Advertisement

Outcomes from a 3-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy regimen for patients with cervical cancer

Published:January 09, 2023DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2022.12.005

      Abstract

      PURPOSE

      To estimate local control, survival, and toxicity associated with a 3-fraction (3F) image-guided brachytherapy (IGBT) regimen compared to longer fraction (LF) for cervical cancer.

      METHODS

      150 patients treated between 2015-2020 with 3F (24Gy in 3 fractions) or LF (28...30 Gy in 4-5 fractions) were reviewed. The primary outcome was 2-year local failure. We compared overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), hospitalizations, and toxicity.

      RESULTS

      There were 32 patients in the 3F group and 118 in the LF group, with a median follow up of 22 months. The 3F had worse performance status (p = 0.01) but otherwise similar characteristics. The 2-year local failure rate was 3.6% (95% CI 0%, 10.6%) for 3F, and 7.5% (95% CI 2.4%, 12.6%) for LF. The univariable hazard ratio (HR) for local failure for 3F was 0.43 (0.05, 3.43; p = 0.43). Moreover, 2 of 32 (6.3%) 3F patients experienced Grade ...3 toxicity compared to 7 of 118 (5.9%) LF patients (p = 1.0), with no difference in hospitalization within 2 years (p = 0.66) and no treatment-related deaths.

      CONCLUSIONS

      Local control was excellent, with long term survival and toxicity similar between the groups. These findings support consideration of 3F.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Brachytherapy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Arbyn M
        • Weiderpass E
        • Bruni L
        • et al.
        Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis.
        Lancet Glob Health. 2020; 8: E191-E203
        • Lei J
        • Ploner A
        • Elfström KM
        • et al.
        HPV Vaccination and the Risk of Invasive Cervical Cancer.
        N Eng J Med. 2020; 383: 1340-1348https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1917338
        • Green JA
        • Kirwan JM
        • Tierney JF
        • et al.
        Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Lancet North Am Ed. 2001; 358: 781-786https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05965-7
        • Lanciano RM
        • Martz K
        • Coia LR
        • Hanks GE.
        Tumor and treatment factors improving outcome in stage III-B cervix cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biology*Phys. 1991; 20: 95-100https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(91)90143-R
        • Han K
        • Milosevic M
        • Fyles A
        • Pintilie M
        • Viswanathan AN.
        Trends in the utilization of brachytherapy in cervical cancer in the United States.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 2013; 87: 111-119https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.05.033
        • Han K
        • Viswanathan AN.
        Brachytherapy in gynecologic cancers: why is it underused?.
        Curr Oncol Rep. 2016; 18: 26https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-016-0508-y
        • Petereit DG
        • Frank SJ
        • Viswanathan AN
        • et al.
        Brachytherapy: where has it gone?.
        JCO. 2015; 33: 980-982https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.59.8128
        • Grover S
        • Longo J
        • Einck J
        • et al.
        The unique issues with brachytherapy in low- and middle-income countries.
        Semin Radiat Oncol. 2017; 27: 136-142https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2016.11.005
        • Ma TM
        • Harkenrider MM
        • Yashar CM
        • et al.
        Understanding the underutilization of cervical brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer.
        Brachytherapy. 2019; 18: 361-369https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2018.12.002
        • Wright JD
        • Huang Y
        • Ananth CV
        • et al.
        Influence of treatment center and hospital volume on survival for locally advanced cervical cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 139: 506-512
        • Banerjee R
        • Kamrava M.
        Brachytherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer: a review.
        Int J Womens Health. 2014; 6: 555-564https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S46247
        • Huang EY
        • Sun LM
        • Lin H
        • et al.
        A prospective cohort study to compare treatment results between 2 fractionation schedules of high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDR-ICBT) in patients with cervical cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 2013; 85: 123-128https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.03.045
        • Petereit DG
        • Pearcey R.
        Literature analysis of high dose rate brachytherapy fractionation schedules in the treatment of cervical cancer: is there an optimal fractionation schedule?.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 1999; 43: 359-366https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00387-3
        • Mayadev J
        • Klapheke A
        • Yashar C
        • et al.
        Underutilization of brachytherapy and disparities in survival for patients with cervical cancer in California.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2018; 150: 73-78https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.563
        • Boyce-Fappiano D
        • Nguyen KA
        • Gjyshi O
        • et al.
        Socioeconomic and racial determinants of brachytherapy utilization for cervical cancer: concerns for widening disparities.
        JCO Oncol Pract. 2021; 17: e1958-e1967
        • Williams VM
        • Kahn JM
        • Harkenrider MM
        • et al.
        COVID-19 impact on timing of brachytherapy treatment and strategies for risk mitigation.
        Brachytherapy. 2020; 19: 401-411
        • Khan A
        • Jensen LG
        • Sun S
        • et al.
        Optimized planning target volume for intact cervical cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 2012; 83: 1500-1505https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.10.027
        • Williamson CW
        • Green G
        • Noticewala SS
        • et al.
        Prospective validation of a high dimensional shape model for organ motion in intact cervical cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 2016; 96: 801-807https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.015
        • Templ M
        • Kowarik A
        • Filzmoser P.
        Iterative stepwise regression imputation using standard and robust methods.
        Comput Stats & Data Anal. 2011; 55: 2793-2806https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2011.04.012
      1. R Ref: R Core Team (2020). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ assessed date: Feb 10, 2021.

        • Orton CG
        • Seyedsadr M
        • Somnay A.
        Comparison of high and low dose rate remote afterloading for cervix cancer and the importance of fractionation.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 1991; 21: 1425-1434https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(91)90316-V
        • Albuquerque K
        • Tumati V
        • Lea J
        • et al.
        A Phase II trial of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy as a boost for locally advanced cervical cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 2020; 106: 464-471https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.10.042
        • Gill BS
        • Lin JF
        • Krivak TC
        • et al.
        National Cancer data base analysis of radiation therapy consolidation modality for cervical cancer: the impact of new technological advancements.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 2014; 90: 1083-1090https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.017
        • Eifel PJ
        • Ho A
        • Khalid N
        • et al.
        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. 2014; 89: 249-256https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.11.228
        • Bagshaw HP
        • Pappas LM
        • Kepka DL
        • et al.
        Patterns of care with brachytherapy for cervical cancer.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014; 24https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000276
        • Kirchheiner K
        • Czajka-Pepl A
        • Ponocny-Seliger E
        • et al.
        Posttraumatic stress disorder after high-dose-rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer with 2 fractions in 1 application under spinal/epidural anesthesia: incidence and risk factors.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 2014; 89: 260-267https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.02.018
        • Khan M
        • Hussain MA
        • Siddiqui SA
        • et al.
        Five-year survival outcomes with two different high dose rate brachytherapy schedules used in the treatment of cervical carcinoma.
        Therap Radiol Oncol. 2022; 6: 2https://doi.org/10.21037/tro-21-19
        • Rao BS
        • Das P
        • Subramanian BV
        • et al.
        A comparative analysis of two different dose fractionation regimens of high dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy in treatment of carcinoma of uterine cervix: a prospective randomized study.
        J Clin Diagn Res. 2017; 11: XC06
        • Chino J
        • Annunziata CM
        • Beriwal S
        • et al.
        Radiation Therapy for Cervical Cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline.
        Pract Radiat Oncol. 2020; 10 (Epub 2020 May 18. PMID: 32473857): 220-234https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2020.04.002
        • Hendry J
        • Jones GW
        • Mahantshetty UM
        • et al.
        Radiobiological analysis of outcomes using external beam radiotherapy plus high dose-rate brachytherapy (4x7 Gy or 2x9 Gy) for cervical cancer in a multi-institution trial.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 99: 1313-1314
        • Schwarz JK
        • Siegel BA
        • Dehdashti F
        • Grigsby PW.
        Metabolic Response on Post-therapy FDG-PET predicts patterns of failure after radiotherapy for cervical cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys. 2012; 83: 185-190https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.05.053