K M Greven1, R B D'Agostino, R M Lanciano, B W Corn. 1. Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA. Kgreven@wfubmc.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVE: Many patients who have uterine-confined endometrial cancer with prognostic factors predictive of recurrence are treated with adjuvant pelvic radiation. The addition of a brachytherapy vaginal cuff boost is controversial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1983 and 1993, 270 patients received adjuvant postoperative pelvic irradiation following hysterectomy for Stage I or II endometrial cancer. Group A includes 173 patients who received external beam irradiation alone (EBRT), while group B includes 97 patients who received EBRT with a vaginal brachytherapy application. The median dose of EBRT was 45 Gy. Vaginal brachytherapy consisted of a low dose rate ovoid or cylinder in 41 patients, a high dose rate cylinder in 54 patients, and a radioactive gold seed implant in two patients. The median follow-up time was 64 months. The two groups were compared in terms of age, histologic grade, favorable versus unfavorable histology, capillary space invasion, depth of myometrial invasion, and pathologic stage. RESULTS: Chi-square analysis revealed that the only difference between the two groups was the presence of more Stage II patients in group B (38% versus 14%). No difference was detected for 5 year pelvic control and disease-free survival rates between groups A and B. CONCLUSION: There is no suggestion that the addition of a vaginal cuff brachytherapy boost to pelvic radiation is beneficial for pelvic control or disease-free survival for patients with Stage I or II endometrial cancer. Prospective randomized trials designed to study external irradiation alone versus external beam treatment plus vaginal brachytherapy are unlikely to show a positive result. Because EBRT provides excellent pelvic control, protocol development for uterine-confined corpus cancer should focus on identifying patients at risk for recurrence as well as other means of augmenting EBRT (e.g. addition of chemotherapy) in order to improve disease free survival in those subgroups.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVE: Many patients who have uterine-confined endometrial cancer with prognostic factors predictive of recurrence are treated with adjuvant pelvic radiation. The addition of a brachytherapy vaginal cuff boost is controversial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1983 and 1993, 270 patients received adjuvant postoperative pelvic irradiation following hysterectomy for Stage I or II endometrial cancer. Group A includes 173 patients who received external beam irradiation alone (EBRT), while group B includes 97 patients who received EBRT with a vaginal brachytherapy application. The median dose of EBRT was 45 Gy. Vaginal brachytherapy consisted of a low dose rate ovoid or cylinder in 41 patients, a high dose rate cylinder in 54 patients, and a radioactive gold seed implant in two patients. The median follow-up time was 64 months. The two groups were compared in terms of age, histologic grade, favorable versus unfavorable histology, capillary space invasion, depth of myometrial invasion, and pathologic stage. RESULTS: Chi-square analysis revealed that the only difference between the two groups was the presence of more Stage II patients in group B (38% versus 14%). No difference was detected for 5 year pelvic control and disease-free survival rates between groups A and B. CONCLUSION: There is no suggestion that the addition of a vaginal cuff brachytherapy boost to pelvic radiation is beneficial for pelvic control or disease-free survival for patients with Stage I or II endometrial cancer. Prospective randomized trials designed to study external irradiation alone versus external beam treatment plus vaginal brachytherapy are unlikely to show a positive result. Because EBRT provides excellent pelvic control, protocol development for uterine-confined corpus cancer should focus on identifying patients at risk for recurrence as well as other means of augmenting EBRT (e.g. addition of chemotherapy) in order to improve disease free survival in those subgroups.
Authors: Rudy S Suidan; Weiguo He; Charlotte C Sun; Hui Zhao; Grace L Smith; Ann H Klopp; Nicole D Fleming; Karen H Lu; Sharon H Giordano; Larissa A Meyer Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Ann Klopp; Benjamin D Smith; Kaled Alektiar; Alvin Cabrera; Antonio L Damato; Beth Erickson; Gini Fleming; David Gaffney; Kathryn Greven; Karen Lu; David Miller; David Moore; Daniel Petereit; Tracey Schefter; William Small; Catheryn Yashar; Akila N Viswanathan Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-03-31