Setareh Akhavan1, Abbas Alibakhshi2, Mahdieh Parsapoor3, Abbas Alipour4, Elahe Rezayof5. 1. Gynecology Oncology Ward, Vali-e-Asr Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tohid Square, Tehran, 1419733141, Iran. s-akhavan@tums.ac.ir. 2. General Surgery Ward, Vali-e-Asr Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Gynecology Oncology Ward, Vali-e-Asr Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tohid Square, Tehran, 1419733141, Iran. 4. Community Medicine Department, Medical Faculty, Thalassemia Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran. 5. Vali-e-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is one of the most common malignancies among women. Appropriate and timely treatment of these patients can reduce the complications and increase their survival. The objective of this study was to compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radical hysterectomy (NACTRH) and chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) in patients with bulky cervical cancer (stage IB3 & IIA2). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The medical records of patients with bulky cervical cancer (stage IB3 & IIA2) that received NACTRH or CRT between 2007 and 2017 were evaluated for therapeutic effects. Demographic characteristics, complications of chemo-radiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, were collected in a researcher-made questionnaire. Our primary outcome was comparison of overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) between two groups receiving NACTRH and CRT modalities. RESULTS: One-hundred and twenty three patients were enrolled in the study. The median age and the proportion of patients with stage IIA2 were higher in the CRT group compared to the NACTRH group (p < 0.05). The medians (95% CI) OS were 3.64 (3.95-6.45) and 3.9 (3.53-4.27) years in the NACTRH and CRT groups, respectively (P = 0.003). There were 16 (34.8%) and 22 (43.1%) recurrences in the NACTRH and CRT group, respectively (P = 0.4). The median (95% CI) DFS was 4.5 (3.88-5.12) years in the NACTRH group and 3.6 (2.85-4.35) years in the CRT group (P = 0.004). The 3-year OS rate in NACTRH and CRT groups were 97 and 90% respectively. The 3-year DFS rate in NACTRH and CRT groups were 88 and 66% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: NACTRH is associated with a higher OS and DFS compared to CRT.
BACKGROUND:Cervical cancer is one of the most common malignancies among women. Appropriate and timely treatment of these patients can reduce the complications and increase their survival. The objective of this study was to compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radical hysterectomy (NACTRH) and chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) in patients with bulky cervical cancer (stage IB3 & IIA2). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The medical records of patients with bulky cervical cancer (stage IB3 & IIA2) that received NACTRH or CRT between 2007 and 2017 were evaluated for therapeutic effects. Demographic characteristics, complications of chemo-radiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, were collected in a researcher-made questionnaire. Our primary outcome was comparison of overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) between two groups receiving NACTRH and CRT modalities. RESULTS: One-hundred and twenty three patients were enrolled in the study. The median age and the proportion of patients with stage IIA2 were higher in the CRT group compared to the NACTRH group (p < 0.05). The medians (95% CI) OS were 3.64 (3.95-6.45) and 3.9 (3.53-4.27) years in the NACTRH and CRT groups, respectively (P = 0.003). There were 16 (34.8%) and 22 (43.1%) recurrences in the NACTRH and CRT group, respectively (P = 0.4). The median (95% CI) DFS was 4.5 (3.88-5.12) years in the NACTRH group and 3.6 (2.85-4.35) years in the CRT group (P = 0.004). The 3-year OS rate in NACTRH and CRT groups were 97 and 90% respectively. The 3-year DFS rate in NACTRH and CRT groups were 88 and 66% respectively. CONCLUSIONS:NACTRH is associated with a higher OS and DFS compared to CRT.
Authors: Michael Frumovitz; Charlotte C Sun; Leslie R Schover; Mark F Munsell; Anuja Jhingran; J Taylor Wharton; Patricia Eifel; Therese B Bevers; Charles F Levenback; David M Gershenson; Diane C Bodurka Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Helena Robova; Lukas Rob; Michael J Halaska; Marek Pluta; Petr Skapa; Pavel Strnad; Jiri Lisy; Matej Komar Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jonah Musa; Chad J Achenbach; Linda C O'Dwyer; Charlesnika T Evans; Megan McHugh; Lifang Hou; Melissa A Simon; Robert L Murphy; Neil Jordan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Claudia Marchetti; Francesca De Felice; Anna Di Pinto; Alessia Romito; Angela Musella; Innocenza Palaia; Marco Monti; Vincenzo Tombolin; Ludovico Muzii; PierLuigi Benedetti Panici Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 4.679