SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of treatment duration on outcomes of radiation treatment with high-dose-rate brachytherapy in the era of concurrent chemoradiation for cervical carcinoma

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Radiation Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

This study analyzes the effects of treatment prolongation using a patient population that primarily received HDR-ICBT (high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy) during CCRT (cisplatin-based chemotherapy with radiation).

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of 214 patients who were diagnosed with cervical carcinoma and completed radiation therapy with LDR (low-dose-rate)-ICBT (77 patients) or HDR-ICBT (137 patients). Whole pelvic radiation therapy was followed by ICBT. LDR-ICBT was delivered in two to three insertions at an average of 85 Gy to point A. After 2000, the institution transitioned to using HDR-ICBT during CCRT. HDR-ICBT was delivered in four to seven insertions, 300 to 700 cGy per session prescribed to point A. Separate statistical analyses were conducted for the patients who received LDR-ICBT and the patients who received HDR-ICBT.

Results

The LDR-ICBT treatment group included 77 patients. The median TD (treatment duration) of 60 days was used as the cutoff for statistical analyses. Significantly increased pelvic recurrence in the patients treated for TD > 60 days compared to TD ≤ 60 days was observed. There was a significant difference in OS (overall survival) distributions. Upon univariate analysis, age at diagnosis > 51 years old, TD > 60 days, and stage were found to be significant prognostic factors, but on multivariate analysis, the only significant prognostic factors were age at diagnosis > 51 years old and TD > 60 days. The HDR-ICBT treatment group all received CCRT and included 137 patients. A range of TD cutoff thresholds from 60 to 78 days was used. There was a significant difference in CSS (cause-specific survival) between TD ≤ 77 days and TD > 77 days. There was no significant difference in local recurrence, distant metastases, and complications. Stage was the only prognostic factor found on multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

In the present era of HDR-ICBT with CCRT, radiation treatment longer than 8 weeks does not appear to make a significant impact on clinical outcomes. This is a retrospective analysis. Further studies are warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M et al (2013) Cervical Cancer. In: Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M et al (eds) GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France

    Google Scholar 

  2. Huang Z, Mayr NA, Gao M, Lo SS, Wang JZ, Jia G, Yuh WTC (2012) Onset time of tumor repopulation for cervical cancer: first evidence from clinical data. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:478–484

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Withers HR, Taylor JM, Maciejewski B (1988) The hazard of accelerated tumor clonogen repopulation during radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 27:131–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, Muderspach LI, Chafe WE, Suggs CL, Walker JL, Gersell D (1999) Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340:1154–1161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, Grigsby PW, Levenback C, Stevens RE, Rotman M, Gershenson DM, Mutch DG (1999) Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1137–1143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd et al (2000) Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18:1606–1613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, Thigpen JT, Deppe G, Maiman MA, Clarke-Pearson DL, Insalaco S (1999) Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1144–1153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, Malfetano JH, Hannigan EV, Fowler WC Jr, Clarke-Pearson DL, Liao SY (1999) Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a gynecologic oncology group and southwest oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 17:1339–1348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Viani GA, Manta GB, Stefano EJ, de Fendi LI (2009) Brachytherapy for cervix cancer: low-dose rate or high-dose rate brachytherapy—a meta-analysis of clinical trials. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 28:47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Scalliet P, Gerbaulet A, Dubray B (1993) HDR versus LDR gynecological brachytherapy revisited. Radiother Oncol 28:118–126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu R, Wang X, Tian JH et al (2014) High dose rate versus low dose rate intracavity brachytherapy for locally advanced uterine cervix cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD007563

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eifel PJ, Ho A, Khalid N, Erickson B, Owen J (2014) Patterns of radiation therapy practice for patients treated for intact cervical cancer in 2005 to 2007: a quality research in radiation oncology study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 89:249–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Petereit DG, Sarkaria JN, Chappell R, Fowler JF, Hartmann TJ, Kinsella TJ, Stitt JA, Thomadsen BR, Buchler DA (1995) The adverse effect of treatment prolongation in cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32:1301–1307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lanciano RM, Pajak TF, Martz K, Hanks GE (1993) The influence of treatment time on outcome for squamous cell cancer of the uterine cervix treated with radiation: a patterns-of-care study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 25:391–397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Castro-Vita H, Lockett MA (1995) Carcinoma of the uterine cervix. I. Impact of prolongation of overall treatment time and timing of brachytherapy on outcome of radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32:1275–1288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fyles A, Keane TJ, Barton M, Simm J (1992) The effect of treatment duration in the local control of cervix cancer. Radiother Oncol 25:273–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Girinsky T, Rey A, Roche B, Haie C, Gerbaulet A, Randrianarivello H, Chassagne D (1993) Overall treatment time in advanced cervical carcinomas: a critical parameter in treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27:1051–1056

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Viswanathan AN, Thomadsen B (2012) American brachytherapy society cervical cancer recommendations C, American brachytherapy S. American brachytherapy society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part I: general principles. Brachytherapy 11:33–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Viswanathan AN, Beriwal S, De Los Santos JF et al (2012) American brachytherapy society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part II: high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 11:47–52

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen SW, Liang JA, Yang SN, Ko HL, Lin FJ (2003) The adverse effect of treatment prolongation in cervical cancer by high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 67:69–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chatani M, Matayoshi Y, Masaki N, Inoue T (1997) High-dose rate intracavitary irradiation for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. The adverse effect of treatment prolongation. Strahlenther Onkol 173:379–384

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee LJ, Das IJ, Higgins SA, Jhingran A, Small W Jr, Thomadsen B, Viswanathan AN, Wolfson A, Eifel P, American Brachytherapy Society (2012) American brachytherapy society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part III: low-dose-rate and pulsed-dose-rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 11:53–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Song S, Rudra S, Hasselle MD, Dorn PL, Mell LK, Mundt AJ, Yamada SD, Lee NK, Hasan Y (2013) The effect of treatment time in locally advanced cervical cancer in the era of concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Cancer 119:325–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hong J, Foote J, Broadwater G et al (2017) Data-derived treatment duration goal for cervical cancer: should 8 weeks remain the target in the era of concurrent chemoradiation? J Clin Oncol Clin Cancer Inform 1:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shaverdian N, Gondi V, Sklenar KL, Dunn EF, Petereit DG, Straub MR, Bradley KA (2013) Effects of treatment duration during concomitant chemoradiation therapy for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86:562–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Devlin PM (2016) Brachytherapy: applications and techniques. New York, Demos Medical

    Google Scholar 

  27. Eng TY, Chen T, Vincent J, Patel AJ, Clyburn V, Ha CS (2017) Persistent disparities in Hispanics with cervical cancer in a major city. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities 4:165–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A (2011) Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 61:212–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Portion of this paper was presented in the RSNA 97th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. Nov, 2011.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA

    T. W. Chen, N. E. Wandrey & C. S. Ha

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University Winship Cancer Institute, 1365-C Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

    Tony Y. Eng

Authors
  1. T. W. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. E. Wandrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. S. Ha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tony Y. Eng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tony Y. Eng.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was entirely funded by the internal departmental fund.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the UTHSCSA Institutional Review Board (Reference # HSC20140169H). All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Informed consent

Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, T.W., Wandrey, N.E., Ha, C.S. et al. The effects of treatment duration on outcomes of radiation treatment with high-dose-rate brachytherapy in the era of concurrent chemoradiation for cervical carcinoma. J Radiat Oncol 7, 265–274 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-018-0357-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-018-0357-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation