International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 126–133 | Cite as

Radiation therapy versus surgery for patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy revisited

  • Yu Furuta
  • Yukiharu Todo
  • Hiroyuki Yamazaki
  • Chisa Shimada
  • Sho Takeshita
  • Kazuhira Okamoto
  • Hidenori Kato
Original Article



The therapeutic significance of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radiation therapy (RT) was negated during the early 1990s. Here, we compared post-NAC RT to surgery for chemo-sensitive cervical squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).


This study included 79 consecutive patients with cervical SCC who were treated by NAC followed by surgery (n = 49) or by definitive RT (n = 30). We compared characteristics and survival outcomes between the surgery and RT groups by their responses to NAC.


Of the 79 patients, 70 (89%) had stage II–IV disease and 41 (52%) had radiological pelvic lymph node enlargement. The 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rate of the entire cohort was 66.4% (median follow-up 54 months). Fifty-five patients (70%) achieved sufficient (complete or partial) responses to NAC. Among patients with insufficient NAC responses, the 5-year DSS rate of the surgery group (55.6%) was significantly higher than the RT group (20.0%; P = 0.044). However, among patients with sufficient responses to NAC, 5-year DSS rates did not significantly differ between the surgery and RT groups (82.3 vs 78.6%; P = 0.79) even though the RT group had many more unfavorable prognostic factors and received fewer subsequent treatments than the surgery group.


Post-NAC survival outcomes among patients with chemo-sensitive cervical SCC who then underwent RT were not inferior to those treated with surgery, and NAC did not detract from the efficacy of subsequent RT. Among selected patients who respond favorably to NAC, RT could be a less invasive substitute for surgery without compromising treatment outcomes.


Cervical cancer Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Primary chemotherapy Radiotherapy Prognosis 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Souhami L, Gil RA, Allan SE et al (1991) A randomized trial of chemotherapy followed by pelvic radiation therapy in stage IIIB carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 9:970–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tattersall MH, Ramirez C, Coppleson M (1992) A randomized trial comparing platinum-based chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2:244–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar L, Kaushal R, Nandy M et al (1994) Chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in locally advanced cervical cancer: a randomized study. Gynecol Oncol 54:307–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sundfør K, Tropé CG, Högberg T et al (1996) Radiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for cervical carcinoma. A randomized multicenter study of sequential cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil and radiotherapy in advanced cervical carcinoma stage 3B and 4A. Cancer 77:2371–2378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tattersall MH, Lorvidhaya V, Vootiprux V et al (1995) Randomized trial of epirubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy followed by pelvic radiation in locally advanced cervical cancer. Cervical Cancer Study Group of the Asian Oceanian Clinical Oncology Association. J Clin Oncol 13:444–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Azevedo CR, Thuler LC, de Mello MJ et al (2016) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation in cervical carcinoma: a review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26:729–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim SH, Kim SC, Choi BI et al (1994) Uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastasis with MR imaging. Radiology 190:807–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN et al (1999) 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 Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 17:1339–1348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB et al (1999) Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1144–1153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J et al (1999) Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1137–1143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eifel PJ, Winter K, Morris M et al (2004) 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 22:872–880CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ryu SY, Lee WM, Kim K et al (2011) Randomized clinical trial of weekly vs. triweekly cisplatin-based chemotherapy concurrent with radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:e577–e581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Azria E, Morice P, Haie-Meder C et al (2005) Results of hysterectomy in patients with bulky residual disease at the end of chemoradiotherapy for stage IB2/II cervical carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 12:332–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Houvenaeghel G, Lelievre L, Gonzague-Casabianca L et al (2006) Long-term survival after concomitant chemoradiotherapy prior to surgery in advanced cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 100:338–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dueñas-González A, Zarbá 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
  16. 16.
    Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-Analysis Collaboration (2008) Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 26:5802–5812CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCormack M, Kadalayil L, Hackshaw A et al (2013) A phase II study of weekly neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 108:2464–2469CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Furuta
    • 1
  • Yukiharu Todo
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Yamazaki
    • 1
  • Chisa Shimada
    • 1
  • Sho Takeshita
    • 1
  • Kazuhira Okamoto
    • 1
  • Hidenori Kato
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Gynecologic OncologyNational Hospital Organization, Hokkaido Cancer CenterSapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations