| Literature DB >> 35720507 |
Dapeng Li1,2, Dandan Wang3, Shuai Feng2, Quancai Chen4, Xiugui Sheng5, Jue Jia2, Xiaohui Yan2, Jian Zhu3, Yueju Yin1,2.
Abstract
Concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. The present study aimed to compare the therapeutic responses, toxicities and dosimetric parameters between intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) in patients with advanced cervical cancer. This retrospective study included 310 patients with stage IIB-IIIB cervical cancer who underwent CCRT, with 155 patients in each group. Intracavitary brachytherapy was performed after a course of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), or in the last week of pelvic EBRT. The treatment planning aim at point A (defined as a reference location 2 cm above the vaginal fornix and 2 cm beside the mid axis of the uterus) was >85 Gy in an equivalent dose at 2 Gy. There was no statistical difference with regard to clinicopathological characteristics between the two groups (P>0.05). Improved dose conformity and dose homogeneity (P<0.05) were observed in TOMO planning. TOMO provided more efficacious critical organ sparing than IMRT when assessing the percentage of normal tissue receiving at least 20 Gy (V20) for the bladder, the percentage of normal tissue receiving at least 40 Gy (V40) for the femoral head, and the V40 and V20 for the rectum (P<0.05). TOMO demonstrated a greater ability to protect the ovary (P<0.05). The acute radiation toxicity of proctitis and leukopenia were significantly lower in the TOMO group (P<0.05). The chronic radiation toxicity of radiation enterocolitis and cystitis was lower in the TOMO group (P<0.05). Thus, TOMO provided better critical organ sparing than IMRT. The radiation toxicities were acceptable. Therefore, TOMO appears to be a good option for the treatment of stage IIB-IIIB cervical cancer. Copyright: © Li et al.Entities:
Keywords: cervical cancer; intensity-modulated radiation therapy; radiation therapy; therapeutic response; tomotherapy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35720507 PMCID: PMC9185149 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2022.13359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 3.111
Clinicopathological characteristics of patients treated with IMRT (n=155) and TOMO (n=155).
| Characteristics | IMRT group | TOMO group | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median age (range), years | 53 ( | 51 ( | 0.924[ |
| FIGO stage, n | 0.352 | ||
| IIB | 46 | 57 | |
| IIIA | 3 | 4 | |
| IIIB | 106 | 94 | |
| Histological type, n | <0.999 | ||
| Squamous carcinoma | 146 | 147 | |
| Adenocarcinoma | 6 | 5 | |
| Other | 3 | 3 | |
| Tumor size, n | 0.36 | ||
| ≤4 cm | 64 | 72 | |
| >4 cm | 91 | 83 | |
| Tumor grade, n | 0.109 | ||
| G1 | 48 | 54 | |
| G2 | 50 | 61 | |
| G3 | 57 | 40 | |
| Ovary conserving, n | 0.212 | ||
| No | 149 | 144 | |
| Yes | 6 | 11 | |
| Pathological morphology type, n | 0.123 | ||
| Exophytic | 135 | 125 | |
| Endophytic type | 20 | 30 | |
| Para-aortic lymph node metastasis, n | 0.627 | ||
| Positive | 8 | 10 | |
| Negative | 147 | 145 | |
| TNM stage, n | 0.533 | ||
| T2bN0 | 40 | 53 | |
| T2bN1 | 6 | 4 | |
| T3aN0 | 3 | 4 | |
| T3bN0 | 79 | 71 | |
| T3bN1 | 27 | 23 | |
| Pelvic lymph node metastasis, n | 0.388 | ||
| Positive | 33 | 27 | |
| Negative | 122 | 128 | |
| Therapeutic response rate, n | |||
| CR | 147 | 148 | 0.791 |
| PR | 3 | 4 | 0.709 |
| CR + PR | 150 | 152 | 0.902 |
Student's t-test. FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy: TOMO, tomotherapy; TNM, Tumor-Node-Metastasis.
Dosimetric results of IMRT and TOMO for planning dosimetric parameters and organs at risk.
| Parameter | TOMO group | IMRT group | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| PTV | |||
| D5% | 52.56±0.28 | 54.82±0.22 | 0.001 |
| D95% | 50.82±0.31 | 50.27±0.27 | 0.001 |
| HI | 1.03±0.006 | 1.09±0.076 | 0.001 |
| CI | 0.82±0.033 | 0.75±0.064 | 0.006 |
| Bladder | |||
| V40, % | 27.31±7.16 | 34.13±7.97 | 0.029 |
| V20, % | 66.34±8.82 | 80.36±8.16 | 0.001 |
| Dmean, Gy | 29.28±3.01 | 33.07±3.21 | 0.01 |
| Dmin, Gy | 10.55±1.43 | 9.93±2.40 | 0.47 |
| Dmax, Gy | 53.34±0.88 | 56.35±3.22 | 0.007 |
| Femoral head-L | |||
| V40, % | 0.57±0.49 | 1.16±0.57 | 0.014 |
| V20, % | 45.46±4.89 | 38.64±10.57 | 0.066 |
| Dmean, Gy | 21.46±1.07 | 19.84±2.40 | 0.054 |
| Dmin, Gy | 15.31±0.93 | 10.39±2.18 | 0.001 |
| Dmax, Gy | 42.89±2.84 | 42.73±5.88 | 0.935 |
| Femoral head-R | |||
| V40, % | 0.50±0.55 | 1.43±1.01 | 0.014 |
| V20, % | 46.35±5.65 | 41.36±9.08 | 0.138 |
| Dmean, Gy | 21.60±0.61 | 20.03±2.26 | 0.037 |
| Dmin, Gy | 15.11±0.81 | 8.10±2.42 | 0.001 |
| Dmax, Gy | 42.67±2.27 | 44.28±4.94 | 0.337 |
| Rectum | |||
| V40, % | 22.82±6.53 | 29.18±6.66 | 0.035 |
| V20, % | 63.41±11.94 | 79.36±12.01 | 0.005 |
| Dmean, Gy | 28.00±3.20 | 32.35±2.88 | 0.003 |
| Dmin, Gy | 12.08±1.52 | 12.39±2.79 | 0.751 |
| Dmax, Gy | 52.41±1.03 | 55.24±3.29 | 0.007 |
| Small bowel | |||
| V40, % | 21.01±9.09 | 23.18±8.75 | 0.575 |
| V20, % | 66.25±10.00 | 61.55±8.63 | 0.251 |
| Dmean, Gy | 26.74±3.57 | 26.48±3.46 | 0.865 |
| Dmin, Gy | 1.90±0.40 | 1.79±0.66 | 0.627 |
| Dmax, Gy | 28.00±3.20 | 28.00±3.20 | 0.002 |
| Bone marrow | |||
| V40, % | 26.81±6.08 | 24.82±8.33 | 0.53 |
| V20, % | 74.42±8.05 | 74.82±9.36 | 0.917 |
| Dmean, Gy | 29.09±2.73 | 32.37±3.47 | 0.619 |
| Dmin, Gy | 3.60±3.88 | 4.75±7.12 | 0.641 |
| Dmax, Gy | 53.71±0.98 | 56.89±3.04 | 0.004 |
| Ovary-L | |||
| Dmean, Gy | 2.99±0.65 | 3.97±1.05 | 0.017 |
| Dmin, Gy | 2.04±0.55 | 2.71±0.55 | 0.01 |
| Dmax, Gy | 4.61±1.26 | 5.81±1.07 | 0.026 |
| Ovary-R | |||
| Dmean, Gy | 2.98±0.59 | 3.84±0.73 | 0.007 |
| Dmin, Gy | 1.83±0.55 | 2.47±0.43 | 0.007 |
| Dmax, Gy | 4.53±0.88 | 5.87±1.37 | 0.013 |
Data are presented as the mean ± SD. D95, the percentage of the prescribed dose covering 95% volume of the PTV; D5, the percentage of the prescribed dose covering 5% volume of the PTV; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy; TOMO, tomotherapy; Vx, the percentage of organ receiving more or equal to × Gy; SD, standard deviation; L, left; R, right; PTV, planning target volume; CI, conformal index; HI, homogeneity index.
Figure 1.Isodose curves in a cross section, sagittal section and coronal section in a representative patient treated with (A) tomotherapy and (B) intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Crude incidence of acute toxicity in the IMRT group (n=155) and the TOMO group (n=155) according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer acute radiation morbidity criteria in patients with cervical cancer.
| Grade | IMRT group, n | TOMO group, n | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leukopenia | 0.025 | ||
| 0 | 15 | 34 | |
| 1 | 14 | 16 | |
| 2 | 55 | 45 | |
| 3 | 47 | 46 | |
| 4 | 24 | 14 | |
| Cystitis | 0.049 | ||
| 0 | 57 | 78 | |
| 1 | 66 | 60 | |
| 2 | 27 | 14 | |
| 3 | 4 | 3 | |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | |
| Enteritis | 0.055 | ||
| 0 | 54 | 62 | |
| 1 | 67 | 77 | |
| 2 | 30 | 14 | |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | |
| Proctitis | 0.033 | ||
| 0 | 53 | 71 | |
| 1 | 67 | 64 | |
| 2 | 18 | 15 | |
| 3 | 16 | 5 | |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | |
| Dermatitis | 0.616 | ||
| 0 | 56 | 61 | |
| 1 | 72 | 73 | |
| 2 | 27 | 21 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| 4 | 0 | 0 |
IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy; TOMO, tomotherapy.
Chronic toxicities in the IMRT group (n=155) and the TOMO group (n=155) according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer acute radiation morbidity criteria in patients with cervical cancer.
| Grade | IMRT group, n | TOMO group, n | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cystitis | 0.041 | ||
| 0 | 46 | 59 | |
| 1 | 64 | 72 | |
| 2 | 34 | 18 | |
| 3 | 9 | 6 | |
| 4 | 2 | 0 | |
| Enterocolitis | 0.023 | ||
| 0 | 40 | 55 | |
| 1 | 60 | 70 | |
| 2 | 45 | 24 | |
| 3 | 8 | 5 | |
| 4 | 2 | 1 |
IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy; TOMO, tomotherapy.
Figure 2.Survival curves (Kaplan-Meier method) showing the OS and PFS of patients with advanced cervical cancer. (A) OS and (B) PFS. OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; TOMO, tomotherapy; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Figure 3.Survival curves (Kaplan-Meier method) showing the OS and PFS of patients with pelvic lymph node metastasis. (A) OS and (B) PFS. OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; TOMO, tomotherapy; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Figure 4.Survival curves (Kaplan-Meier method) showing the OS and PFS of patients with para-aortic lymph node metastasis. (A) OS and (B) PFS. OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; TOMO, tomotherapy; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy.