| Literature DB >> 33293975 |
Sigrid Möller1, Louise Bohr Mordhorst1, Ruth Sanchez Hermansson1, Leif Karlsson2, Ulf Granlund2, Cecilia Riemarsma3, Bengt Sorbe1,4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: External pelvic chemoradiotherapy and image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) were studied in advanced cervical carcinomas. Treatment modalities were defined and related to outcomes and side effects.Entities:
Keywords: cervix cancer; chemoradiotherapy; image-guided brachytherapy; local tumor control; survival; toxicity
Year: 2020 PMID: 33293975 PMCID: PMC7690225 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2020.98116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy ISSN: 2081-2841
Patient and tumor characteristics
| Factor | No. of patients, | |
|---|---|---|
| Median age (years) | 53.0 (range, 23-89) | |
| Prior diseases | 80 (58.0) | |
| Prior abdominal surgery | 38 (27.5) | |
| FIGO stage | ||
| IB | 21 (15.2) | |
| IIA | 17 (12.3) | |
| IIB | 66 (47.8) | |
| IIIA | 2 (1.4) | |
| IIIB | 19 (13.8) | |
| IVA | 9 (6.5) | |
| IVB | 4 (2.9) | |
| Histology | ||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 113 (81.9) | |
| Adenocarcinoma | 19 (13.8) | |
| Adenosquamous cell carcinoma | 3 (2.2) | |
| Other | 3 (2.2) | |
| Grade | ||
| Well-differentiated (grade 1) | 12 (8.7) | |
| Moderately well-differentiated (grade 2) | 42 (30.4) | |
| Poorly differentiated (grade 3) | 70 (50.7) | |
| Not graded | 14 (10.1) | |
| Tumor size (mean values) | ||
| Maximum width at diagnosis (mm) | 41.0 (range, 15-80) | |
| Maximum length at diagnosis (mm) | 37.3 (range, 18-75) | |
| A-P measure at diagnosis (mm) | 35.2 (range, 13-70) | |
| Nodal status | ||
| N+ | 37 (26.8) | |
| Level 1 (internal, external iliac, obturator) | 22 (15.9) | |
| Level 2 (+ common iliac, aortic bifurcation) | 8 (5.8) | |
| Level 3 (+ para-aortic) | 7 (5.1) | |
| N– | 101 (73.2) | |
| Concomitant chemotherapy | ||
| Yes | 130 (94.2) | |
| No | 8 (5.8) | |
Dose constraints to high-risk clinical target volume (HRCTV) and organs at risk (OARs)
| D90 HRCTV EQD210 | > 85 Gy |
|---|---|
| Bladder D2cm3 EQD23 | < 90 Gy |
| Rectum D2cm3 EQD23 | < 75 Gy |
| Sigmoid D2cm3 EQD23 | < 75 Gy |
Dosimetric data
| Parameter | Mean (SD) | |
|---|---|---|
| Volume data (brachytherapy) | ||
| GTVd (cm3), at diagnosis | 36.7 (36.8) | |
| GTVBT (cm3), fraction 1 | 11.2 (10.5) | |
| GTVBT (cm3), fraction 2 | 9.0 (9.5) | |
| GTVBT (cm3), fraction 3 | 5.9 (6.0) | |
| GTVBT (cm3), fraction 4 | 3.5 (2.9) | |
| HRCTV (cm3), fraction 1 | 54.5 (25.4) | |
| HRCTV (cm3), fraction 2 | 57.7 (24.0) | |
| HRCTV (cm3), fraction 3 | 48.8 (19.2) | |
| HRCTV (cm3), fraction 4 | 49.0 (22.4) | |
| Bladder volume (cm3) | 111.9 (36.2) | |
| Rectal volume (cm3) | 35.1 (17.3) | |
| Sigmoidal volume (cm3) | 48.9 (33.7) | |
| Dose data (EBRT) | ||
| EQD2 (α/β = 10) (Gy) | 51.1 (4.9) | |
| EQD2 (α/β = 3) (Gy) | 50.0 (4.9) | |
| Overall treatment time (days) | 47.9 (8.7) | |
| Dose data (physical) (brachytherapy) | ||
| Point A (fraction 1, Gy) | 7.0 (3.4) | |
| Point B (fraction 1, Gy) | 1.4 (0.3) | |
| Rectovaginal reference point (fraction 1, Gy) | 3.5 (0.9) | |
| HRCTV (total, D90, α/β = 10, Gy) | 88.4 (9.4) | |
| HRCTV D100 (fraction 1, Gy) | 4.8 (1.1) | |
| HRCTV D90 (fraction 1, Gy) | 7.0 (1.0) | |
| GTV D100 (total, α/β = 10, Gy) | 95.0 (26.5) | |
| Organs at risk | ||
| Bladder 2 cm3 (fraction 1, Gy) (α/β = 3) | 7.1 (2.4) | |
| Bladder 2 cm3 (total, α/β = 3, Gy) | 73.9 (7.4) | |
| Rectum 2 cm3 (fraction 1, Gy) (α/β = 3) | 4.2 (1.9) | |
| Rectum 2 cm3 (total, α/β = 3, Gy) | 65.5 (7.2) | |
| Sigmoid colon 2 cm3 (fraction 1, Gy) (α/β = 3) | 4.8 (2.5) | |
| Sigmoid colon 2 cm3 (total, α/β = 3, Gy) | 67.4 (7.7) | |
| Brachytherapy | ||
| With needles | 86 (62.3%) | |
| Without needles | 52 (37.7%) | |
| Number of needles (median, (SD), range) | 6.0 (2.2) | |
| HRCTV D90, without needles (Gy) | 81.5 | |
| HRCTV D90, with needles (Gy) | 88.0 | |
Fig. 1Local control rate vs. high-risk clinical target volume (HRCTV) and the HRCTV D90 dose (α/β = 10). The most favorable situation is a small HRCTV ≤ 30 cm3 and a total HRCTV D90 dose ≥ 95 Gy. Most tumors are in the interval of HRCTV volume 30-80 cm3 and HRCTV D90 dose 85-95 Gy
Disease outcome and morbidity in the complete series
| Parameter | No. of patients, | |
|---|---|---|
| Local control after treatment | ||
| Overall | 134/138 (97.1) | |
| ≤ 30 cm3 CTVHR | 22/22 (100) | |
| > 30 cm3 CTVHR | 105/109 (96.3) | |
| Stage IB-IIA | 38/38 (100) | |
| Stage IIB | 64/65 (98.5) | |
| Stage III | 19/21 (90.5) | |
| Stage IVA | 9/9 (100) | |
| Nodal control (including para-aortic) | ||
| Overall | NA | |
| N0 and stage I + II | NA | |
| N1 and stage III + IVA | NA | |
| Local control (at last follow-up) | ||
| Overall | 130/138 (94.2) | |
| Pelvic nodal control (at last follow-up) | ||
| Overall | 131/138 (94.9) | |
| Pelvic control (local + nodal) (at last follow-up) | ||
| Overall | 123/138 (89.1) | |
| Systemic control (excluding para-aortic failures) | ||
| Overall | 123/138 (89.1) | |
| N0 and stage I + II | 80/83 (96.4) | |
| N1 and stage III + IVA | 38/54 (70.4) | |
| Cancer-specific survival (5-year) | ||
| Overall | 68.6% (95% CI: 59.4-77.8%) | |
| N0 and stage I + II | 75.3% (95% CI: 63.1-87.5%) | |
| N1 and stage III + IVA | 51.6% (95% CI: 37.1-66.1%) | |
| Overall survival (5-year) | ||
| Overall | 65.2% (95% CI: 55.6-74.8%) | |
| N0 and stage I + II | 81.3% (95% CI: 70.5-92.1%) | |
| N1 and stage III + IVA | 51.6% (95% CI: 37.1-66.1%) | |
| Morbidity | ||
| Bladder CTCAE ≥ G2 | 10/138 (7.3) | |
| Bladder CTCAE ≥ G3 | 3/138 (2.2) | |
| Rectal-sigmoid CTCAE ≥ G2 | 19/138 (13.8) | |
| Rectal-sigmoid CTCAE ≥ G3 | 1/138 (0.7) | |
| Vaginal CTCAE ≥ G2 | 30/138 (21.7) | |
| Vaginal CTCAE ≥ G3 | 0/138 (0.0) | |
| Bone CTCAE ≥ G1 | 12/138 (8.7) | |
| Bone CTCAE ≥ G2 | 3/138 (2.2) | |
Prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival rate. Cox proportional regression analyses (univariate and multivariate analyses)
| Prognostic factors | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Factor univariate analyses | ||
| FIGO stage (I-II vs. III-IV) | 0.279 (0.141-0.553), | |
| Lymph node metastases (pelvic or para-aortic) | 2.952 (1.488-5.856), | |
| Primary cure (complete remission) | 0.146 (0.071-0.300), | |
| Primary local control | 0.132 (0.044-0.397), | |
| Overall local control | 0.198 (0.080-0.490), | |
| Pelvic control | 0.082 (0.038-0.176), | |
| Distant control | 0.063 (0.029-0.138), | |
| Hemoglobin level at start of treatment | 0.962 (0.947-0.978), | |
| Total extern dose (Gy), negative impact | 1.118 (1.051-1.189), | |
| Total HRCTV D90 (α/β = 10) Gy, positive impact | 0.963 (0.938-0.989), | |
| Factor multivariate analysis | ||
| Hemoglobin level at start of treatment | 0.974 (0.957-0.991), | |
| Primary cure (complete remission) | 0.220 (0.078-0.624), | |
| Distant control | 0.387 (0.165-0.905), | |
| All other factors | Non-significant in multivariate analysis | |
| Total HRCTV D90 (α/β = 10) Gy | Significant if distant control excluded | |
Fig. 2Cancer-specific survival rate of the complete series (n = 138). Survival probability with 95% confidence levels
Fig. 3Cancer-specific survival rate versus FIGO stage (stage I-IV). There was a highly significant (χ2 test, p = 0.0002) difference between the four stages
Fig. 4Cancer-specific survival rate versus number of brachytherapy fractions. There was a significant difference (χ2 test, p = 0.007) between 2-3 fractions and 4-5 fractions
Prognostic factors for cancer-specific sur- vival rate. Cox proportional regression analyses (univariate and multivariate analyses). Analysis of external and brachytherapy doses after correction for FIGO stage
| Prognostic factors | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Factor univariate analyses | ||
| FIGO stage (III-IV vs. I-II) | 3.635 (1.834-7.206), | |
| Total extern dose (Gy) | 1.118 (1.051-1.189), | |
| Total HRCTV D90 (α/β = 10) fractions 1-5 | 0.963 (0.938-0.988), | |
| Factor multivariate analysis | ||
| FIGO stage (III-IV vs. I-II) | 3.541 (1.418-8.844), | |
| Total extern dose (Gy) | 1.013 (0.934-1.098), | |
| Total HRCTV D90 (α/β = 10) Gy fractions 1-5 | 0.967 (0.937-0.997), | |
Predictive factors for tumor recurrences. Logistic regression analyses (univariate and multivariate analyses)
| Predictive factors | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Factor univariate analyses | ||
| FIGO stage (III-IV vs. I-II) | 3.977 (1.722-9.185), | |
| Lymph node metastases (pelvic or para-aortic) | 2.761 (1.218-6.261), | |
| Histology (adeno- vs. squamous cell carcinoma) | 2.347 (0.940-5.860), | |
| Hemoglobin value at start of therapy | 0.956 (0.932-0.981), | |
| Number of brachytherapy fractions | 0.530 (0.286-0.980), | |
| Total HRCTV D90 (α/β = 10) dose (Gy) | 0.957 (0.921-0.995), | |
| Other factors | Non-significant in univariate analyses | |
| Factor multivariate analysis | ||
| FIGO stage (III-IV vs. I-II) | 3.125 (1.057-9.245), | |
| Lymph node metastases (pelvic or para-aortic) | 2.658 (0.933-7.573), | |
| Hemoglobin value at start of therapy | 0.963 (0.936-0.991), | |
| Total HRCTV D90 (α/β = 10) dose (Gy) | 0.932 (0.891-0.975), | |
| Other factors | Non-significant in multivariate analysis | |
Fig. 5Tumors with no local control (red circles) and patients with late intestinal toxicity CTCAE ≥ G2 (yellow circles) are plotted in a scatter diagram of high-risk clinical target volume (HRCTV) vs. HRCTV D90 dose. The tumors with no local control are widely spread, with no distinct pattern in the diagram. Besides a few “outliers”, the cases with late toxicity are well-concentrated in the upper left corner with smaller volumes (< 70 cm3) and higher doses in general D90 > 90 Gy