BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our objective was to determine whether stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and brachytherapy boost techniques have comparable overall survival in treating cervical cancer when adjusted for known prognostic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to study women with invasive cervical cancer who were treated with radiation between 2004 and 2013. A logistic regression model was built to identify factors associated with the receipt of SBRT and IMRT. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier and propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of all 15,905 patients, 14,394 (90.5%) received brachytherapy, 42 (0.8%) received SBRT, and 1468 (9.2%) received IMRT. After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) for patients who received SBRT boost versus brachytherapy boost (hazard ratio = 1.477, 95% confidence interval = 0.746-2.926, P = 0.263) but a significant OS detriment in patients who received IMRT boost versus brachytherapy boost (hazard ratio = 1.455, 95% confidence interval = 1.300-1.628, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a propensity-matched analysis, those who received SBRT boost had equal OS when compared with brachytherapy, but those who received IMRT boost had worse OS when compared with brachytherapy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our objective was to determine whether stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and brachytherapy boost techniques have comparable overall survival in treating cervical cancer when adjusted for known prognostic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to study women with invasive cervical cancer who were treated with radiation between 2004 and 2013. A logistic regression model was built to identify factors associated with the receipt of SBRT and IMRT. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier and propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of all 15,905 patients, 14,394 (90.5%) received brachytherapy, 42 (0.8%) received SBRT, and 1468 (9.2%) received IMRT. After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) for patients who received SBRT boost versus brachytherapy boost (hazard ratio = 1.477, 95% confidence interval = 0.746-2.926, P = 0.263) but a significant OS detriment in patients who received IMRT boost versus brachytherapy boost (hazard ratio = 1.455, 95% confidence interval = 1.300-1.628, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a propensity-matched analysis, those who received SBRT boost had equal OS when compared with brachytherapy, but those who received IMRT boost had worse OS when compared with brachytherapy.
Authors: Giuseppe Facondo; Gianluca Vullo; Vitaliana DE Sanctis; Maurizio Valeriani; Anna Maria Ascolese; Maria Massaro; Dimitri Anzellini; Mattia Falchetto Osti Journal: Cancer Diagn Progn Date: 2021-05-03