Advertisement

Clinical and Translational Oncology

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 58–64 | Cite as

Radiotherapy dose escalation with concurrent chemotherapy in locally advanced cervix cancer is feasible

  • M. W. Hegazy
  • R. I. MahmoodEmail author
  • I. A. Al-Badawi
  • B. Moftah
  • H. AlHusaini
Research Article

Abstract

Background

To test the feasibility of radiotherapy dose escalation using volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) with concurrent chemotherapy in locally advanced cervix cancer (LACC) and compare this with whole-pelvis three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (CRT) in terms of clinical toxicity.

Methods

Database was reviewed for all LACC patients treated during 2011 and 2012. Twenty patients who were treated with escalated dose of radiotherapy using VMAT were selected for analysis. A matched cohort of 40 patients who had 3DCRT between 2005 and 2008 was selected as control. Mean basal hemoglobin, average weekly hemoglobin, and maximal drop in hemoglobin were measured for both 3DCRT and VMAT groups and treatment toxicity scored according to RTOG criteria. Charts were also reviewed for other acute and late toxicities including the rate of compliance with prescribed treatment.

Results

Mean age was 46 (30–63) and 47 years (33–67), mean tumor size was 5.5 and 5 cm and blood transfusion rate was 55 and 45 % in CRT and VMAT groups, respectively. Hemoglobin toxicity (Grade I–II) was encountered in 97.5 and 90 % (p 0.0.3) while Grade I–III Leukopenia was 90 and 70 % (p 0.02), respectively. There was no Grade 3 or 4 GI or GU toxicity.

Conclusion

VMAT/IGRT with dose escalation is feasible in LACC without excessive toxicity as compared to CRT “Box”. We propose a randomized control trial of this novel approach of higher radiation dose and volume against the standard prescription based on CRT.

Keywords

VMAT Cervix cancer Radiotherapy dose escalation Treatment toxicity 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

This study has been approved by the institutional ethics committee and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. All persons gave their informed consent prior to therapy; however, for retrospective review of data with less than minimal risk to the patients, no consent was required by the ethics committee. All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74–7108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2137–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thomas GM. Improved treatment for cervical cancer—concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1198–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Network National Comprehensive Cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Fort Washington: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, Muderspach LI, Chafe WE, Suggs CL 3rd, et al. Cisplatin, radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1154–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eifel PJ, Winter K, Morris M, Levenback C, Grigsby PW, Cooper J, et al. Pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy versus pelvic and para-aortic irradiation for high-risk cervical cancer: an update of radiation therapy oncology group trial (RTOG) 90-01. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:872–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peters WA III, Liu PY, Barrett RJ II, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS, et al. 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. 2000;18:1606–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, Malfetano JH, Hannigan EV, Fowler WC Jr, et al. 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 Gynecology Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1339–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sood BM, Timmins PF, Gorla GR, Garg M, Anderson PS, Vikram B, et al. Concomitant cisplatin and extended field radiation therapy in patients with cervical and endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2002;12:459–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirwan JM, Symonds P, Green JA, Tierney J, Collingwood M, Williams CJ. A systematic review of acute and late toxicity of concomitant chemoradiation for cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2003;68:217–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lanciano RM, Pajak TF, Martz K, Hanks GE. 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. 1993;25:391–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mauch P, Constine L, Greenberger J, Knospe W, Sullivan J, Liesveld JL, et al. Hematopoietic stem cell compartment: acute and late effects of radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31:1319–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ellis RE. The distribution of active bone marrow in the adult. Phys Med Biol. 1961;5:255–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mell LK, Kochanski JD, Roeske JC, Haslam JJ, Mehta N, Yamada SD, et al. Dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66:1356–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brixey CJ, Roeske JC, Lujan AE, Yamada SD, Rotmensch J, Mundt AJ. Impact of intensity modulated radiotherapy on acute hematologic toxicity in women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:1388–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lujan AE, Mundt AJ, Yamada SD, Rotmensch J, Roeske JC. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy as a means of reducing dose to bone marrow in gynecological patients receiving whole pelvic radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:516–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mundt AJ, Lujan AE, Rotmensch J, Waggoner SE, Yamada SD, Fleming G, et al. Intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy in women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52(5):1330–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cox JD, Stetz J, Pajak TF. Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31(5):1341–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Chao KS, Mutch DG, Lockett MA. Tumor size, irradiation dose and long term outcome of carcinoma of uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;41(2):307–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liang Y, Bydder M, Yashar CM, Rose BS, Cornell M, Hoh CK, et al. Prospective study of functional bone marrow-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for pelvic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(2):406–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahantshetty U, Krishnatry R, Chaudhari S, Kanaujia A, Engineer R, Chopra S, et al. Comparison of 2 contouring methods of bone marrow on CT and correlation with hematological toxicities in non-bone marrow-sparing pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent Cisplatin for cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(8):1427–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roeske JC, Lujan A, Reba RC, Penney BC, Diane Yamada S, Mundt AJ. Incorporation of SPECT bone marrow imaging into intensity modulated whole-pelvic radiation therapy treatment planning for gynecologic malignancies. Radiother Oncol. 2005;77(1):11–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mell LK, Schomas DA, Salama JK, Devisetty K, Aydogan B, Miller RC, et al. Association between bone marrow dosimetric parameters and acute hematologic toxicity in anal cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;70:1431–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mell LK, Tiryaki H, Ahn KH, Mundt AJ, Roeske JC, Aydogan B. Dosimetric comparison of bone marrow sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional techniques for treatment of cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:1504–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Song S, Rudra S, Hasselle MD, Dorn PL, Mell LK, Mundt AJY, et al. The effect of treatment time in locally advanced cervical cancer in the era of concurrent Chemoradiotherapy. Cancer. 2013;119(2):325–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyOncology Centre, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research CentreRiyadhKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear MedicineZagazig Faculty of MedicineZagazigEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Gynaecologic OncologyKing Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research CentreRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical PhysicsKing Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research CentreRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  5. 5.Department of Medical OncologyKing Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research CentreRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations