Bonala Sreenivasa Rao1, Pranabandhu Das1, Bala Venkata Subramanian2, Amitabh Jena3, Patnayak Rashmi4, V L Anusha Konakalla5, Kuna Jayasree5. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Radiotherapy, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Radiotherapy, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3. Addtional Professor, Department of Surgical Oncology, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 5. Senior Resident, Department of Radiotherapy, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:High Dose Rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy is an integral component in treatment of carcinoma uterine cervix. There is no consensus about optimal fractionation in HDR brachytherapy. AIM: To assess the feasibility, tolerability of HDR intracavitary brachytherapy schedule of 8 Gy per fraction per week for 3 fractions over 6Gy per fraction per week for 4 fractions with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of uterine cervix. MATERIALS AND METHODS:From 2013 to 2014 total 80 patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix (Stages IIB and IIIB) were treated with External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) and High Dose Rate Intracavitary Brachytherapy (HDR- ICBT). During course of EBRT, those patients fit for brachytherapy were randomized to arm A- 6 Gy per fraction per week for 4 fractions and arm B - 8 Gy per fraction per week for 3 fractions. RESULTS: The median follow up was 30 months, local control was 90% in Arm A and 83.3% in Arm B (p= 0.21) and the disease-free survival was 90% in Arm A and 83.3% in Arm B (p= 0.39). There is no significance difference for late rectal and bladder toxicities between two arms (p=0.43). CONCLUSION: Taking into account of increased hospital burden of locally advanced cancer cervix patients in Indian context, HDR intracavitary brachytherapy schedule of 8 Gy per fraction per week x 3 fractions is the preferable option over 6 Gy per fraction per week x 4 fractions with regard to comparable loco-regional control, acute and late toxicity, disease free survival and better patients compliance to lesser fractionation schedule.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: High Dose Rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy is an integral component in treatment of carcinoma uterine cervix. There is no consensus about optimal fractionation in HDR brachytherapy. AIM: To assess the feasibility, tolerability of HDR intracavitary brachytherapy schedule of 8 Gy per fraction per week for 3 fractions over 6Gy per fraction per week for 4 fractions with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of uterine cervix. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2013 to 2014 total 80 patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix (Stages IIB and IIIB) were treated with External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) and High Dose Rate Intracavitary Brachytherapy (HDR- ICBT). During course of EBRT, those patients fit for brachytherapy were randomized to arm A- 6 Gy per fraction per week for 4 fractions and arm B - 8 Gy per fraction per week for 3 fractions. RESULTS: The median follow up was 30 months, local control was 90% in Arm A and 83.3% in Arm B (p= 0.21) and the disease-free survival was 90% in Arm A and 83.3% in Arm B (p= 0.39). There is no significance difference for late rectal and bladder toxicities between two arms (p=0.43). CONCLUSION: Taking into account of increased hospital burden of locally advanced cancer cervix patients in Indian context, HDR intracavitary brachytherapy schedule of 8 Gy per fraction per week x 3 fractions is the preferable option over 6 Gy per fraction per week x 4 fractions with regard to comparable loco-regional control, acute and late toxicity, disease free survival and better patients compliance to lesser fractionation schedule.
Entities:
Keywords:
External beam radiotherapy; Gynaecological malignancy; Late toxicity
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Carien L Creutzberg; Peter Craighead; Mary McCormack; Takafumi Toita; Kailash Narayan; Nicholas Reed; Harry Long; Hak-Jae Kim; Christian Marth; Jacob C Lindegaard; Annmarie Cerrotta; William Small; Edward Trimble Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Arvind Kumar Patidar; H S Kumar; Rahul V Walke; Pushpendra H Hirapara; Shankar Lal Jakhar; M R Bardia Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol India Date: 2012-08-17
Authors: John P Einck; Alana Hudson; Adam C Shulman; Catheryn M Yashar; Mamadou M Dieng; Magatte Diagne; Latifatou Gueye; Fama Gningue; Pape M Gaye; Brandon J Fisher; Arno J Mundt; Derek W Brown Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Vonetta M Williams; Jenna M Kahn; Matthew M Harkenrider; Junzo Chino; Jonathan Chen; L Christine Fang; Emily F Dunn; Emma Fields; Jyoti S Mayadev; Ramesh Rengan; Daniel Petereit; Brandon A Dyer Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 2.362