Prophylactic extended-field irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy for pelvic lymph node-positive cervical cancer

• Published in: Radiation oncology journal Vol. 35; no. 4; pp. 349 - 358
• Main Authors: Oh, Jinju, Seol, Ki Ho, Lee, Hyun Joo, Choi, Youn Seok, Park, Ji Y, Bae, Jin Young
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Korean
• Published: 대한방사선종양학회 30.12.2017; The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology
• Subjects: Survival rate; Lymph node; Radiotherapy; Uterine cervical neoplasm
• ISSN: 2234-1900; 2234-3156

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate whether prophylactic extended-field pelvic radiotherapy (EF-PRT) yields better results than standard whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) in patients with pelvic lymph node-positive cervical cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Materials and Methods: A total of 126 cases of stage IB-IVA cervical cancer that had pelvic lymph node involvement in magnetic resonance imaging and were treated with CCRT between 2000 and 2016 were reviewed. None of the patients had para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastases. The patients were classified to two groups, namely, those treated with EF-PRT, including prophylactic para-aortic radiotherapy, and those treated only with WPRT. The median dose to the PALN area in patients treated with EF-PRT was 45 Gy. All patients received concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Results: Overall, 52 and 74 patients underwent EF-PRT and WPRT, respectively. Patient characteristics and irradiated dose were not significantly different, except the dose to the para-aortic area, between the two groups. The median follow-up period was 75.5 months (range, 5 to 195 months). The 10-year cumulative recurrence rate of PALN for EF-PRT vs. WPRT was 6.9% and 10.1% (p = 0.421), respectively. The 10-year disease-free survival and overall survival for EF-PRT vs. WPRT were 69.7% vs. 66.1% (p = 0.748) and 71.7% vs. 72.3% (p = 0.845), respectively. Acute gastrointestinal complications were significantly higher in EF-PRT (n = 21; 40.4%) than WPRT (n = 26; 35.1%) (p = 0.046). Late toxicities were not significantly different in both groups. Conclusion: In this study, prophylactic radiotherapy for PALN does not have an additional benefit in patients with pelvic lymph node-positive cervical cancer treated with CCRT.