Journal of Gynecologic Oncology

  • 제29권6호
  • /
  • Pages.97.1-97.12
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2005-0380(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-0399(eISSN)
대한부인종양학회 (Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Postoperative chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for elderly cervical cancer patients with positive margins, lymph nodes, or parametrial invasion

  • Cushman, Taylor R. (University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix) ;
  • Haque, Waqar (Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital) ;
  • Menon, Hari (University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix) ;
  • Rusthoven, Chad G. (Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine) ;
  • Butler, E. Brian (Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital) ;
  • Teh, Bin S. (Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital) ;
  • Verma, Vivek (Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2018.06.14
  • 심사 : 2018.08.09
  • 발행 : 2018.11.10
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: Women with cervical cancer (CC) found to have positive surgical margins, positive lymph nodes, and/or parametrial invasion receive a survival benefit from postoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) vs. radiation therapy (RT) alone. However, older women may not benefit to the same extent, as they are at increased risk of death from non-oncologic causes as well as toxicities from oncologic treatments. This study sought to evaluate whether there was a survival benefit of CRT over RT in elderly patients with cervical cancer. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients ${\geq}70$ years old with newly diagnosed IA2, IB, or IIA CC and positive margins, parametrial invasion, and/or positive nodes on surgical resection. Statistics included logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS), and Cox proportional hazards modeling analyses. Results: Altogether, 166 patients met inclusion criteria; 62 (37%) underwent postoperative RT and 104 (63%) underwent postoperative CRT. Younger patients and those living in areas of higher income were less likely to receive CRT, while parametrial invasion and nodal involvement were associated with an increased likelihood (p<0.05 for all). There were no OS differences by treatment type. Subgroup analysis by number of risk factors, as well as each of the 3 risk factors separately, also did not reveal any OS differences between cohorts. Conclusion: In the largest such study to date, older women with postoperative risk factor(s) receiving RT alone experienced similar survival as those undergoing CRT. Although causation is not implied, careful patient selection is paramount to balance treatment-related toxicity risks with theoretical outcome benefits.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, 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. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.8.1606
  2. American Cancer Society. Key statistics for cervical cancer [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society [cited 2018 May 3]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervical-cancer/about/key-statistics.html.
  3. Sevin BU, Lu Y, Bloch DA, Nadji M, Koechli OR, Averette HE. Surgically defined prognostic parameters in patients with early cervical carcinoma. A multivariate survival tree analysis. Cancer 1996;78:1438-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19961001)78:7<1438::AID-CNCR10>3.0.CO;2-0
  4. Verma V, Ganti AK. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in older adults with squamous cell head & neck cancer: evidence and management. J Geriatr Oncol 2016;7:145-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2016.01.010
  5. Siddiqui F, Gwede CK. Head and neck cancer in the elderly population. Semin Radiat Oncol 2012;22:321-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2012.05.009
  6. Wang YM, Wang CJ, Fang FM, Chen HC, Hsu HC, Huang YJ, et al. Differences in the outcomes and complications between elderly and younger uterine cervical cancer patients treated by definitive radiotherapy: a propensity score-matched study. Gynecol Oncol 2017;145:277-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.02.034
  7. Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA 2004;291:2720-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.22.2720
  8. Ford JG, Howerton MW, Lai GY, Gary TL, Bolen S, Gibbons MC, et al. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer 2008;112:228-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23157
  9. Al-Refaie WB, Vickers SM, Zhong W, Parsons H, Rothenberger D, Habermann EB. Cancer trials versus the real world in the United States. Ann Surg 2011;254:438-43. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31822a7047
  10. Pang HH, Wang X, Stinchcombe TE, Wong ML, Cheng P, Ganti AK, et al. Enrollment trends and disparity among patients with lung cancer in National Clinical Trials, 1990 to 2012. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:3992-9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.67.7088
  11. Hutchins LF, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA Jr, Albain KS. Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials. N Engl J Med 1999;341:2061-7. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199912303412706
  12. Mishkin G, Minasian LM, Kohn EC, Noone AM, Temkin SM. The generalizability of NCI-sponsored clinical trials accrual among women with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2016;143:611-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.09.026
  13. Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY. The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:683-90. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9747-3
  14. Wang W, Hou X, Yan J, Shen J, Lian X, Sun S, et al. Outcome and toxicity of radical radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy for elderly cervical cancer women. BMC Cancer 2017;17:510. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3503-2
  15. Walter LC, Covinsky KE. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. JAMA 2001;285:2750-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.21.2750
  16. Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials 1996;17:343-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(96)00075-X
  17. Greenwald HP, Polissar NL, Dayal HH. Race, socioeconomic status and survival in three female cancers. Ethn Health 1996;1:65-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.1996.9961771
  18. Garner EI. Cervical cancer: disparities in screening, treatment, and survival. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:242s-247s.
  19. Akers AY, Newmann SJ, Smith JS. Factors underlying disparities in cervical cancer incidence, screening, and treatment in the United States. Curr Probl Cancer 2007;31:157-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2007.01.001
  20. Downs LS, Smith JS, Scarinci I, Flowers L, Parham G. The disparity of cervical cancer in diverse populations. Gynecol Oncol 2008;109:S22-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.003
  21. Goodheart M, Jacobson G, Smith BJ, Zhou L. Chemoradiation for invasive cervical cancer in elderly patients: outcomes and morbidity. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008;18:95-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00967.x
  22. Gao Y, Ma JL, Gao F, Song LP. The evaluation of older patients with cervical cancer. Clin Interv Aging 2013;8:783-8.
  23. Elit L. Cervical cancer in the older woman. Maturitas 2014;78:160-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.04.018
  24. Laurentius T, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Camara O, Runnebaum IB, Wendt TG. Impact of age on morbidity and outcome of concurrent radiochemotherapy in high-risk FIGO stage I to IVA carcinoma of the uterine cervix following laparoscopic surgery. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2011;137:481-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-010-0903-y
  25. Mitsuhashi A, Uno T, Usui H, Nishikimi K, Yamamoto N, Watanabe M, et al. Daily low-dose cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with uterine cervical cancer with emphasis on elderly patients: a phase 2 trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013;23:1453-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182559bda
  26. Moore KN, Java JJ, Slaughter KN, Rose PG, Lanciano R, DiSilvestro PA, et al. Is age a prognostic biomarker for survival among women with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiation? An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary data analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2016;143:294-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.08.317
  27. Klopp AH, Yeung AR, Deshmukh S, Gil KM, Wenzel L, Westin SN, et al. Patient-reported toxicity during pelvic intensity-modulated radiation therapy: NRG Oncology-RTOG 1203. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:2538-44. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.77.4273
  28. Klopp AH, Moughan J, Portelance L, Miller BE, Salehpour MR, Hildebrandt E, et al. Hematologic toxicity in RTOG 0418: a phase 2 study of postoperative IMRT for gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;86:83-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.01.017

피인용 문헌

  1. Comparison of Outcomes and Prognostic Factors Between Early-Stage Cervical Adenocarcinoma and Adenosquamous Carcinoma Patients After Radical Surgery and Postoperative Adjuvant Radiotherapy vol.13, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s329614
  2. Cervical cancer in older women: Does age matter? vol.158, pp.None, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2021.11.011