Pros and Cons of Adding of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy to Standard Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Cervical Cancer: A Regional Cancer Center Experience
- 139 Downloads
The present study summarizes the results of treatment in the form of disease-free survival and overall survival in bulky stage IB2 and locally advanced (stages II–IVA) squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. The treatment has been given in the form of NACT followed by CCRT in one arm and CCRT in the other arm.
Materials and Methods
This retrospective study analyzed 713 cervical cancer patients who were treated at our center during 2007 and 2008; out of 713 patients, data of 612 patients have been compared. The patients' data were analyzed retrospectively. Patients had undergone PF 28.6 %, TPF 21.5 %, and only CCRT 49.9 %. Majority of patients were in the age group 41–50 years, while stage wise, mainly stage IIIb and IIb. Disease-free survival was observed on the basis of stage and NACT. The survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan–Meier method. All statistical calculations were done with SPSS Statistics version 20.0.
For cancer cervix NACT versus CCRT, the DFS rate was at 5 years (58.3 vs. 41.8 % p = 0.001). NACT followed by CCRT demonstrated significantly superior DFS as compared to definitive CCRT, respectively, TPF (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.248, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.123–0.500; p < 0.001), PF (HR = 0.445, 95 % CI 0.266–0.722; p = 0.002). The results of univariate stage, age, and multivariate study show that stage hemoglobin level, interval between external-intracavitary radiation, and type of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were the factors affected survival cervical patients treated with radiation. The grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were more in the NACT group than CCRT (p < 0.001) while the non-hematological toxicity was not significant; the TPF group experienced more toxicity than PF (p = 0.029). This treatment regimen is feasible as evidenced by the acceptable toxicity of NACT and by the high compliance to radiotherapy. The grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were more in NACT groups than CCRT (p < 0.001); the TPF group experienced more toxicity than PF (p = 0.029).
TPF/PF as NACT is feasible and produces impressive responses in cancer cervix.
KeywordsCervical cancer Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Disease-free survival Hematological
Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
The authors would like to thank the Department of Oncology. The authors also express their gratitude to Teachers and PG Students of the department: Dr. Saroj, Dr. Kamlesh Harsh, Dr. Sitaram, Dr. Raj K Nirban, Dr. Parmilla Khatri, Dr. Guman Singh, Dr. Murali, Dr. Tanya, and Dr. Rajesh.
Compliance with ethical requirements and Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper. The research is independent and impartial. The author(s) declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cervical Cancer (HPV Information Centre): Summary report on HPV and cervical cancer statistics in India 2007. http://www.who.int/hpvcentre. Assessed 1 May 2008.
- 3.FIGO staging for cancer cervix uteri. UICC manual for classification of malignant tumors. Berlin: Springer; 1987.Google Scholar
- 5.NCI Issues Clinical Announcement on Cervical Cancer, Chemotherapy Plus Radiation Improves Survival: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb99/nci-22.htm.
- 7.Vikas Fotedar V, Seam RK, Gupta MK, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in locally advanced carcinoma cervix: a prospective randomized study. J Dental Med Sci. 2013;4:58–63.Google Scholar
- 9.Turan T, Yıldırım BA, Tulunay G, et al. Experience in stage IB2 cervical cancer and review of treatment. J Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2010;11:27–37.Google Scholar
- 10.Zanetta G, Lissoni A, Pellegrino A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced uterine cervical cancer: correlation between pathological response and survival. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1998;17:352–5.Google Scholar