Cargando…

Clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the distinctions in survival and toxicity between patients with cervical cancer with common iliac node or para-aortic node involvement, who were treated with extended-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (EF-IMRT) and patients with or without lower invo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ouyang, Yi, Wang, Yanhong, Chen, Kai, Cao, Xinping, Zeng, Yiming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: D.A. Spandidos 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754842/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29344136
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.7077
_version_ 1783290491538767872
author Ouyang, Yi
Wang, Yanhong
Chen, Kai
Cao, Xinping
Zeng, Yiming
author_facet Ouyang, Yi
Wang, Yanhong
Chen, Kai
Cao, Xinping
Zeng, Yiming
author_sort Ouyang, Yi
collection PubMed
description The aim of the present study was to evaluate the distinctions in survival and toxicity between patients with cervical cancer with common iliac node or para-aortic node involvement, who were treated with extended-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (EF-IMRT) and patients with or without lower involved pelvic nodes, who were treated with pelvic IMRT. A total of 55 patients treated with EF-IMRT and 52 patients treated with pelvic IMRT at the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (Guangzhou, China) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients treated with EF-IMRT had the highest level of lymph node involvement to the para-aortic or common iliac nodes, while patients treated with pelvic IMRT had no para-aortic or common iliac nodes involved (P<0.001). The median follow-up time was 29.5 months. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates of EF-IMRT and pelvic IMRT were 79.4 and 82.3% (P=0.45), respectively, and the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of EF-IMRT and pelvic IMRT were 61.0 and 73.7% (P=0.55), respectively. Cox's regression analysis revealed that EF irradiation was a protective prognostic factor for OS and DFS. A total of 16 patients in the EF-IMRT group and 13 patients in the pelvic IMRT group experienced treatment failure (P=0.67), with the patterns of failure being the same for the two groups (P=0.88). The cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 acute toxicities in the EF-IMRT group was 34.5%, in comparison with 19.2% in the pelvic group (P=0.048). The results of the present study suggest that patients with cervical cancer with grossly involved common iliac or para-aortic nodes should be electively subjected to EF irradiation to improve the survival and alter patterns of recurrence. Notably, EF irradiation delivered via IMRT exhibits an increased toxicity incidence, however, this remains within an acceptable range.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5754842
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher D.A. Spandidos
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57548422018-01-17 Clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer Ouyang, Yi Wang, Yanhong Chen, Kai Cao, Xinping Zeng, Yiming Oncol Lett Articles The aim of the present study was to evaluate the distinctions in survival and toxicity between patients with cervical cancer with common iliac node or para-aortic node involvement, who were treated with extended-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (EF-IMRT) and patients with or without lower involved pelvic nodes, who were treated with pelvic IMRT. A total of 55 patients treated with EF-IMRT and 52 patients treated with pelvic IMRT at the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (Guangzhou, China) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients treated with EF-IMRT had the highest level of lymph node involvement to the para-aortic or common iliac nodes, while patients treated with pelvic IMRT had no para-aortic or common iliac nodes involved (P<0.001). The median follow-up time was 29.5 months. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates of EF-IMRT and pelvic IMRT were 79.4 and 82.3% (P=0.45), respectively, and the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of EF-IMRT and pelvic IMRT were 61.0 and 73.7% (P=0.55), respectively. Cox's regression analysis revealed that EF irradiation was a protective prognostic factor for OS and DFS. A total of 16 patients in the EF-IMRT group and 13 patients in the pelvic IMRT group experienced treatment failure (P=0.67), with the patterns of failure being the same for the two groups (P=0.88). The cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 acute toxicities in the EF-IMRT group was 34.5%, in comparison with 19.2% in the pelvic group (P=0.048). The results of the present study suggest that patients with cervical cancer with grossly involved common iliac or para-aortic nodes should be electively subjected to EF irradiation to improve the survival and alter patterns of recurrence. Notably, EF irradiation delivered via IMRT exhibits an increased toxicity incidence, however, this remains within an acceptable range. D.A. Spandidos 2017-12 2017-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5754842/ /pubmed/29344136 http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.7077 Text en Copyright: © Ouyang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Articles
Ouyang, Yi
Wang, Yanhong
Chen, Kai
Cao, Xinping
Zeng, Yiming
Clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer
title Clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer
title_full Clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer
title_fullStr Clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer
title_full_unstemmed Clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer
title_short Clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer
title_sort clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754842/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29344136
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.7077
work_keys_str_mv AT ouyangyi clinicaloutcomeofextendedfieldirradiationvspelvicirradiationusingintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforcervicalcancer
AT wangyanhong clinicaloutcomeofextendedfieldirradiationvspelvicirradiationusingintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforcervicalcancer
AT chenkai clinicaloutcomeofextendedfieldirradiationvspelvicirradiationusingintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforcervicalcancer
AT caoxinping clinicaloutcomeofextendedfieldirradiationvspelvicirradiationusingintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforcervicalcancer
AT zengyiming clinicaloutcomeofextendedfieldirradiationvspelvicirradiationusingintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforcervicalcancer