Long-term results of robotic radiosurgery for non brachytherapy patients with cervical cancer.
Adult
Aged
Brachytherapy
/ adverse effects
Chemoradiotherapy
Combined Modality Therapy
Contraindications, Procedure
Female
Fiducial Markers
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Lymphatic Irradiation
Middle Aged
Organ Sparing Treatments
Organs at Risk
/ radiation effects
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Progression-Free Survival
Radiation Injuries
/ etiology
Radiosurgery
/ adverse effects
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Robotic Surgical Procedures
Treatment Outcome
Treatment Refusal
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Boost
Cyberknife
SBRT
Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy
Stereotactic Radiotherapy
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
10
07
2019
accepted:
24
08
2020
pubmed:
25
9
2020
medline:
21
9
2021
entrez:
24
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Consolidation brachytherapy is a critical treatment component for cervical cancer patients undergoing primary chemoradiation. Some patients are unsuitable for brachytherapy for a variety of reasons. The use of alternatives (LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery or external beam boosts) compromise oncologic results in cervical cancer patients. Thus, we evaluated the value of brachytherapy-like doses prescriptions using robotic radiosurgery (CyberKnife®, CR, Acuuray, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). From 06/2011 to 06/2015, 31 patients (median age 53 years; range 30-77 years) with histologically proven FIGO stages IB-IVB cervical cancer underwent primary chemoradiation. All patients were either not suitable for intracervical brachytherapy for a variety of reasons or refused the brachytherapy. To achieve an adequate dose within the tumor, a CK boost was applied after fiducial implantation. In 29 patients, a dose of either five times 6 Gy or five times 5 Gy was prescribed to the target volume. Two patients received three times 5 Gy. The target dose was prescribed to the 70% isodose. Treatment toxicity was documented once weekly regarding vaginal mucositis, bladder, and bowel irritation according to CTCAE v. 4.03. If possible 3 months after completion of treatment intracervical curettage was performed to exclude residual tumor and the patients were followed up clinically. Sparing of organs at risk (OAR) and outcome in terms of local control (LC), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed. Of the 31 patients, 30 have completed CK boost therapy. The median follow-up time was 40 months (range 5-84 months). General treatment tolerability was good. Except for 1 patient, who had diarrhea grade 3, no treatment related side effects above grade 2 were reported. Sparing of OAR was excellent. The 1‑, 3‑, and 5‑year OS rates were 89, 60, and 57% respectively across all stages. Seven patients showed progression (28%), only two of them with local relapse (8%), resulting in an LC rate of 92% after 3 and 5 years. Mean PFS was 41 months (range 2-84 months). Patients with local recurrence had PFS of 5 and 8 months. Five patients developed distant metastases. Fifteen patients (48%) underwent intracervical curettage 3 months after completion of treatment of which 14 (93%) had complete pathologic response. Brachytherapy remains the standard of care for patients diagnosed with cervical cancer and indication for primary chemoradiation. In terms of local control, CyberKnife®-based boost concepts provide excellent local control. It can be an alternative for patients who cannot receive adequate brachytherapy. Distant relapse still remains a challenge in this context.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Consolidation brachytherapy is a critical treatment component for cervical cancer patients undergoing primary chemoradiation. Some patients are unsuitable for brachytherapy for a variety of reasons. The use of alternatives (LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery or external beam boosts) compromise oncologic results in cervical cancer patients. Thus, we evaluated the value of brachytherapy-like doses prescriptions using robotic radiosurgery (CyberKnife®, CR, Acuuray, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).
METHODS
METHODS
From 06/2011 to 06/2015, 31 patients (median age 53 years; range 30-77 years) with histologically proven FIGO stages IB-IVB cervical cancer underwent primary chemoradiation. All patients were either not suitable for intracervical brachytherapy for a variety of reasons or refused the brachytherapy. To achieve an adequate dose within the tumor, a CK boost was applied after fiducial implantation. In 29 patients, a dose of either five times 6 Gy or five times 5 Gy was prescribed to the target volume. Two patients received three times 5 Gy. The target dose was prescribed to the 70% isodose. Treatment toxicity was documented once weekly regarding vaginal mucositis, bladder, and bowel irritation according to CTCAE v. 4.03. If possible 3 months after completion of treatment intracervical curettage was performed to exclude residual tumor and the patients were followed up clinically. Sparing of organs at risk (OAR) and outcome in terms of local control (LC), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 31 patients, 30 have completed CK boost therapy. The median follow-up time was 40 months (range 5-84 months). General treatment tolerability was good. Except for 1 patient, who had diarrhea grade 3, no treatment related side effects above grade 2 were reported. Sparing of OAR was excellent. The 1‑, 3‑, and 5‑year OS rates were 89, 60, and 57% respectively across all stages. Seven patients showed progression (28%), only two of them with local relapse (8%), resulting in an LC rate of 92% after 3 and 5 years. Mean PFS was 41 months (range 2-84 months). Patients with local recurrence had PFS of 5 and 8 months. Five patients developed distant metastases. Fifteen patients (48%) underwent intracervical curettage 3 months after completion of treatment of which 14 (93%) had complete pathologic response.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Brachytherapy remains the standard of care for patients diagnosed with cervical cancer and indication for primary chemoradiation. In terms of local control, CyberKnife®-based boost concepts provide excellent local control. It can be an alternative for patients who cannot receive adequate brachytherapy. Distant relapse still remains a challenge in this context.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32970164
doi: 10.1007/s00066-020-01685-x
pii: 10.1007/s00066-020-01685-x
pmc: PMC8154829
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
474-486Références
Radiother Oncol. 2006 Jan;78(1):67-77
pubmed: 16403584
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):653-7
pubmed: 21345618
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013 Mar;73(3):227-238
pubmed: 24771915
Front Oncol. 2012 Mar 21;2:25
pubmed: 22655266
Brachytherapy. 2012 Mar-Apr;11(2):125-9
pubmed: 22192496
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Mar 1;88(3):537-9
pubmed: 24411631
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2014 May 01;19(6):399-404
pubmed: 25337413
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Nov;95 Suppl 1:S43-S103
pubmed: 29644676
Cureus. 2017 Dec 29;9(12):e2002
pubmed: 29507850
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jun;12(2):e280-8
pubmed: 24889550
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jul 1;71(3):772-8
pubmed: 18207658
Strahlenther Onkol. 2013 Mar;189(3):238-44
pubmed: 23344563
Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6Part16):3799
pubmed: 28517192
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Apr 1;103(5):1088-1097
pubmed: 30445171
Strahlenther Onkol. 2014 Jan;190(1):34-40
pubmed: 23887709
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Feb;114(2):257-63
pubmed: 25497872
Brachytherapy. 2013 Jul-Aug;12(4):387
pubmed: 23434519
Radiat Oncol. 2013 May 02;8:109
pubmed: 23638755
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Sep;120(3):428-433
pubmed: 27134181
Med Phys. 2002 Jul;29(7):1590-8
pubmed: 12148742
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Sep;120(3):441-446
pubmed: 27350396
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Dec 1;90(5):1083-90
pubmed: 25216857
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Jun 1;89(2):249-56
pubmed: 24411621
Strahlenther Onkol. 2014 Jun;190(6):538-45
pubmed: 24589918
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Jun 1;92(2):260-7
pubmed: 25968823
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Feb;132(2):416-22
pubmed: 24333361
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Feb 1;88(2):459-60
pubmed: 24411614
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Sep 1;87(1):111-9
pubmed: 23849695
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2018 Jan 11;9:48-60
pubmed: 29594251