| Literature DB >> 36199951 |
Noriyuki Okonogi1, Naoya Murakami2, Ken Ando3,4, Masumi Murata3, Kazutoshi Murata1,4, Tomomi Aoshika5, Shingo Kato5, Anneyuko I Saito6, Joo-Young Kim7, Yasuo Yoshioka8, Shuhei Sekii9,10, Kayoko Tsujino9, Chairat Lowanichkiattikul11, Poompis Pattaranutaporn11, Yuko Kaneyasu12, Tomio Nakagawa12, Miho Watanabe13, Takashi Uno13, Rei Umezawa14, Keiichi Jingu14, Ayae Kanemoto15, Masaru Wakatsuki1,16, Katsuyuki Shirai16, Hiroshi Igaki2, Tatsuya Ohno4, Jun Itami2.
Abstract
Purpose: There are limited reports on outcomes of three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy (3D-IGBT) for cervical adenocarcinoma in Asia. In a multi-institutional retrospective study, we assessed the clinical outcomes of three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy for cervical adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma (CA/CAC) in Asian countries. Material and methods: Patients who had undergone definitive radiation therapy/concurrent chemoradiotherapy for untreated cervical cancer between 2000 and 2016 were registered. Those who had undergone 3D-IGBT for histologically proven CA/CAC were included. Data on patients' characteristics and treatment were collected, including tumor reduction rate (defined as a percentage of reduction in tumor size before brachytherapy compared with that at diagnosis) and high-risk clinical target volume D90. Overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. Late toxicities were assessed using common terminology criteria for adverse events version 4.0.Entities:
Keywords: brachytherapy; chemoradiotherapy; radiotherapy; uterine cervical neoplasms
Year: 2022 PMID: 36199951 PMCID: PMC9528827 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2022.119451
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy ISSN: 2081-2841
Patient and treatment characteristics. Summary of patient characteristics and details of treatment
| Characteristics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Age (years), range (median) | 34-78 (53) | |
| Follow-up period (months), range (median) | 3-83 (39) | |
| FIGO stage (2018) | ||
| IB3 | 1 | |
| IIA2-IIB | 8 | |
| III | 23 | |
| IVA | 4 | |
| Histological sub-types | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 28 | |
| Adenosquamous carcinoma | 9 | |
| Pelvic LN metastasis | ||
| No | 16 | |
| Yes | 20 | |
| Para-aortic LN metastasis | ||
| No | 30 | |
| Yes | 6 | |
| Tumor size at diagnosis (cm), range (median) | 4.0-14.5 (5.7) | |
| Tumor size before brachytherapy (cm), range (median) | 2.1-10.3 (4.1) | |
| Overall treatment time (days), range (median) | 38-69 (48) | |
| Concurrent chemotherapy administrations | ||
| No | 7 | |
| Yes | 29 | |
| EBRT strategy | ||
| 3D-CRT, WP + CS | 30 | |
| 3D-CRT, WP alone | 4 | |
| IMRT | 2 | |
| EBRT, EQD2 (Gy), range (median) | ||
| EQD2 (α/β = 10) | 26.0-53.1 (30.1) | |
| EQD2 (α/β = 3) | 26.0-51.8 (30.0) | |
| 3D-IGBT strategy | ||
| Typical 3D-IGBT | 15 | |
| 3D-IGBT with interstitial (hybrid) | 21 | |
| Number of 3D-IGBT sessions | ||
| 3 sessions | 1 | |
| 4 sessions | 25 | |
| 5 sessions | 9 | |
| 6 sessions | 1 | |
| 3D-IGBT, EQD2 (α/β = 10) (Gy), range (median) | ||
| HR-CTV D90 | 15.6-54.2 (40.6) | |
| 3D-IGBT, EQD2 (α/β = 3) (Gy), range (median) | ||
| Rectum D2cc (median) | 8.8-36.9 (25.5) | |
| Bladder D2cc (median) | 14.0-62.4 (39.3) | |
| WP + 3D-IGBT, EQD2 (α/β = 10) (Gy), range (median)1 | ||
| HR-CTV D90 | 54.9-96.1 (74.7) | |
| WP + 3D-IGBT, EQD2 (α/β = 3) (Gy), range (median)1 | ||
| Rectum D2cc (median) | 41.2-79.5 (60.8) | |
| Bladder D2cc (median) | 57.2-94.8 (73.1) | |
FIGO – International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; LN – lymph node; EBRT – external beam radiotherapy; 3D-CRT – three dimensional-conformal radiation therapy; WP – whole pelvic irradiation; CS – central shielding; IMRT – intensity-modulated radiotherapy; EQD2 – equivalent dose of 2 Gy per fraction; 3D-IGBT – three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy; HR-CTV – high-risk clinical target volume; D90 – dose to 90% of target volume; D2cc – minimum dose delivered to the highest irradiated two cc area; 1 due to the difficulty of accurate evaluation, the doses of pelvic irradiation with CS were not added to the EQD2
Fig. 1Kaplan-Meier survival curves of 36 patients. In each of the three Kaplan-Meier curves, red indicates overall survival (OS), blue indicates local control (LC), and green indicates progression-free survival (PFS)
The results of univariate analyses and multivariate analysis. A) The results of univariate analyses for each clinical factor. B) The result of the assessment of prognostic factors with multivariate analyses
| A. The univariate analyses | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | No. of patients | OS | LC | PFS | ||||
| 3-year (%) | 3-year (%) | 3-year (%) | ||||||
| FIGO stage (2018) | 0.262 | 0.878 | 0.589 | |||||
| IB3-IIB | 9 | 77.8 | 62.5 | 55.6 | ||||
| III-IVA | 27 | 65.4 | 70.2 | 40.7 | ||||
| N stage | 0.922 | 0.497 | 0.802 | |||||
| N0 | 16 | 60.0 | 60.0 | 43.8 | ||||
| N1 | 20 | 75.0 | 74.7 | 45.0 | ||||
| Histological sub-types | 0.641 | 0.815 | 0.406 | |||||
| Ad | 28 | 66.3 | 66.3 | 39.3 | ||||
| Adsq | 8 | 75.0 | 75.0 | 62.5 | ||||
| Tumor size at diagnosis (cm) | 0.219 | 0.407 | 0.304 | |||||
| < 5.7 | 17 | 56.3 | 62.7 | 35.3 | ||||
| ≥ 5.7 | 19 | 78.6 | 73.7 | 52.6 | ||||
| Tumor size before BT (cm) | 0.666 | 0.362 | 0.76.8 | |||||
| < 4.1 | 18 | 60.2 | 77.8 | 44.4 | ||||
| ≥ 4.1 | 18 | 76.3 | 59.0 | 44.4 | ||||
| Tumor reduction ratio1 | 0.006 | 0.007 | 0.004 | |||||
| ≤ 26.3% | 18 | 51.6 | 46.3 | 22.2 | ||||
| > 26.3% | 18 | 83.3 | 88.9 | 67.7 | ||||
| Hybrid brachytherapy | 0.297 | 0.756 | 0.898 | |||||
| No | 15 | 72.7 | 66.7 | 46.7 | ||||
| Yes | 21 | 65.0 | 71.1 | 42.9 | ||||
| Concurrent chemotherapy | 0.001 | 0.370 | 0.126 | |||||
| No | 7 | 28.6 | 53.6 | 14.3 | ||||
| Yes | 29 | 78.3 | 71.6 | 51.7 | ||||
No. – number; OS – overall survival; LC – local control; PFS – disease-free survival; FIGO – International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; Ad – adenocarcinoma; Adsq – adenosquamous carcinoma;
Relationship between dose and local control/late adverse events. A) The relationship between highrisk clinical target volume D90 dose and local control. B, C) The relationships between doses of rectum and bladder D2cc and late toxicities, respectively
| A. HR-CTV D90 dose and local control | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | HR-CTV D90 (EQD2): mean ±SD | ||
| BT (Gy) | WP (Gy) | BT + WP (Gy) | |
| Local controlled ( | 40.0 ±6.8 | 36.4 ±8.1 | 76.4 ±7.5 |
| Local recurrence ( | 36.2 ±12.1 | 34.9 ±7.5 | 71.1 ±9.1 |
| 0.534 | 0.745 | 0.294 | |
HR-CTV – high-risk clinical target volume; EQD2 – equivalent dose of 2 Gy per fraction; BT – brachytherapy; WP – whole pelvic irradiation; SD – standard deviation
Fig. 2Relationship between dose of HR-CTV D90 and tumor diameter in each case. A) Relationship between HR-CTV D90 dose and tumor size at diagnosis. B) Relationship between HR-CTV D90 dose and tumor size during brachytherapy
3D-IGBT – three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy; HBT – hybrid brachytherapy; PFS – progression-free survival
Relevant literature and the present study. Comparison with previous studies on definitive radiation therapy for adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix
| Authors | Study design | No. | Stage I-II/III-IV | IGBT | Median | LC | OS | PFS | AE grade ≥ 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Niibe Y | Multi, Retro | 61 | 0%/100% | Non-IGBT | N.R. | 3 y: 60%, | 3 y: 24%, | 3 y: 17%, | 13.1% |
| Rose PG | Pooled, Retro | 182 | 75%/25% | Non-IGBT | N.R. | N.R. | 3 y: 49%, | N.R. | N.R. |
| Chen JL | Single, Retro | 35 | 74%/26% | Non-IGBT | 59 | 3 y: 64%, | 3 y: 66%, | 3 y: 39%, | 22.8% |
| Yin KC | Single, PSM, Retro | 30 | 67%/33% | Non-IGBT | 40 | 3 y: 70%, | 3 y: 63%, | 3 y: 43%, | 3.3% |
| Miyasaka Y | Multi, Retro | 71 | 51%/49% | Mixed | 37 | 3 y: 64%, | 3 y: 63%, | 3 y: 40%, | N.R. |
| Zhang J | Pooled, PSM, Retro | 331 | 66%/34% | Mixed | 55 | N.R. | 3 y: 52%, | N.R. | N.R. |
| Present study | Multi, Retro | 36 | 25%/75% | IGBT | 39 | 3 y: 69% | 3 y: 68% | 3 y: 44% | 5.6% |
IGBT – image-guided brachytherapy; LC – local control; OS – overall survival; PFS – progression-free survival; AE – adverse event; Multi – multi-institutional study; Retro – retrospective study; N.R. – not reported; Pooled – pooled analysis; Single – single-institutional study; PSM – propensity score matching
| B. Multivariate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | OS | LC | PFS | |||
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Tumor reduction ratio1 | 0.018 | 0.241 (0.075-0.780) | 0.022 | 0.162 (0.034-0.765) | 0.013 | 0.304 (0.119-0.779) |
| Concurrent chemotherapy | 0.053 | 0.259 (0.066-1.015) | 0.691 | 0.762 (0.119-2.912) | 0.402 | 0.659 (0.248-1.749) |
No. – number; OS – overall survival; LC – local control; PFS – disease-free survival; HR – hazard ratio; CI – confidence interval;