| Literature DB >> 31645885 |
Meetakshi Gupta1, Supriya Chopra2, Shreya Kunder1, A Dheera3, Devaraju Sampathirao3, Reena Engineer1, Jaya Ghosh4, Lavanya Gurram1, Umesh Mahantshetty1, Sudeep Gupta4, Shyam Shrivastava1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Extended-field radiotherapy (EFRT) with concurrent chemotherapy represents standard treatment in cervical cancer patients with para-aortic lymph nodal (PALN) metastasis. While EFRT with Intensity Modulated RT (IMRT) has been demonstrated to reduce toxicities, the dose thresholds for minimizing acute toxicity is not clear. The present study was undertaken to report the early toxicity with extended-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (EF-IMRT) for carcinoma of the cervix in our cohort of patients and determine dose-volume parameters that predict ≥grade II haematological toxicity and diarrhoea.Entities:
Keywords: EFRT; IMRT; PALN; cervical cancer; toxicity
Year: 2019 PMID: 31645885 PMCID: PMC6759319 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2019.957
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecancermedicalscience ISSN: 1754-6605
Baseline patient characteristics, lymph nodal characteristics and treatment details.
| Median age | 55 (±8) years |
| Previous hysterectomy | 4 (8%) |
| Stage at presentation: FIGO | |
| Ib1 | 2 (5%) |
| Ib2 | 2 (5%) |
| IIb | 18 (42%) |
| IIIb | 21 (48%) |
| Histology | |
| Squamous | 32 (75%) |
| Adenocarcinoma | 10 (23%) |
| Others | 1 (2%) |
| Lymph nodal characteristics | |
| Pelvic nodal status | |
| Present | 43 (100%) |
| Mean size of pelvic node/s: (cm) | 2.2 (±1.2) |
| PALN diagnosed on | |
| FNA and radiology | 10 (23%) |
| Radiology alone | 31 (72%) |
| PET/CT scan | 2 (5%) |
| No. of PALN | |
| Single | 7 (16%) |
| Multiple | 36 (84%) |
| Mean size of PALN: (cm) | 1.5 (±0.6) |
| Laterality of PALN | |
| Left | 19 (45%) |
| Right | 5 (10%) |
| Bilateral | 19 (45%) |
| Position of PALN | |
| Below renal hilum | 39 (90%) |
| Above renal hilum | 4 (10%) |
| Type of treatment received | |
| NACT+ EFRT± conc. CT | 11 (25%) |
| EFRT± conc. CT | 32 (75%) |
| Brachytherapy | 29/32 (Upfront EFRT group) |
| NACT drugs | |
| P+C | 11 |
| Others | 1 |
| Median no. of NACT cycles | 3 (range: 1–5) |
| Concurrent chemotherapy | |
| CDDP | 37 (97%) |
| Others | 1 (3%) |
| Median no. of concurrent CT cycles | 4 (range: 2–6) |
| EFRT doses | |
| 45Gy | 25 (58%) |
| 45Gy+ sequential boost (5.4Gy) | 10 (23%) |
| SIB (52.5-55Gy) | 8 (19%) |
| Radiotherapy technique | |
| Static field IMRT | 5 (12%) |
| Rotational IMRT | 38 (88%) |
| SIB | 7 (16%) |
| Sequential boost | 36 (84%) |
| Mean dose to point A: | 75Gy (±8Gy) |
PALN, paraaortic lymph nodes; PET/CT, positron emission tomography/ computed tomography; FNA, fine needle aspiration; NACT, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; conc. CT, concurrent chemotherapy; EFRT, extended field radiotherapy; P+C, Paclitaxel+carboplatin; CDDP, cis-diamminedichloridoplatinum; IMRT, Intensity modulated radiotherapy; SIB, Simultaneous integrated boost
Doses to organs at risk (OAR).
| Mean rectum dose (Dmax) (EBRT+BT) | 70Gy (±5.4) |
| Mean bladder dose (Dmax) (EBRT+BT) | 80Gy (±8.9) |
| Mean sigmoid dose (Dmax) (EBRT+BT) | 70Gy (±6.3) |
| Median V45 bowel (cc) | 256 (±166) |
| Median V45 bowel (%) | 8.8 (±4.8) |
| Median V40 bowel (cc) | 457 (±184) |
| Median V40 bowel (%) | 14.4 (±6.3) |
| Median V30 bowel (cc) | 850 (±282) |
| Median V30 bowel (%) | 28 (±10.2) |
| Median V15 bowel (cc) | 2205 (±699) |
| Median V15 bowel (%) | 80 (±15) |
| Median V20 bone marrow (%) | 69 (±8) |
| Median V20 bone marrow (cc) | 884 (±121) |
| Median V10 bone marrow (%) | 81 (±8.6) |
| Median V10 bone marrow (cc) | 1042 (±206) |
| Median V5 bone marrow (%) | 85 (±8.7) |
| Median V5 bone marrow (cc) | 1082 (±218) |
| Proportion of patients receiving V10>90% bone marrow | 14% |
| Proportion of patients receiving V 40>35% bone marrow | 11.6% |
EBRT, External beam radiotherapy; BT, brachytherapy; Dmax, Maximum dose; cc, cubic centimetre; V45, volume receiving 45 Gray; V40, volume receiving 40 Gray; V30, volume receiving 30 Gray; V20, volume receiving 20 Gray; V15, volume receiving 15 Gray; V10, volume receiving 10 Gray; V5, volume receiving 5 Gray
Showing comparison in toxicity profile between NACT and non NACT group. (Statistically significant values ≤0.05 are shown in bold.)
| NACT cohort | Non NACT cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Leukopenia ≥ Grade II | 7 (58%) | 17 (55%) | 0.83 |
| Leukopenia ≥ Grade III | 7 (58%) | 6 (19%) | |
| Neutropenia ≥ Grade II | 9 (75%) | 8 (25%) | |
| Neutropenia ≥ Grade III | 7 (58%) | 3 (9.6%) | |
| Thrombocytopenia ≥ Grade II | 5 (42%) | 4 (13%) | |
| Thrombocytopenia ≥ Grade III | 2 (17%) | 1 (3%) | 0.12 |
| Any ≥ Grade II HT | 10 (83.3%) | 18 (58%) | |
| Any ≥ Grade III HT | 8 (67%) | 7 (22.6%) | |
| Acute vomiting > Grade II | 5 (45.5%) | 5 (18%) | |
| Diarrhoea ≥ Grade II | 3 (25.0%) | 4 (12.9%) | 0.33 |
| Diarrhoea ≥ Grade III | 2(16.7%) | 3 (9.7%) | 0.40 |
| Acute Grade II or higher GI | 6 (50%) | 9(29%) | 0.19 |
| Acute Grade III GI | 2 (16.7%) | 3 (9.7%) | 0.52 |
| Any grade III or higher toxicity (HT/GI) | 8 (66.7%) | 9 (29%) | |
HT, haematological toxicity; GI, gastrointestinal
Showing dose-volume parameters used for ROC analysis and number of patients with dosimetry exceeding the analytical parameter.
| Dose-volume parameter | Number exceeding parameter |
|---|---|
| Bone marrow | |
| V10 > 75% | 34 |
| V10 > 90% | 6 |
| V20 > 75% | 11 |
| V20 >65% | 27 |
| Bowel | |
| V30 >500cc | 39 |
| V40 >200cc | 39 |
| V40 >500cc | 18 |
| V45 >200cc | 26 |
Figure 1.Patterns of failure.
Figure 2.(a) and (b) demonstrate overall survival and disease-free survival of the entire cohort.
Figure 3.(a) and (b) demonstrate a comparison between overall survival and disease-free survival in patients receiving NACT followed by EFRT± chemotherapy vs upfront EFRT± chemotherapy.
Showing studies reporting experience with extended field intensity modulated radiotherapy (EF-IMRT).
| Author and year | Study design | No. of patients | Treatment | PALN dose (Gy) | Median FU | OS | LRC | DM | Acute toxicity | Late toxicity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chung | Prospective | 63 | EF-IMRT+ conc. CDDP+ BT+ Adj. CDDP+5FU | 50.4 | 36 months | 5 years 77% | 5-year 86% | 11% | G3 GI—2% HT—10% | G3/4—6% |
| Gerszten | Retrospective | 22 | EF-IMRT+ conc. CDDP+ BT | 55 | - | - | - | - | G2 GI, GU, HT- 9.5, 9.5 and 14.3%, respectively. G3—0 | - |
| Beriwal | Retrospective | 36 | EF-IMRT+ conc. CDDP+ BT | 55–60 | 18 months | 2 years 65% | 2-yr 80% | 25% | Grade >3 GI, GU, HT 2, 2 and 27%, respectively | ≥ G3—10% |
| Du | Prospective (EF-IMRT vs conc EFRT) | 60 | 3# NACT + EFRT + BT | 58–68 (EF-IMRT), 45-50Gy conv EFRT | 28 months | 3-year 36.4% EF-IMRT versus 15.6% conv EFRT | - | - | G3 HT, GI (IMRT versus conv) 3.6% vesrus 18.8%, | IMRT versus conv 0 versus 18.8% |
| Jensen | Retrospective | 21 | EF-IMRT+ conc CDDP+ BT | 45–50 | 22 months | 1.5 years OS 59.7% | 90.5% | 42.9% | ≥G2 HT, GU, GI 95.2%, 42.9%, and 9.5%, respectively | ≥G3 GU—4.8% GI—0 |
| Vargo | Retrospective | 61 | EF-IMRT+ conc CDDP+ BT | 55 | 29 months | 3 years 69.1 | 3 years 59.8 | 23% | ≥G3—4% | |
| Zhang | Retrospective | 45 | EF-IMRT+ conc. CDDP + BT | 50.4 | 28 months | 84.4% at last FU | 95.2% at last FU | 30.9% | ≥G3 GI—7% GU—2% HT—21% | G3—6.7% |
| Yoon | Retrospective | 90 | EF-IMRT+ conc. CDDP based + BT | 50.4 | 55 months | 5 years 62.6% | - | 36.7% | ≥G3—3% | - |
| Liu | Prospective | 48 | EF-IMRT+ conc. Nedaplatin + BT | 55–60 | 12 months | 2 years 69.7% | - | 25% | ≥HT—50% GI—4.2% | 4.2% |
| Present study | Retrospective | 43 | (±NACT) EF-IMRT+ conc. CDDP based + BT | 45–55 | 12 months | 2 years 89% | 2 years 84% | 19% | ≥G3 HT, GI 22.6%, 9.7%, respectively | - |
CDDP, cis-diamminedichloridoplatinum; BT, brachytherapy; OS, overall survival; LRC, locoregional control; conc, concurrent; mo, months; conv, conventional; 5FU, 5 flurouracil