Advertisement

Strahlentherapie und Onkologie

, Volume 193, Issue 7, pp 534–542 | Cite as

Salvage radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy for pelvic recurrence after hysterectomy alone for early-stage uterine cervical cancer

  • Sang-Won Kim
  • Mison ChunEmail author
  • Hee-Sug Ryu
  • Suk-Joon Chang
  • Tae Wook Kong
  • Eun Ju Lee
  • Yong Hee Lee
  • Young-Taek Oh
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Treatment outcomes of patients with pelvic recurrence after hysterectomy alone for uterine cervical cancer who received salvage radiotherapy (RT) with or without concurrent chemotherapy were investigated.

Methods

Salvage RT for recurrent cervical cancer confined to the pelvic cavity after hysterectomy alone was received by 33 patients. The median interval between initial hysterectomy and recurrence was 26 months. Whole-pelvic irradiation was delivered to median dose of 45 Gy, followed by a boost with a median dose of 16 Gy to the gross tumor volume. Cisplatin-based concurrent chemotherapy was administered to 29 patients.

Results

The median follow-up period was 53 months for surviving patients. Most patients (97.0%) completed salvage RT of ≥45 Gy. Complete response (CR) was achieved in 23 patients (69.7%). Pelvic sidewall involvement and evaluation with positron-emission tomography-computed tomography were significantly associated with CR. The 5‑year progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) rates were 62.7, 79.5, 72.5, and 60.1%, respectively. Initial International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, pelvic sidewall involvement, and CR status were significant factors for PFS and OS rates in multivariate analysis. The incidence of severe acute and late toxicities (≥grade 3) was 12.1 and 3.0%, respectively.

Conclusion

Aggressive salvage RT with or without concurrent chemotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer confined to the pelvic cavity was feasible, with promising treatment outcomes and acceptable toxicities. However, even more intensive novel treatment strategies should be investigated for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors.

Keywords

Uterine cervical neoplasms Neoplasm recurrence Chemoradiotherapy Salvage therapy Survival 

Salvage-Radiotherapie mit oder ohne gleichzeitige Chemotherapie bei Beckenrezidiv nach alleiniger Hysterektomie im frühen Stadium des Gebärmutterhalskrebses

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung

Untersuchung der Behandlungsergebnisse von Patientinnen mit Beckenrezidiv nach alleiniger Hysterektomie bei Zervixkarzinom, die eine Salvage-Radiotherapie (RT) mit oder ohne begleitende Chemotherapie erhalten hatten.

Methoden

Insgesamt 33 Patientinnen erhielten eine Salvage-RT für ein auf die Beckenhöhle begrenztes Rezidiv des Zervixkarzinoms nach alleiniger Hysterektomie. Der mediane Zeitraum zwischen der Hysterektomie und dem Rezidiv betrug 26 Monate. Die Bestrahlung betraf das gesamte Becken mit einer medianen Dosis von 45 Gy, danach folgte eine Wiederholung mit einer medianen Dosis von 16 Gy auf die gesamte Tumormasse. Eine begleitende cisplatinbasierte Chemotherapie bekamen 29 Patientinnen.

Ergebnisse

Der mediane Nachbeobachtungszeitraum für überlebende Patientinnen betrug 53 Monate. Die meisten Patientinnen (97,0 %) schlossen die Salvage-RT mit ≥45 Gy ab. Ein vollständiges Ansprechen („complete response“, CR) erreichten 23 Patientinnen (69,7 %). Beckenwandbeteiligung und Beurteilung mittels Positronenemissionstomographie-Computertomographie standen in deutlichem Zusammenhang mit einem CR. Die Raten für progressionsfreies 5‑Jahres-Überleben (PFS), lokale Kontrolle (LC), fernmetastasenfreies Überleben (DMFS) und Gesamtüberleben (OS) lagen bei jeweils 62,7 %, 79,5 %, 72,5 % und 60,1 %. In der multivariaten Analyse waren das Stadium gemäß der International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, die Beckenwandbeteiligung und der CR-Status wichtige Faktoren für die PFS- oder OS-Raten. Die Inzidenz schwerer akuter und später auftretender Toxizitäten (≥Grad 3) betrug 12,1 % bzw. 3,0 %.

Schlussfolgerung

Die aggressive Salvage-RT mit oder ohne begleitende Chemotherapie für ein auf die Beckenhöhle begrenztes rezidivierendes Zervixkarzinom ist praktikabel, mit vielversprechenden Behandlungsergebnissen und akzeptablen Toxizitäten. Für Patientinnen mit ungünstigen prognostischen Faktoren sollten intensiver neuartige Behandlungsstrategien untersucht werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Uterine Zervixneoplasien Neoplasierezidiv Chemotherapie Salvage-Therapie Überleben 

Notes

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

S.-W. Kim, M. Chun, H.-S. Ryu, S.-J. Chang, T.W. Kong, E.J. Lee, Y.H. Lee, and Y.-T. Oh declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

This study was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the institutional review board, which waived the requirements of informed consent due to the retrospective nature of this study.

Supplementary material

66_2017_1122_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary Table 1. Summary of previous studies

References

  1. 1.
    Ayhan A, Al R, Baykal C et al (2004) Prognostic factors in FIGO stage IB cervical cancer without lymph node metastasis and the role of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 14:286–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burke TW, Hoskins WJ, Heller PB et al (1987) Clinical patterns of tumor recurrence after radical hysterectomy in stage IB cervical carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 69:382–385PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Der Velden V, Eerden V, Gonzalez G (1998) Recurrent cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy: an analysis of clinical aspects and prognosis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 8:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duenas-Gonzalez A, Zarba JJ, Patel F et al (2011) Phase III, open-label, randomized study comparing concurrent gemcitabine plus cisplatin and radiation followed by adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin versus concurrent cisplatin and radiation in patients with stage IIB to IVA carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 29:1678–1685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedlander M, Grogan M (2002) Guidelines for the treatment of recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer. Oncologist 7:342–347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grigsby PW (2004) Prospective phase I/II study of irradiation and concurrent chemotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 14:860–864CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guckenberger M, Bachmann J, Wulf J et al (2010) Stereotactic body radiotherapy for local boost irradiation in unfavourable locally recurrent gynaecological cancer. Radiother Oncol 94:53–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haasbeek CJ, Uitterhoeve AL, van der Velden J et al (2008) Long-term results of salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of recurrent cervical carcinoma after prior surgery. Radiother Oncol 89:197–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ijaz T, Eifel PJ, Burke T et al (1998) Radiation therapy of pelvic recurrence after radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 70:241–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ito H, Shigematsu N, Kawada T et al (1997) Radiotherapy for centrally recurrent cervical cancer of the vaginal stump following hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 67:154–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jain P, Hunter RD, Livsey JE et al (2007) Salvaging locoregional recurrence with radiotherapy after surgery in early cervical cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19:763–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krebs H‑B, Helmkamp BF, Sevin B‑U et al (1982) Recurrent cancer of the cervix following radical hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection. Obstet Gynecol 59:422–427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A et al (1997) Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib–IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 350:535–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larson DM, Copeland LJ, Stringer CA et al (1988) Recurrent cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 30:381–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee YS, Kim YS, Kim JH et al (2010) Feasibility and outcome of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for recurrent cervical carcinoma after initial surgery. Tumori 96:553–559PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maneo A, Landoni F, Cormio G et al (1999) Concurrent carboplatin/5-fluorouracil and radiotherapy for recurrent cervical carcinoma. Ann Oncol 10:803–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Network NCC (2016) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Cervical Cancer (Verson 1.2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ryu SY, Kim MH, Nam BH et al (2014) Intermediate-risk grouping of cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy: a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Br J Cancer 110:278–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seo Y, Kim MS, Yoo HJ et al (2016) Salvage stereotactic body radiotherapy for locally recurrent uterine cervix cancer at the pelvic sidewall: Feasibility and complication. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 12:e280–e288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smaniotto D, D’Agostino G, Luzi S et al (2005) Concurrent 5‑fluorouracil, mitomycin C and radiation with or without brachytherapy in recurrent cervical cancer: a scoring system to predict clinical response and outcome. Tumori 91:295–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomas G (2011) Are we making progress in curing advanced cervical cancer? J Clin Oncol 29:1654–1656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomas GM, Dembo AJ, Myhr T et al (1993) Long-term results of concurrent radiation and chemotherapy for carcinoma of the cervix recurrent after surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer 3:193–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Windschall A, Ott OJ, Sauer R et al (2005) Radiation therapy and simultaneous chemotherapy for recurrent cervical carcinoma. Strahlenther Onkol 181:545–550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyAjou University School of MedicineYeongtong-gu, SuwonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyAjou University School of MedicineYeongtong-gu, SuwonRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyAjou University School of MedicineYeongtong-gu, SuwonRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of PathologyAjou University School of MedicineYeongtong-gu, SuwonRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Department of Radiation OncologyKonyang University School of MedicineDaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations