1.
Abstract
Herein, we investigate the long-term clinical outcomes for cervical cancer patients treated with in-room computed tomography-based brachytherapy. Eighty patients with Stage IB1-IVA cervical cancer, who had undergone treatment with combined 3D high-dose rate brachytherapy and conformal radiotherapy between October 2008 and May 2011, were retrospectively analyzed. External beam radiotherapy (50 Gy) with central shielding after 20-40 Gy was performed for each patient. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy was administered concurrently to advanced-stage patients aged ≤75 years. Brachytherapy was delivered in four fractions of 6 Gy per week. In-room computed tomography imaging with applicator insertion was performed for treatment planning. Information from physical examinations at diagnosis, and brachytherapy and magnetic resonance imaging at diagnosis and just before the first brachytherapy session, were referred to for contouring of the high-risk clinical target volume. The median follow-up duration was 60 months. The 5-year local control, pelvic progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 94%, 90% and 86%, respectively. No significant differences in 5-year local control rates were observed between Stage I, Stage II and Stage III-IVA patients. Conversely, a significant difference in the 5-year overall survival rate was observed between Stage II and III-IVA patients (97% vs 72%; P = 0.006). One patient developed Grade 3 late bladder toxicity. No other Grade 3 or higher late toxicities were reported in the rectum or bladder. In conclusion, excellent local control rates were achieved with minimal late toxicities in the rectum or bladder, irrespective of clinical stage.Entities:
Keywords: cervical cancer; high-dose rate brachytherapy; image-based brachytherapy; in-room computed tomography; three-dimensional treatment planning
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 27986859 PMCID: PMC5766167 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrw121
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Radiat Res ISSN: 0449-3060 Impact factor: 2.724
Patient characteristics
| Characteristic | Patients ( |
|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis, years (range) | 59 (29–82) |
| Clinical stage,
| |
| IB1 | 13 (16) |
| IB2 | 5 (6) |
| IIA1 | 6 (8) |
| IIA2 | 2 (3) |
| IIB | 25 (31) |
| IIIA | 1 (1) |
| IIIB | 26 (33) |
| IVA | 2 (3) |
| Tumor size at
diagnosis, | |
| ≤4 cm (small) | 29 (36) |
| 4–6 cm (medium) | 34 (43) |
| >6 cm (large) | 17 (21) |
| Pelvic LNMs, | |
| Present | 47 (59) |
| Absent | 33 (41) |
| PALN metastases,
| |
| Present | 8 (10) |
| Absent | 72 (90) |
| Histological
type, | |
| SCC | 68 (85) |
| ADC | 11 (14) |
| UC | 1 (1) |
| CCRT, | |
| Weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2) | 28 (35) |
| Weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) | 5 (6) |
| None | 47 (59) |
| Brachytherapy method, | |
| Fletcher–Suit applicator | 66 (82) |
| Fletcher–Suit applicator with Trocar Point Needles | 14 (18) |
aADC = adenocarcinoma, CCRT = concurrent chemoradiotherapy, LNM = lymph node metastasis, MRI = magnetic resonance imaging, PALN = paraaortic lymph node, SCC = squamous cell carcinoma, UC = undifferentiated carcinoma. Maximum tumor diameter on MRI at diagnosis.
Fig. 1.In-room computed tomography on-rail brachytherapy system showing the position of the (A) applicator insertion tool, (B) X-ray and irradiation machine, and (C) computed tomography scanner.
Fig. 2.Five-year local control (LC; blue line), pelvic progression-free survival (PFS; green line), and overall survival (OS; red line) rates of all (n = 80) uterine cervical cancer patients combined.
Fig. 3.Five-year (A) local control (LC) and (B) overall survival (OS) rates of uterine cervical cancer patients stratified according to tumor size (≤4 cm [n = 29], blue line; 4–6 cm [n = 34], green line; and > 6 cm [n = 17], red line).
Fig. 4.Five-year (A) local control (LC) and (B) overall survival (OS) rates of uterine cervical cancer patients stratified according to clinical stage [Stage I (n = 18), blue line; Stage II (n = 33), green line; and Stage III–IVA (n = 29), red line].
Actual dose–volume histogram parameters
| Parameter | Mean dose ± SD (Gy)[ | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| HR CTV (D90) | |||
| ≤4 cm (small) | 69.0 ± 11.9 | 0.958 | |
| 4–6 cm (medium) | 68.4 ± 5.5 | 0.723 | |
| >6 cm (large) | 66.5 ± 6.4 | 0.593 | |
| Rectal dose (D2cm3) | |||
| ≤4 cm (small) | 48.4 ± 11.3 | 0.002* | |
| 4–6 cm (medium) | 57.1 ± 9.5 | 0.098 | |
| >6 cm (large) | 63.2 ± 7.4 | <0.001* | |
| Bladder dose (D2cm3) | |||
| ≤4 cm (small) | 67.9 ± 12.9 | 0.081 | |
| 4–6 cm (medium) | 73.9 ± 9.1 | 0.123 | |
| >6 cm (large) | 80.2 ± 9.7 | 0.001* |
aCTV = clinical target volume, D2cm3 = the minimum dose delivered to the highest irradiated 2 cm3 volume, D90 = the minimum dose delivered to 90% of the HR CTV, HR = high risk, OARs = organs at risk, SD = standard deviation. The total doses of external body radiotherapy and brachytherapy were calculated and normalized to a biological equivalent dose of 2 Gy per fraction using a linear quadratic model with an alpha/beta of 3 Gy for the OARs and an alpha/beta of 10 Gy for the HR CTV. The doses of pelvic irradiation with central shielding were not included.
Review of recent clinical outcomes of 3D image-guided brachytherapy for uterine cervical cancer
| Author (reference) | Year | Number of patients | Imaging for 3D planning | Median follow-up (months) | LC rate | Late toxicity Grade 3 or higher |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan | 2009 | 28 | CT | 23 | 96% | 11% |
| Kang
| 2010 | 97 | CT | 41 | 97% (3-year) | 4% |
| Pötter | 2011 | 156 | MRI | 42 | 95% (3-year) | 4% (rectum), 2% (bladder) |
| Charra-Brunaud
| 2012 | 117 | CT (82%), MRI (18%) | 24 | 79% (2-year) | 3% |
| Tharavichitkul
| 2013 | 47 | CT (68%), MRI (32%) | 26 | 98% | 2% |
| Lindegaard | 2013 | 140 | MRI | 36 | 91% (3-year) | 3% (GI tract), 1% (urinary tract) |
| Dyk | 2014 | 134 | MRI | 29 | 82% | NR |
| Murakami
| 2014 | 51 | CT | 39 | 92% (3-year) | 2% (GI tract), 0% (bladder) |
| Rijkmans | 2014 | 83 | CT (52%), MRI (48%) | 42 | NR | 8% |
| Gill | 2015 | 128 | MRI | 24 | 92% (2-year) | 1% |
| Simpson | 2015 | 76 | CT fused with MRI | 17 | 95% | 2% |
| Mazeron
| 2015 | 225 | CT (10%), MRI (90%) | 39 | 87% | NR |
| Zolciak-Siwinska
| 2016 | 216 | CT | 52 | 90% (5-year) | 4% (rectum), 3% (bladder) |
| Ribeiro | 2016 | 170 | CT (4%), MRI (96%) | 37 | 96% (5-year) | 7% (rectosigmoid), 6% (urinary tract) |
| Sturdza | 2016 | 731 | CT (19%), MRI (81%) | 43 | 89% (5-year) | 7% (GI tract), 5% (bladder) |
| Present study | 2016 | 80 | CT | 60 | 94% (5-year) | 0% (rectosigmoid), 1% (bladder) |
CT = computed tomography, GI = gastrointestinal, LC = local control, MRI = magnetic resonance imaging, NR = not reported.