| Literature DB >> 29416819 |
Dan Zheng1,2, Hua-Ping Mou3, Peng Diao4, Xiao-Ming Li5, Chuan-Li Zhang3, Jing Jiang3, Jia-Lian Chen3, Li-Shuai Wang6, Qiu Wang6, Guang-Yuan Zhou6, Jie Chen6, Chuan Lin6, Zhi-Ping Yuan5,6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively assess the influence of radical surgery following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) on outcomes in cervical cancer (CC) patients.Entities:
Keywords: cervical cancer; clinical outcome; concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT); radical surgery
Year: 2017 PMID: 29416819 PMCID: PMC5788687 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23165
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Baseline variables
| Characteristics | Surgery group ( | Non-surgery group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ages | 0.48* | ||
| Median (range) | 51 (26–73) | 55 (28–79) | |
| ECOG scores | 0.89# | ||
| ≤ 2 ( | 157, 96.3% | 145, 96.0% | |
| > 2 ( | 6, 3.7% | 6, 4.0% | |
| Pathological types | 0.45# | ||
| SCC ( | 136, 83.4% | 121, 80.1% | |
| AC ( | 27, 16.6% | 30, 19.9% | |
| FIGO stages | 0.20# | ||
| IB2 ( | 35, 21.6% | 28, 18.5% | |
| IIA1 ( | 27, 16.6% | 39, 25.8% | |
| IIA2 ( | 44, 27.0% | 34, 22.5% | |
| IIB1 ( | 41, 25.2% | 30, 19.9% | |
| IIB2 ( | 16, 9.8% | 20, 13.2% | |
| Radiotherapy schemes | 0.08# | ||
| IMRT ( | 100, 61.3% | 78, 51.7% | |
| 3D-CRT ( | 63, 38.7% | 73, 48.3% | |
| Tumor diameters | 0.14# | ||
| ≤ 4 cm ( | 103, 68.2% | 103, 68.2% | |
| > 4 cm ( | 60, 36.8% | 48, 31.8% | |
| Pelvic lymph node status | 0.16# | ||
| Positive ( | 60, 36.8% | 41, 25.2% | |
| Negative ( | 103, 63.2% | 110, 72.8% | |
| Parametrial invasion | 0.03# | ||
| Yes ( | 56, 34.4% | 70, 46.4% | |
| No ( | 107, 65.6% | 81, 53.6% | |
| Chemotherapy | 0.19# | ||
| 4 cycles ( | 13, 8.0% | 19, 12.6% | |
| 5 cycles ( | 31, 19.0% | 31, 20.5% | |
| 6 cycles ( | 119, 73.0% | 62, 66.9% |
*Mann-Whitney test; #Fisher's exact test; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy; 3D-CRT, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Figure 1Local recurrence rates (LRR) in all the patients
Figure 2LRR in patients with or without risk factors
Green line and blue line represent the surgery group and the non-surgery group, respectively. (A) LRR in patients with or without parametrial invasion (P value for surgery and non-surgery groups were 0.25 and 0.04, respectively); (B) LRR in patients with or without pelvic lymph node metastases (P value for surgery and non-surgery groups were 0.67 and 0.003, respectively); (C) LRR in patients with or without residual disease (P value for surgery and non-surgery groups were 0.71 and 0.03, respectively); (D) LRR in patients with or without tumor diameter > 4 cm (P value for surgery and non-surgery groups were 0.29 and 0.03, respectively.).
Figure 3Overall survival of all patients
There is no difference in OS between surgery and non-surgery groups.
Figure 4Overall survival in patients with different risk factors in surgery group and non-surgery group
(A–D) represent OS for patients with parametrical invasion, pelvic lymph node metastases, residual disease and tumor diameter > 4 cm, respectively.
Figure 5Progress free survival in patients with different risk factors in surgery and non-surgery groups
(A–D) represent PFS for patients with parametrical invasion, pelvic lymph node metastases, residual disease and tumor diameter > 4 cm, respectively.