| Literature DB >> 31749851 |
Purnima Thakur1, Ekta Dogra2, Manish Gupta1, Rati Ram Negi3, Vikas Fotedar1, Shalu Thakur1, Chitranjan Sharma1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study is to evaluate the difference between outcomes of two high-dose-rate fractionation schedules in the treatment of intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) of cervical cancer.Entities:
Keywords: brachytherapy; cancer cervix; high-dose-rate schedules
Year: 2019 PMID: 31749851 PMCID: PMC6854857 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2019.88329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy ISSN: 2081-2841
Patient characteristics in both the study arms
| Patients characteristics | Arm A (7 Gy/session) | Arm B (9 Gy/session) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age group (years) | 0.23 | ||
| < 50 | 27 (38) | 42 (45.7) | |
| > 50 | 44 (62) | 50 (54.3) | |
| Mean age (years) | 54.5 | 53.6 | |
| FIGO stage | |||
| IB | 3 (4.2) | 3 (3.3) | 0.81 |
| IIA | 2 (2.8) | 2 (2.2) | |
| IIB | 47 (66.2) | 57 (62.0) | |
| IIIA | 4 (5.6) | 3 (3.3) | |
| IIIB | 15 (21.1) | 26 (28.3) | |
| IVA | 0 (0) | 1 (1.1) | |
| Histology | |||
| Squamous | 68 (95.8) | 85 (92.4) | 0.37 |
| Adeno | 3 (4.2) | 7 (7.6) | |
| Differentiation | |||
| Well | 17 (23.9) | 15 (16.3) | 0.64 |
| Moderately | 42 (59.2) | 62 (67.4) | |
| Poorly | 10 (14.1) | 12 (13.0) | |
| Unspecified | 2 (2.8) | 3 (3.3) | |
| Fields | |||
| Two | 49 (69) | 60 (65.2) | 0.61 |
| Four | 22 (31) | 32 (34.8) | |
| Pre-treatment Hemoglobin levels (gm/dl) | |||
| < 10 | 9 (12.7) | 22 (23.9) | 0.07 |
| > 10 | 62 (87.3) | 70 (76.1) |
using Chi-square test
using Fischer exact test
Fig. 1Actuarial local control in 2 years, p = 0.3
Patterns of failure in the two brachytherapy treatment arms
| Patterns of failure | Arm A (7 Gy/session) | Arm B (9 Gy/session) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local failure | 9 (12.7) | 14 (15.2) | 0.9 |
| Distant failure | 6 (8.5) | 7 (7.6) | 0.8 |
| Local along with distant failure | 12 (16.9) | 19 (20.7) | 0.5 |
| Overall failure | 27 (38.1) | 40 (43.5) | 0.06 |
using Chi-square test
Fig. 2Actuarial 2-year disease-free survival, Kaplan-Meier curve, p = 0.5
Local response at first follow-up and acute toxicities
| Local response at first follow-up | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Patterns of failure | Arm A (7 Gy/session) | Arm B (9 Gy/session) | |
| Complete response | 52 (73.2) | 62 (67.4) | 0.53 |
| Partial response | 18 (25.4) | 27 (29.3) | |
| Progressive disease | 1 (1.4) | 2 (2.2) | |
| Vesico-vaginal fistula | 0 (0) | 1 (1.1) | |
| GI toxicities | |||
| Grade 1 | 5 (7.0) | 7 (7.6) | 0.66 |
| Grade 2 | 5 (7.0) | 10 (10.9) | |
| Acute hematological toxicity | |||
| Grade 1 | 9 (12.7) | 13 (14.1) | 0.35 |
| Grade 2 | 3 (4.2) | 9 (9.8) | |
| Grade 3 | 0 (0) | 1 (1.1) | |
| GU toxicity | |||
| Grade 1 | 2 (2.8) | 6 (6.5) | 0.9 |
using Chi-square test
using Fischer exact test
Fig. 3Actuarial 2-year overall survival, p = 0.06
Late toxicities in the two arms
| Patterns of failure | Arm A (7 Gy/session) | Median time to toxicity (months) | Arm B (9 Gy/session) | Median time to toxicity (months) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rectal toxicity | |||||
| Grade 1 | 1 (1.4) | 10.25 | 4 (4.3) | 11.7 | 0.21 |
| Grade 2 | 3 (4.2) | 1 (1.1) | |||
| Grade 3 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |||
| Bladder toxicity | |||||
| Grade 1 | 2 (2.8) | 19.5 | 2 (2.2) | 18.2 | |
| Grade 2 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
*using Chi-square test
using Fischer exact test
Late toxicities in the two treatment arms as per EBRT dose
| Patterns of failure | EBRT dose 45/25 | EBRT dose 50/25 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rectal toxicity | |||
| Arm A | 1 (2.8) | 3 (8.3) | 0.94 |
| Arm B | 2 (11.6) | 3 (4.0) | |
| Bladder toxicity | |||
| Arm A | 1 (2.8) | 1 (2.8) | 0.25 |
| Arm B | 0 (0.0) | 2 (2.7) |
using Fischer exact test
Fig. 4Actuarial 2-year disease-free survival at locally advanced stage in two arms, Kaplan-Meier curve, p = 0.4