Jyoti Mayadev1, Akila Viswanathan2, Yu Liu3, Chin-Shang Li3, Kevin Albuquerque4, Antonio L Damato2, Sushil Beriwal5, Beth Erickson6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA. Electronic address: jmayadev@ucdavis.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburg Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Advanced imaging used in combination with brachytherapy (BT) has revolutionized the treatment of patients with cervical cancer. We present a comprehensive review of the literature for definitive radiation with high-dose-rate (HDR) BT. In addition, we investigate potential outcome improvement with image-based brachytherapy (IBBT) compared to studies using traditional Point A dosing. This review extensively investigates acute and late toxicities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study reviews the literature from 2000 to 2015 with an emphasis on modern approaches including concurrent chemotherapy (chemoRT), radiation, and HDR BT and IBBT. Descriptive statistics and pelvic control (PC), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) outcomes were calculated using weighted means to report pooled analysis of outcomes. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 16 prospective, 51 retrospective studies that reported survival outcomes, and 13 retrospective studies that focused on acute and late toxicity outcomes regardless of applicator type. There are 57 studies that report Point A dose specification with 33 having chemoRT, and 10 studies that use IBBT, 8 with chemoRT. Patients receiving radiation and chemoRT with HDR BT in the prospective studies, with >24 months followup, rates of PC were: for RT: 73%, SD: 11; CRT: 82%, SD: 8; DFS-RT: 55%, SD: 10; CRT: 65%, SD: 7; OS-RT: 66%, SD: 7; CRT: 70%, SD: 11. In the retrospective studies, the PC rates (weighted means) for the radiation and chemoradiation outcomes are 75% vs. 80%, and for DFS, the values were 55% vs. 63%, respectively. Comparing patients receiving chemoRT and IBBT to traditional Point A dose specification, there is a significant improvement in PC (p < 0.01) and DFS (p < 0.01) with IBBT. The range of genitourinary late toxicity reported for radiation was Grade 3: 1-6% and for chemoRT 2-20%. The range of late gastrointestinal toxicity for radiation was Grade 3: 4-11% and for chemoRT, 1-11%. For the late gynecologic toxicity, only 1 of the 16 prospective trials report a Grade 1-2 of 17% for radiation and 9% for chemoRT effects. CONCLUSIONS: We present concise outcomes of PC, DFS, OS, and toxicity for cervical cancer patients treated with chemoradiation and HDR BT. Our data suggest an improvement in outcomes with the use of IBBT compared with traditional Point A dose prescriptions. In conclusion, HDR BT is a safe, effective modality when combined with IBBT.
PURPOSE: Advanced imaging used in combination with brachytherapy (BT) has revolutionized the treatment of patients with cervical cancer. We present a comprehensive review of the literature for definitive radiation with high-dose-rate (HDR) BT. In addition, we investigate potential outcome improvement with image-based brachytherapy (IBBT) compared to studies using traditional Point A dosing. This review extensively investigates acute and late toxicities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study reviews the literature from 2000 to 2015 with an emphasis on modern approaches including concurrent chemotherapy (chemoRT), radiation, and HDR BT and IBBT. Descriptive statistics and pelvic control (PC), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) outcomes were calculated using weighted means to report pooled analysis of outcomes. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 16 prospective, 51 retrospective studies that reported survival outcomes, and 13 retrospective studies that focused on acute and late toxicity outcomes regardless of applicator type. There are 57 studies that report Point A dose specification with 33 having chemoRT, and 10 studies that use IBBT, 8 with chemoRT. Patients receiving radiation and chemoRT with HDR BT in the prospective studies, with >24 months followup, rates of PC were: for RT: 73%, SD: 11; CRT: 82%, SD: 8; DFS-RT: 55%, SD: 10; CRT: 65%, SD: 7; OS-RT: 66%, SD: 7; CRT: 70%, SD: 11. In the retrospective studies, the PC rates (weighted means) for the radiation and chemoradiation outcomes are 75% vs. 80%, and for DFS, the values were 55% vs. 63%, respectively. Comparing patients receiving chemoRT and IBBT to traditional Point A dose specification, there is a significant improvement in PC (p < 0.01) and DFS (p < 0.01) with IBBT. The range of genitourinary late toxicity reported for radiation was Grade 3: 1-6% and for chemoRT 2-20%. The range of late gastrointestinal toxicity for radiation was Grade 3: 4-11% and for chemoRT, 1-11%. For the late gynecologic toxicity, only 1 of the 16 prospective trials report a Grade 1-2 of 17% for radiation and 9% for chemoRT effects. CONCLUSIONS: We present concise outcomes of PC, DFS, OS, and toxicity for cervical cancerpatients treated with chemoradiation and HDR BT. Our data suggest an improvement in outcomes with the use of IBBT compared with traditional Point A dose prescriptions. In conclusion, HDR BT is a safe, effective modality when combined with IBBT.
Authors: R Pearcey; M Brundage; P Drouin; J Jeffrey; D Johnston; H Lukka; G MacLean; L Souhami; G Stuart; D Tu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jonathan Teh; Swee Peng Yap; Ivan Tham; Vijay K Sethi; Eu Jin Chua; Richard Yeo; Tew Hong Ho; Eng Hseon Tay; Yin Nin Chia; Lay Tin Soh; Hoon Seng Khoo-Tan Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Frederick B Stehman; Shamshad Ali; Henry M Keys; Laila I Muderspach; Weldon E Chafe; Donald G Gallup; Joan L Walker; Deborah Gersell Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Brij M Sood; Giridhar R Gorla; Madhur Garg; Patrick S Anderson; Abbie L Fields; Carolyn D Runowicz; Gary L Goldberg; Bhadrasain Vikram Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Junzo Chino; Christina M Annunziata; Sushil Beriwal; Lisa Bradfield; Beth A Erickson; Emma C Fields; KathrynJane Fitch; Matthew M Harkenrider; Christine H Holschneider; Mitchell Kamrava; Eric Leung; Lilie L Lin; Jyoti S Mayadev; Marc Morcos; Chika Nwachukwu; Daniel Petereit; Akila N Viswanathan Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-18
Authors: Corinne McDaniels-Davidson; Christine H Feng; Maria Elena Martinez; Alison J Canchola; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Jesse N Nodora; Sandip P Patel; Arno J Mundt; Jyoti S Mayadev Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Hayeon Kim; Yongsook C Lee; Stanley H Benedict; Brandon Dyer; Michael Price; Yi Rong; Ananth Ravi; Eric Leung; Sushil Beriwal; Mark E Bernard; Jyoti Mayadev; Jessica R L Leif; Ying Xiao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kara D Romano; Colin Hill; Daniel M Trifiletti; M Sean Peach; Bethany J Horton; Neil Shah; Dylan Campbell; Bruce Libby; Timothy N Showalter Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 3.481