| Literature DB >> 36199941 |
Leonel Varela Cagetti1, Christophe Zemmour2, Eric Lambaudie3, Magalie Provansal4, Renaud Sabatier4,5, Laura Sabiani6, Guillaume Blache6, Camille Jauffret6, Marjorie Ferré7, Agnès Tallet1, Laurence Gonzague1.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the feasibility and early clinical outcomes of combined intra-cavitary (IC) and interstitial (IS) image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) as curative and definitive treatment of patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Material and methods: Data from medical records of all consecutive patients with histologically proven cervical cancer (FIGO 2018 stage IB-IV), treated by brachytherapy after CCRT at our institution between 2017 and 2020 were reviewed.Entities:
Keywords: image-guided adaptive brachytherapy; interstitial brachytherapy; local control; locally advanced cervical cancer; vaginal morbidity
Year: 2022 PMID: 36199941 PMCID: PMC9528831 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2022.118831
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy ISSN: 2081-2841
Fig. 1Locally advanced cervical cancer, MRI at diagnosis. A) Sagittal and B) axial T2-weighted (T2w), and C) diffusion- weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) showing initial tumor extension (grey zones, T2w) and high signal intensity on DWI
Fig. 2MRI at the time of brachytherapy. Partial response post-CCRT, axial, and A) sagittal, B) T2-weighted (T2w) and C) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI)
Patients and tumor characteristics
| Characteristics | All patients | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median age (years), (mean ± standard deviation) | 57.0 ±14.9 | |||
| Histological sub-type, | ||||
| SCC | 120 (84.5) | |||
| AC | 18 (12.7) | |||
| Other | 4 (2.8) | |||
| Grade, | ||||
| Well-differentiated | 33 (30.3) | |||
| Moderately differentiated | 49 (45.0) | |||
| Poorly differentiated | 27 (24.8) | |||
| FIGO stage (2018), | ||||
| IB | ||||
| IB2 | 2 (1.4) | |||
| IB3 | 27 (19) | |||
| II | ||||
| IIA1 | 1 (0.7) | |||
| IIA2 | 9 (6.3) | |||
| IIB | 35 (24.6) | |||
| III | ||||
| IIIA | 3 (2.1) | |||
| IIIB | 6 (4.2) | |||
| IIIC | ||||
| IIIC1 | 43 (30.3) | |||
| IIIC2 | 13 (9.2) | |||
| IV | 3 (2.1) | |||
| PET-CT, lymph node uptake, | ||||
| Pelvic | 52 (36.6) | |||
| Pelvic + PAN | 11 (7.7) | |||
| PAN | 0 (0.0) | |||
| Negative | 79 (55.6) | |||
| PET-CT tumor uptake (mean ± standard deviation) | 17.5 ±8.0 | |||
| EBRT field, | ||||
| Pelvic | 112 (78.9) | |||
| Pelvic + groins | 1 (0.7) | |||
| Pelvic and para-aortic | 29 (20.4) | |||
| Para-aortic lymph node staging (PAL), | ||||
| Positive | 4 (4.7) | |||
| Negative | 82 (95.3) | |||
| Concomitant chemotherapy, | 139 (97.9) | |||
| Nodal boost, | 58 (40.8) | |||
| Overall treatment time (days) (mean ± standard deviation) | 49.8 ±5.6 | |||
| MRI initial tumor size (mm) (mean ± standard deviation) | 49.6 ±14.0 | |||
AC – adenocarcinoma, MRI – magnetic resonance imaging, PAN – para-aortic lymph nodes, PET-CT – positron emission tomography-computed tomography, SCC – squamous cell carcinoma
Fig. 3Intra-cavitary and hybrid brachytherapy. Intra-cavitary brachytherapy: A) first implant, B) unsatisfactory target volume coverage (red and green structures). IC/IS brachytherapy: C) second implant, D) performed with 5 needles to treat a large residual disease post-CCRT, allowing to achieve high-dose to target volumes while sparing organs at risk
Brachytherapy parameters
| Dosimetric parameters | Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Brachytherapy type, | |||
| Intra-cavitary (IC) | |||
| First implant | 36 (25.4) | ||
| Second implant | 30 (21.1) | ||
| Intra-cavitary + interstitial (IC + IS) | |||
| First implant | 7 (4.9) | ||
| Second implant | 69 (48.6) | ||
| Median number of IS catheters | 3 (range, 1-6) | ||
| General anesthesia time (min) | |||
| Intra-cavitary | 64 | ||
| Hybrid technique (IC/IS) | 72 | ||
| Volume (cm3) (mean ± standard deviation) | |||
| HR-CTV | 21.0 ±9.7 | ||
| IR-CTV | 68.5 ±21.3 | ||
| D98 GTV (Gy) (mean ± standard deviation) | 93.4 ±27.6 | ||
| HR-CTV (Gyα/β10) (mean ± standard deviation) | |||
| D90 | 81.9 ±4.9 | ||
| D98 | 73.9 ±4.8 | ||
| D50 | 122.7 ±7.3 | ||
| IR-CTV (Gyα/β10) (mean ± standard deviation) | |||
| D90 | 64.4 ±3.7 | ||
| D98 | 59.2 ±4.9 | ||
| OARs (mean ± standard deviation) | |||
| Bladder D2cm3 (Gyα/β3) | 71.0 ±7.6 | ||
| Rectum D2cm3 (Gyα/β3) | 59.8 ±4.7 | ||
| Sigmoid D2cm3 (Gyα/β3) | 56.3 ±6.7 | ||
| Points of interest: cumulative EBRT + BT (Gyα/β3) (mean ± standard deviation) | |||
| Point A mean (Gy) | 73.5 ±35.0 | ||
| ICRU recto-vaginal point | 63.8 ±5.6 | ||
| ICRU bladder point | 64.2 ±12.0 | ||
| PIBS point | 48.9 ±6.7 | ||
| PIBS + 2 point | 71.8 ±44.0 | ||
| Vaginal point dose at 5 mm R | 65.2 ±8.2 | ||
| Vaginal point dose at 5 mm L | 65.7 ±8.5 | ||
| Dwell times % (mean ± standard deviation) | |||
| Tandem | 60.2 ±8.1 | ||
| Ring/ovoids | 33.9 ±6.5 | ||
| Needles (IS) | 15.6 ±6.9 | ||
| TRAK mean (cGy/m2) (mean ± standard deviation) | 2.7 ±0.7 | ||
CTV – clinical target volume, D2cm3 – minimal dose to the most exposed 2 cm3, D90 HR-CTV – dose delivered to D90 of high-risk clinical target volume, D90 IR-CTV – dose delivered to D90 of intermediate-risk clinical target volume, Gy – Gray, TRAK – total reference air kerma, PIBS – posterior-inferior border of symphysis
Patterns of local relapse
| Isolated local relapse | Time to relapse (months) | FIGO stage | MRI tumor residual disease (mm) | OTT (months) | HR-CTV, IR-CTV volume at BT | D90 HR-CTV, D98 IR-CTV dose | Type of BT | Salvage treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16 | IIIC1 | 20.0 | 55 | 20, 72 cc | 78, 64 Gy | IC | CT |
| 2 | 14 | IIB | 0.45 | 50 | 26, 85 cc | 86, 59 Gy | IC/IS | Surgery |
| 3 | 10 | IIIB | 30.0 | 50 | 18, 85 cc | 80, 55 Gy | IC/IS | Surgery |
| 4 | 13 | IIIC1 | 70.0 | 48 | 29, 88 cc | 86, 58 Gy | IC/IS | CT |
| 5 | 15 | IIIB | N.A. | 65 | 46, 106 cc | 84, 62 Gy | IC/IS | CT-IMM |
OTT – overall treatment time, CT – chemotherapy, IC – intra-cavitary, IS – interstitial, IMM – immunotherapy
Univariate and multivariate analyses for local control
| Effect | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |||
| D90 HR-CTV | 0.94 (0.80-1.09%) | 0.412 | ||
| D90 IR-CTV | 0.83 (0.70-1.0%) | 0.047 | 0.84 (0.67-1.04%) | 0.109 |
| FIGO stage 2018 III-IV vs. I-II | 0.10 (0.01-0.84%) | 0.034 | 0.13 (0.01-1.23%) | 0.075 |
| Overall treatment time ≥ 50 vs. < 50 | 0.11 (0.01-0.92%) | 0.042 | 0.17 (0.02-1.44%) | 0.104 |
| HR-CTV volume | 0.94 (0.89-1.0%) | 0.047 | 0.98 (0.91-1.06%) | 0.613 |
Significant value – p < 0.005
FIGO stage and clinical outcomes
| FIGO stage | No. of patients | HR-CTV volume | D90 HR-CTV | D98 IR-CTV | % of BT IC/IS | 2-yr local relapse-free survival (%) | 2-yr pelvic relapse-free survival (%) | 2-yr overall survival (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IB2 | 2 | 18.6 ±9.8 | 82.2 ±6.9 | 58.7 ±5.9 | IC (100.0) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| IB3 | 27 | 14.3 ±9.8 | 84.0 ±5.6 | 59.5 ±3.2 | IC/IS (33.0) | 100.0 | 92.0 | 100.0 |
| IIA1 | 1 | 6.3 | 79.8 | 54.9 | IC (100.0) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| IIA2 | 9 | 14.1 ±5.1 | 79.8 ±4.4 | 58.6 ±14.9 | IC/IS (55.0) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 89.0 |
| IIB | 35 | 17.3 ±8.4 | 84.0 ±8.4 | 58.5 ±2.9 | IC/IS (49.0) | 96.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| IIIA | 3 | 31.7 ±11.5 | 82.0 ±13.4 | 57.5 ±3.3 | IC/IS (100.0) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| IIIB | 6 | 25.2 ±5.6 | 72.7 ±5.3 | 55.5 ±3.1 | IC/IS (80.0) | 63.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| IIIC1 | 43 | 22.2 ±9.9 | 83.5 ±4.6 | 59.9 ±3.1 | IC/IS (61.0) | 8.01 | 75.0 | 83.0 |
| IIIC2 | 13 | 20.3 ±7.7 | 84.1 ±3.6 | 60.3 ±4.1 | IC/IS (46.0) | 100.0 | 84.0 | 62.0 |
| IVA | 3 | 24.5 ±5.2 | 84.1 ±1.1 | 58.1 ±0.4 | IC/IS (100.0) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
BT – brachytherapy, IC/IS – intra-cavitary/interstitial, LRFS – local relapse-free survival, PRFS – pelvis relapse-free survival, OS – overall survival