Yu Furuta1, Yukiharu Todo2, Hiroyuki Yamazaki1, Chisa Shimada1, Sho Takeshita1, Kazuhira Okamoto1, Hidenori Kato1. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, National Hospital Organization, Hokkaido Cancer Center, 4-2 Kikusui, Shiroishi-ku, Sapporo, 003-0804, Japan. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, National Hospital Organization, Hokkaido Cancer Center, 4-2 Kikusui, Shiroishi-ku, Sapporo, 003-0804, Japan. yukiharu@sap-cc.go.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The therapeutic significance of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radiation therapy (RT) was negated during the early 1990s. Here, we compared post-NAC RT to surgery for chemo-sensitive cervical squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). METHODS: This study included 79 consecutive patients with cervical SCC who were treated by NAC followed by surgery (n = 49) or by definitive RT (n = 30). We compared characteristics and survival outcomes between the surgery and RT groups by their responses to NAC. RESULTS: Of the 79 patients, 70 (89%) had stage II-IV disease and 41 (52%) had radiological pelvic lymph node enlargement. The 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rate of the entire cohort was 66.4% (median follow-up 54 months). Fifty-five patients (70%) achieved sufficient (complete or partial) responses to NAC. Among patients with insufficient NAC responses, the 5-year DSS rate of the surgery group (55.6%) was significantly higher than the RT group (20.0%; P = 0.044). However, among patients with sufficient responses to NAC, 5-year DSS rates did not significantly differ between the surgery and RT groups (82.3 vs 78.6%; P = 0.79) even though the RT group had many more unfavorable prognostic factors and received fewer subsequent treatments than the surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Post-NAC survival outcomes among patients with chemo-sensitive cervical SCC who then underwent RT were not inferior to those treated with surgery, and NAC did not detract from the efficacy of subsequent RT. Among selected patients who respond favorably to NAC, RT could be a less invasive substitute for surgery without compromising treatment outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The therapeutic significance of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radiation therapy (RT) was negated during the early 1990s. Here, we compared post-NAC RT to surgery for chemo-sensitive cervical squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). METHODS: This study included 79 consecutive patients with cervical SCC who were treated by NAC followed by surgery (n = 49) or by definitive RT (n = 30). We compared characteristics and survival outcomes between the surgery and RT groups by their responses to NAC. RESULTS: Of the 79 patients, 70 (89%) had stage II-IV disease and 41 (52%) had radiological pelvic lymph node enlargement. The 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rate of the entire cohort was 66.4% (median follow-up 54 months). Fifty-five patients (70%) achieved sufficient (complete or partial) responses to NAC. Among patients with insufficientNAC responses, the 5-year DSS rate of the surgery group (55.6%) was significantly higher than the RT group (20.0%; P = 0.044). However, among patients with sufficient responses to NAC, 5-year DSS rates did not significantly differ between the surgery and RT groups (82.3 vs 78.6%; P = 0.79) even though the RT group had many more unfavorable prognostic factors and received fewer subsequent treatments than the surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Post-NAC survival outcomes among patients with chemo-sensitive cervical SCC who then underwent RT were not inferior to those treated with surgery, and NAC did not detract from the efficacy of subsequent RT. Among selected patients who respond favorably to NAC, RT could be a less invasive substitute for surgery without compromising treatment outcomes.
Authors: Carla Rameri Alexandre Silva de Azevedo; Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler; Maria Julia Goncalves de Mello; Carlos Gil Ferreira Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: M Morris; P J Eifel; J Lu; P W Grigsby; C Levenback; R E Stevens; M Rotman; D M Gershenson; D G Mutch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-04-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C W Whitney; W Sause; B N Bundy; J H Malfetano; E V Hannigan; W C Fowler; D L Clarke-Pearson; S Y Liao Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patricia J Eifel; Kathryn Winter; Mitchell Morris; Charles Levenback; Perry W Grigsby; Jay Cooper; Marvin Rotman; David Gershenson; David G Mutch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M H Tattersall; V Lorvidhaya; V Vootiprux; A Cheirsilpa; F Wong; T Azhar; H P Lee; S B Kang; A Manalo; M S Yen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L Kumar; R Kaushal; M Nandy; B M Biswal; S Kumar; A Kriplani; R Singh; G K Rath; V Kochupillai Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1994-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: M McCormack; L Kadalayil; A Hackshaw; M A Hall-Craggs; R P Symonds; V Warwick; H Simonds; I Fernando; M Hammond; L James; A Feeney; J A Ledermann Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 7.640