Which Patients with Cervical Cancer Could Benefit from Prophylactic Extended-Field Irradiation?

W. Wang,X. Hou,K. Hu,F. Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.1744
2019-01-01
Abstract:To identify the potential indication of prophylactic extended-field irradiation therapy (EFRT) in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy. We reviewed patients with 2018 FIGO stage IB3-IIIC1 or IVA cervical cancer and treated with definitive pelvic radiation therapy (PRT) or prophylactic EFRT combined with concurrent chemotherapy in our institute between 2011 and 2014. The upper border of PRT was at the levels of aortic bifurcation and the superior border of prophylactic EFRT was at the level of T12 or renal vessel. A dose of 50.4Gy in 28 fractions was delivered to the target volume with intensity modulated radiation therapy. Cisplatin was conducted weekly during radiotherapy. To select high-risk patients, the DFS rates of patients in some potential subgroups were compared between two radiation fields. For the selected high-risk patients, overall survival (OS), DFS, distant failure and para-aortic lymph nodes failure (PALNF) rates were compared between patients treated with PRT and EFRT. A total of 726 patients were included into this study, with 573 patients treated with PRT and 175 patients treated with EFRT. Analyze in subgroups revealed that prophylactic EFRT had the trend to improve the DFS of patients with pelvic MLNs ≥ 2, diameter of pelvic MLNs ≥1.5cm and pelvic wall involvement. Patients with these three factors were selected as high-risk patients. Of the 206 high-risk patients, 99 patients were treated with PRT and 107 patients were treated with EFRT. Patients in prophylactic EFRT group trend to have more advanced disease. For high-risk patients treated with PRT and prophylactic EFRT, the 3-year OS, DFS, distant failure and PALNF rates were 78.2% and 78.6% (p=0.585), 57.2% and 75.9% (p=0.023), 32.1% and 13.9% (p=0.034), 12.6% and 1.0% (p=0.006), respectively. After Multivariate analysis, prophylactic EFRT was significant in predicting DFS (p=0.002), distant failure (p=0.003) and PALNF(p=0.026). It was not an independent factor of OS (p=0.107). The incidences of ≥ grade 3 complications in high-risk patients treated with PRT and prophylactic EFRT were 3.0% and 8.4%(p=0.099), respectively. Compared with PRT, prophylactic EFRT could improve the DFS, distant failure, and PALNF in cervical cancer patients with pelvic MLNs ≥ 2, pelvic MLNs ≥ 1.5cm, or pelvic wall involvement. The present study contributed direct evidence on the indication of prophylactic EFRT for patients with cervical cancer.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?