| Literature DB >> 35248087 |
Xiaoyong Xiang1,2, Zhen Ding3,4, Qi Zeng3,4, Lingling Feng3,4, Chunyan Qiu3,4, Dongjie Chen3,4, Jiawei Lu3,4, Ning Li5,6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore clinical and dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity (HT) in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 184 cervical cancer patients who had concurrent chemotherapy and VMAT. Hematological parameters were collected during the treatment period. The total pelvic bone (TPB) was delineated retrospectively for dose-volume calculations. To compare the differences between two groups, the normality test findings were used to run a paired-samples t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Pearson's correlation analysis or Spearman's correlation was used to testing the correlation between the two variables. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to analyze associations between HT and possible risk factors. The receiver operating characteristic curve(ROC) was used to evaluate the best cut-off point for dosimetric planning constraints.Entities:
Keywords: Absolute monocyte count; Acute hematological toxicity; Bone marrow; Cervical cancer; Volumetric-modulated arc therapy
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35248087 PMCID: PMC8898435 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02018-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Fig. 1Typical images showing contours for the total pelvic bone (TPB) [9]
Basic clinical characteristics of the patients
| Patients (n) | 184 | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | Median, Mean (Range, SD) | 54, 53.3 (31–81, 10.3) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | Median, Mean (Range, SD) | 22.59, 23.1 (16.2–33.8, 3.3) |
| Duration of EBRT (days) | Median, Mean (Range, SD) | 37, 38 (29–52, 3.9) |
| RT dose to pelvis (Gy) | Median, Mean (Range, SD) | 45, 47.4 (45–50.4, 2.6) |
| Cycles of chemotherapy | Median, Mean (Range, SD) | 2, 2.9 (1–6, 1.5) |
| Clinical stage FIGO2018 (n, %) | IB–IIB IIIA–IVB | 98 (53.3) 86 (46.7) |
| Histology, n (%) | Squamous carcinoma Adenocarcinoma | 166 (90.2) 18 (9.8) |
| Differentiation degree, n (%) | High–moderate Lower / Unknown | 85 (46.2) 99 (53.8) |
PTV dose-pelvis (n, %) | 45 Gy 48.6 Gy–50.4 Gy | 99 (53.8) 85 (46.2) |
| Chemotherapy regimen (n, %) | TP Carboplatin Cisplatin | 42 (22.8) 31 (16.9) 111 (60.3) |
BMI, body mass index; EBRT, pelvic external-beam radiotherapy; SD, standard deviation; RT, radiation therapy; TP, paclitaxel + cisplatin
Descriptive statistics of dosimetric parameters of the total pelvic bones
| Parameter | Mean | Median | Min–max | Q1–Q3 | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPB | Volume (cm3) V10 (10%) V20 (20%) V30 (30%) V40 (40%) V50 (50%) | 1189 90.39 71.53 45.41 23.32 5.14 | 1165 90.00 70.74 45.00 23.00 3.00 | 886–2219 49.00–100.00 27.23–92.90 14.00–68.00 6.00–46.00 0.00–26.00 | 1070–1266 88.00–94.00 66.95–76.89 39.00–51.00 18.00–27.00 0.00–10.00 | 177.6 5.780 7.977 8.832 6.617 5.422 |
V10, V20, V30, V40, V50 = volume receiving 10,20, 30, 40, 50 Gy; TPB, the total pelvic bones; Max, maximum; Min, minimum; Q1, 25th percentile; Q3, 75th percentile; SD, standard deviation
Fig. 2Descriptive statistics of hematological baselines and nadirs
Hematological toxicity graded according to hematological nadirs and baselines
| Hematologic toxicity | Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baselines | Leukopenia | 158 (85.87) | 26 (14.13) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Neutropenia | 173 (94.02) | 11 (5.98) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Thrombocytopenia | 182 (98.91) | 2 (1.09) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Anemia | 107 (58.15) | 50 (27.17) | 20 (10.89) | 7 (3.80) | 0 (0) | |
| Nadirs | Leukopenia | 0 (0) | 9 (4.89) | 79 (42.93) | 88 (47.83) | 8 (4.35) |
| Neutropenia | 9 (4.89) | 41 (22.28) | 78 (42.39) | 46 (25.00) | 10 (5.43) | |
| Thrombocytopenia | 100 (53.8) | 45 (24.46) | 27 (14.67) | 11 (5.98) | 1 (0.54) | |
| Anemia | 17 (9.24) | 62 (33.70) | 63 (34.24) | 29 (15.76) | 13 (7.07) | |
Fig. 3The changing tendency and correlation between AMC and ANC/WBC
Univariate logistic regression analysis of factors associated with the development of any grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicity
| Parameter | Odds ratio | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 1.000 | 0.972–1.029 | 0.991 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.982 | 0.898–1.074 | 0.982 |
| Duration of EBRT (days) | 1.069 | 0.987–1.158 | 0.102 |
| Clinical stage (FIGO2018) | 1.759 | 0.964–3.208 | 0.066 |
| Histology | 0.559 | 0.232–1.345 | 0.194 |
| Differentiation degree | 0.789 | 0.431–1.445 | 0.443 |
| PTV dose-pelvis | 1.696 | 0.930–3.094 | 0.085 |
| Cycles of chemotherapy | 1.056 | 0.861–1.295 | 0.600 |
| Volume (cm3) | 1.002 | 1.000–1.004 | 0.053 |
| Chemotherapy regimen | |||
| TP | |||
| Carboplatin | 0.257 | 0.094–0.701 | |
| Cisplatin | 0.442 | 0.198–0.987 | |
| TPB_V10 | 1.197 | 1.109–1.292 | |
| TPB_V20 | 1.176 | 1.109–1.248 | |
| TPB_V30 | 1.102 | 1.057–1.149 | |
| TPB_V40 | 1.114 | 1.055–1.177 | |
| TPB_V50 | 1.142 | 1.069–1.221 | |
BMI, body mass index; EBRT, pelvic external-beam radiotherapy; TPB_V10, TPB_V20, TPB_V30, TPB_V40, TPB_V50 = the total pelvic bones of volume receiving 10,20, 30, 40, 50 Gy; TP, paclitaxel + cisplatin. Bold indicates the significant values (*P < 0.05)
Fig. 4The results of multivariate binary logistic regression analysis for any grade ≥ 3 HT in patients
Fig. 5Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for any grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicity as a function of TPB_V20