1
|
Influence of chemoradiation on the immune microenvironment of cervical cancer patients. Strahlenther Onkol 2023; 199:121-130. [PMID: 36251031 PMCID: PMC9876875 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-022-02007-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2022] [Accepted: 09/04/2022] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Cervical cancer remains a leading cause of cancer death in women. While immunotherapy has shown great success in combating cancer, the value of immunotherapy in cervical cancer is still only beginning to be explored. Thus, we performed a prospective analysis of patient blood and tumor samples at the beginning and end of conventional chemoradiation to assess changes in the immune cell and immunoreceptor compartments, and investigate if and when the addition of immunotherapy could be beneficial. METHODS Patients with FIGO II-III cervical cancer receiving standard chemoradiation between January 2020 and December 2021 were included. We collected tumor and blood samples from patients before and at the end of therapy and analyzed immune cell composition and immune checkpoint receptor expression on both immune and tumor cells using multicolor flow cytometry. RESULTS In all, 34 patients were eligible in the study period; 22 could be included and analyzed in this study. We found that chemoradiation significantly reduces T cell numbers in both tumors and blood, but increases macrophage and neutrophil numbers in tumors. Furthermore, we found that the percentage of immune checkpoint receptor PD‑1 and TIGIT-expressing cells in tumors was significantly reduced at the end of therapy and that CD4 and CD8 memory T cell populations were altered by chemoradiation. In addition, we observed that while PD-L1 expression intensity was upregulated by chemoradiation on blood CD8 cells, PD-L1 expression frequency and the expression intensity of antigen-presenting molecule MHC‑I were significantly reduced on tumor cells. CONCLUSION Our data demonstrate that chemoradiation significantly alters the immune cell composition of human cervical tumors and the expression of immune checkpoint receptors on both lymphocytes and tumor cells. As our results reveal that the percentage of PD‑1+ CD8 cells in the tumor as well as the frequency of PD-L1-expressing tumor cells were reduced at the end of therapy, neoadjuvant or simultaneous anti-PD‑1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment might provide better treatment efficiency in upcoming clinical studies.
Collapse
|
2
|
Lin H, Wang D, Li H, Wu C, Zhang F, Lin Z, Yao T. Survival, treatment pattern, and treatment outcome in patients with cervical cancer metastatic to distant lymph nodes. Front Oncol 2022; 12:952480. [PMID: 36033481 PMCID: PMC9402899 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.952480] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2022] [Accepted: 07/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Cervical cancer with nodal involvement beyond the pelvis was considered as distant nodal metastasis in the previous International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system. With the improvement of cancer-directed therapies, some of these patients can receive curative treatment. Classifying them as distant metastasis may result in underestimation of their prognosis as well as undertreatment. However, limited research has been conducted on the survival and treatment pattern in distant lymphatic metastatic cervical cancer. Objective To investigate the survival, treatment pattern, and treatment outcome of patients with cervical cancer metastasized to distant lymph nodes (DLN) beyond the pelvis. Methods Patients with stage III-IV cervical cancer from 1988 to 2016 were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. The cancer cause-specific survival (CSS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression, subgroup analysis, and propensity score-matched analysis. Results Of 17783 patients with stage III-IV cervical cancer, patients with distant nodal disease beyond the pelvis (n=1883; included para-aortic lymph nodes metastasis) had superior survival compared to those with pelvic organ invasion or with distant organ(s) metastasis (5-year CSS, 32.3%, 26.3%, and 11.5%, respectively; adjusted P<0.001). The T stage significantly affected the survival of patients with positive DLN (5-year CSS for T1, T2, and T3: 47.3%, 37.0%, and 19.8%, respectively, adjusted P<0.01). For patients with positive DLN, combination radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy [EBRT] with brachytherapy) prolonged CSS compared to EBRT alone (5-year CSS, 38.0% vs 21.7%; propensity score-adjusted HR, 0.60; 95% CI 0.51-0.72; P<0.001). Despite the superiority of combination radiotherapy, EBRT was the most frequently used treatment after 2004 (483/1214, 39.8%), while the utilization of combination radiotherapy declined from 37.8% (253/669) during 1988 through 2003 to 25.2% (306/1214) during 2004 through 2016. Conclusion Patients with cervical cancer metastasized to DLN have favorable survival compared to those with pelvic organ invasion or with distant organ(s) metastasis. Their prognosis is significantly affected by local tumor burden and local treatment. Adequate and aggressive local radiotherapy, such as image-guided brachytherapy, can be considered for these patients to achieve better outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haoliang Lin
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
- Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Dongyan Wang
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Hui Li
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Chuling Wu
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Fengqian Zhang
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
- Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhongqiu Lin
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
- *Correspondence: Zhongqiu Lin, ; Tingting Yao,
| | - Tingting Yao
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
- Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
- *Correspondence: Zhongqiu Lin, ; Tingting Yao,
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Katanyoo K, Chaikledkaew U, Thavorncharoensap M, Riewpaiboon A. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Diagnostic Tests for Para-Aortic Lymph Node Detection in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. CLINICOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2021; 13:943-955. [PMID: 34848981 PMCID: PMC8622739 DOI: 10.2147/ceor.s327698] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2021] [Accepted: 10/31/2021] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests, ie, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET⁄CT) for para-aortic lymph node detection (PALND), in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients (stages IB3–IVA) with or without laparoscopic lymphadenectomy (LL) compared with no investigation (NoIx) based on provider and societal perspectives during 5 years. Patients and Methods Hybrid decision tree and Markov models were conducted to compare the cost and utility of six interventions including: 1) CT without LL, 2) CT with LL, 3) MRI without LL, 4) MRI with LL, 5) PET/CT without LL, and 6) PET/CT with LL compared with NoIx. All clinical parameters were obtained from published studies. Costs were presented in year 2019 values. Direct medical costs were retrieved from hospital database, while direct non-medical costs and utility were collected from interviewing 194 LACC patients during June to December 2019. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to investigate parameter uncertainties. Results Total costs of NoIx were $8026 and $11,444 from provider and societal perspectives, respectively, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 3.70. NoIx was more effective and less costly. When six strategies were compared with NoIx, more additional costs were shown with $1835, $1735, $2022, $1987, $4002, and $4176 for CT without LL, CT with LL, MRI without LL, MRI with LL, PET/CT without LL, and PET/CT with LL, whereas QALYs were decreased with 0.07, 0.08, 0.07, 0.08, 0.05, and 0.07, respectively. Sensitivity analyses strengthened the benefit of NoIx. The most significant parameter was treatment outcomes of patients with PALN metastasis. Conclusion NoIx or receiving basic clinical staging was a dominant option when compared with CT, MRI, and PET/CT for PALND before providing the treatment for LACC patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kanyarat Katanyoo
- Social, Economic and Administrative Pharmacy (SEAP) Graduate Program, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.,Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Usa Chaikledkaew
- Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.,Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Montarat Thavorncharoensap
- Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.,Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Arthorn Riewpaiboon
- Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lapa C, Nestle U, Albert NL, Baues C, Beer A, Buck A, Budach V, Bütof R, Combs SE, Derlin T, Eiber M, Fendler WP, Furth C, Gani C, Gkika E, Grosu AL, Henkenberens C, Ilhan H, Löck S, Marnitz-Schulze S, Miederer M, Mix M, Nicolay NH, Niyazi M, Pöttgen C, Rödel CM, Schatka I, Schwarzenboeck SM, Todica AS, Weber W, Wegen S, Wiegel T, Zamboglou C, Zips D, Zöphel K, Zschaeck S, Thorwarth D, Troost EGC. Value of PET imaging for radiation therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2021; 197:1-23. [PMID: 34259912 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01812-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2021] [Accepted: 06/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
This comprehensive review written by experts in their field gives an overview on the current status of incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation treatment planning. Moreover, it highlights ongoing studies for treatment individualisation and per-treatment tumour response monitoring for various primary tumours. Novel tracers and image analysis methods are discussed. The authors believe this contribution to be of crucial value for experts in the field as well as for policy makers deciding on the reimbursement of this powerful imaging modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constantin Lapa
- Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Mönchengladbach, Germany
| | - Nathalie L Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Baues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ambros Beer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Andreas Buck
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
| | - Rebecca Bütof
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Thorsten Derlin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang P Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Christian Furth
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Cihan Gani
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Eleni Gkika
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anca-L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Christoph Henkenberens
- Department of Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - Harun Ilhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Simone Marnitz-Schulze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Matthias Miederer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Michael Mix
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Nils H Nicolay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Pöttgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, West German Cancer Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Claus M Rödel
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Imke Schatka
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Andrei S Todica
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Weber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Simone Wegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Zips
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Klaus Zöphel
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH, Chemnitz, Germany
| | - Sebastian Zschaeck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniela Thorwarth
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lapa C, Nestle U, Albert NL, Baues C, Beer A, Buck A, Budach V, Bütof R, Combs SE, Derlin T, Eiber M, Fendler WP, Furth C, Gani C, Gkika E, Grosu AL, Henkenberens C, Ilhan H, Löck S, Marnitz-Schulze S, Miederer M, Mix M, Nicolay NH, Niyazi M, Pöttgen C, Rödel CM, Schatka I, Schwarzenboeck SM, Todica AS, Weber W, Wegen S, Wiegel T, Zamboglou C, Zips D, Zöphel K, Zschaeck S, Thorwarth D, Troost EGC. Value of PET imaging for radiation therapy. Nuklearmedizin 2021; 60:326-343. [PMID: 34261141 DOI: 10.1055/a-1525-7029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
This comprehensive review written by experts in their field gives an overview on the current status of incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation treatment planning. Moreover, it highlights ongoing studies for treatment individualisation and per-treatment tumour response monitoring for various primary tumours. Novel tracers and image analysis methods are discussed. The authors believe this contribution to be of crucial value for experts in the field as well as for policy makers deciding on the reimbursement of this powerful imaging modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constantin Lapa
- Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Mönchengladbach, Germany
| | - Nathalie L Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Baues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ambros Beer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Andreas Buck
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
| | - Rebecca Bütof
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Thorsten Derlin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Germany
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang P Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Christian Furth
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Cihan Gani
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Eleni Gkika
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anca L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | | | - Harun Ilhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Simone Marnitz-Schulze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Matthias Miederer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Michael Mix
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Nils H Nicolay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Pöttgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, West German Cancer Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Claus M Rödel
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Imke Schatka
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Andrei S Todica
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Weber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Simone Wegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Zips
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Klaus Zöphel
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH, Chemnitz, Germany
| | - Sebastian Zschaeck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniela Thorwarth
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Proktologische Nebenwirkungen nach Strahlentherapie gynäkologischer Tumoren. COLOPROCTOLOGY 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/s00053-021-00548-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
7
|
Gouy S, Seebacher V, Chargari C, Terroir M, Grimaldi S, Ilenko A, Maulard A, Genestie C, Leary A, Pautier P, Morice P, Deandreis D. False negative rate at 18F-FDG PET/CT in para-aortic lymphnode involvement in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: impact of PET technology. BMC Cancer 2021; 21:135. [PMID: 33549033 PMCID: PMC7866875 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-07821-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2020] [Accepted: 01/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The identification of factors responsible for false negative (FN) rate at 18F- Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) Positron Emission Tomography /Computed Tomography (PET/CT) in para-aortic (PA) lymph nodes in the presurgical staging of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of PET/CT technology. Methods A total of 240 consecutive patients with LACC (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, FIGO, stage IB2-IVA) and negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and/or Computed Tomography (CT) and negative 18F-FDG PET/CT in the PA region, undergoing laparoscopic PA lymphadenectomy before chemoradiotherapy were included. The FN rate in patients studied with Time of flight (TOF) PET/CT (TOF PET) or non-Time of flight PET/CT (no-TOF PET) technology was retrospectively compared. Results Patients presented with FIGO stage IB (n = 78), stage IIA-B (n = 134), stage III (n = 18) and stage IVa (n = 10), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 191) and adenocarcinoma (n = 49). 141/240 patients were evaluated with no-TOF PET/CT and 99/240 with TOF PET/CT. Twenty-two patients (9%) had PA nodal involvement at histological analysis and considered PET/CT FN findings. The FN rate was 8.5% for no-TOF PET and 10% for TOF PET subgroup respectively (p = 0.98). Ninety patients (38%) presented with pelvic node uptakes at PET/CT. The FN rate in the PA region was 18% (16/90) and 4% (6/150) in patients with and without pelvic node involvement at PET/CT respectively (19 vs 3% for no-TOF PET and 17 vs 5% for TOF PET subgroup). Conclusions In LACC, FN rate in PA lymph nodes detection is a clinical issue even for modern PET/CT, especially in patients with pelvic uptake. Surgical lymphadenectomy should be performed in case of negative PET/CT at PA level in these patients, while it could be discussed in the absence of pelvic uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastien Gouy
- Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France.,University Paris Sud, Orsay, France.,Unit INSERM 1030, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France
| | - Veronika Seebacher
- Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France
| | - Cyrus Chargari
- University Paris Sud, Orsay, France.,Department of Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy Unit, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France.,Effets biologiques des rayonnements, Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des Armées, Bretigny-sur-Orge, France
| | - Marie Terroir
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800, Villejuif, France
| | - Serena Grimaldi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800, Villejuif, France
| | - Anna Ilenko
- Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France
| | - Amandine Maulard
- Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France
| | - Catherine Genestie
- Department of Pathology, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France
| | - Alexandra Leary
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France
| | - Patricia Pautier
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France
| | - Philippe Morice
- Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France.,University Paris Sud, Orsay, France.,Unit INSERM 1030, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif, France
| | - Désirée Deandreis
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Gustave Roussy and Paris Saclay, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800, Villejuif, France. .,Department of Medical Sciences, Nuclear Medicine Division, the University of Turin, C.so Dogliotti, 14 10126, Turin, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Added value of para-aortic surgical staging compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT on the external beam radiation field for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: An ONCO-GF study. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 2020; 46:883-887. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.11.496] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2019] [Revised: 10/31/2019] [Accepted: 11/10/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
|
9
|
The value of pretreatment serum butyrylcholinesterase level as a novel prognostic biomarker in patients with cervical cancer treated with primary (chemo-)radiation therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2019; 195:430-440. [PMID: 30737542 PMCID: PMC6488555 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-019-01430-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2018] [Accepted: 01/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Background Deficiency in butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), a condition commonly noticed in liver damage, inflammation, and malnutrition, has previously been associated with impaired prognosis in different malignancies. The aim of the present study was to investigate the value of pretreatment serum BChE levels as a prognostic biomarker in patients with cervical cancer treated with primary (chemotherapy-[chemo-])radiation therapy. Methods We retrospectively evaluated data of a consecutive series of patients with cervical cancer treated with primary (chemo-)radiation therapy between 1998 and 2015. Pretreatment serum BChE levels were correlated with clinico-pathological parameters and response to treatment. Uni- and multivariate survival analyses were performed to assess the association between decreased serum BChE levels and progression-free (PFS), cancer-specific (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Results A total of 356 patients were eligible for inclusion into the present study. The median (IQR) pretreatment serum BChE level was 6180 (4990–7710) IU/l. Lower serum BChE levels were associated with lower BMI (p < 0.001), advanced tumor stage (p = 0.04), poor treatment response (p = 0.002), the occurrence of disease recurrence (p = 0.003), and the risk of death (p < 0.001). In uni- and multivariate analyses, low pretreatment serum BChE levels were independently associated with shorter PFS (HR 1.8 [1.2–2.6]; p = 0.002), CSS (HR 2.2 [1.4–3.5], p < 0.001), and OS (HR 2.0 [1.4–2.9]; p < 0.001). Conclusions Low pretreatment serum BChE levels are associated with advanced tumor stage and poor response to treatment, and serve as an independent prognostic biomarker for shorter PFS, CSS, and OS in patients with cervical cancer treated with primary (chemo-)radiation therapy.
Collapse
|
10
|
Thamronganantasakul K, Supakalin N, Kietpeerakool C, Pattanittum P, Lumbiganon P. Extended-field radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 10:CD012301. [PMID: 30362204 PMCID: PMC6516992 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012301.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The para-aortic lymph nodes (located along the major vessels in the mid and upper abdomen) are a common place for disease recurrence after treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. The para-aortic area is not covered by standard pelvic radiotherapy fields and so treatment to the pelvis alone is inadequate for women at a high risk of occult cancer within para-aortic lymph nodes. Extended-field radiotherapy (RT) widens the pelvic RT field to include the para-aortic lymph node area. Extended-field RT may improve outcomes in women with locally advanced cervical cancer by treating occult disease in para-aortic nodes not identified at pretreatment imaging. However, RT treatment of the para-aortic area can cause severe adverse effects, so may increase harms.Studies of pelvic chemoradiotherapy (CRT) demonstrated improved survival rates compared to pelvic RT alone. CRT is now the standard of care in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. Studies comparing pelvic RT alone (without concurrent chemotherapy) with extended-field RT should therefore be viewed with caution, since they compare treatments against what is now substandard treatment (pelvic RT alone). This review should therefore be read with this in mind and comparisons with pelvic RT cannot be extrapolated to pelvic CRT. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of extended-field radiotherapy in women undergoing first-line treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to August week 4, 2018), and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2018, week 35). We checked registers of clinical trials, grey literature, conference reports, and citation lists of included studies to August 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and toxicity of extended-field RT for locally advanced cervical cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant RCTs, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, compared results, and made judgements on the quality and certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation with a third review author. MAIN RESULTS Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Three included studies compared extended-field RT versus pelvic RT, one included study compared extended-field RT with pelvic CRT, and one study compared extended-field CRT versus pelvic CRT.Extended-field radiotherapy versus pelvic radiotherapy aloneCompared to pelvic RT, extended-field RT probably reduces the risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.94; 1 study; 337 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and para-aortic lymph node recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.70; 2 studies; 477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although there may or may not have been improvement in the risk of disease progression (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 study; 337 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and severe adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; 2 studies; 776 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Extended-field radiotherapy versus pelvic chemoradiotherapyIn a comparison of extended-field RT versus pelvic CRT, women given pelvic CRT probably had a lower risk of death (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.64; 1 study; 389 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and disease progression (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.72; 1 study; 389 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants given extended-field RT may or may not have had a lower risk of para-aortic lymph node recurrence (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.99; 1 study; 389 participants; low-certainty evidence) and acute severe adverse events (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11; 1 study; 388 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in terms of late severe adverse events among the comparison groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.62; 1 study; 386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Extended-field chemoradiotherapy versus pelvic chemoradiotherapyVery low-certainty evidence obtained from one small study (74 participants) showed that, compared to pelvic CRT, extended-field CRT may or may not have reduced risk of death (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.96) and disease progression (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.87). There were no clear differences between the groups in the risks of para-aortic lymph node recurrence (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.54; very low-certainty evidence) and severe adverse events (acute: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.39; late: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.59; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Moderate-certainty evidence shows that, compared with pelvic RT alone, extended-field RT probably improves overall survival and reduces risk of para-aortic lymph node recurrence. However, pelvic RT alone would now be considered substandard treatment, so this result cannot be extrapolated to modern standards of care. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that pelvic CRT may increase overall and progression-free survival compared to extended-field RT, although there may or may not be a higher rate of para-aortic recurrence and acute adverse events. Extended-field CRT versus pelvic CRT may improve overall or progression-free survival, but these findings should be interpreted with caution due to very low-certainty evidence.High-quality RCTs, comparing modern treatment techniques in CRT, are needed to more fully inform treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer without obvious para-aortic node involvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Komsan Thamronganantasakul
- Khon Kaen UniversityDepartment of RadiologyFaculty of MedicineMittraphap RoadMuangKhon KaenThailand40002
| | - Narudom Supakalin
- Khon Kaen UniversityDepartment of RadiologyFaculty of MedicineMittraphap RoadMuangKhon KaenThailand40002
| | - Chumnan Kietpeerakool
- Khon Kaen UniversityDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine123 Mitraparb RoadAmphur MuangKhon KaenThailand40002
| | - Porjai Pattanittum
- Khon Kaen UniversityDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Public Health FacultyMitraparp RoadMueng DistrictKhon KaenKhon KaenThailand40002
| | - Pisake Lumbiganon
- Khon Kaen UniversityDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine123 Mitraparb RoadAmphur MuangKhon KaenThailand40002
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Marnitz S, Schermeyer L, Dommerich S, Köhler C, Olze H, Budach V, Martus P. Age-corrected hearing loss after chemoradiation in cervical cancer patients. Strahlenther Onkol 2018; 194:1039-1048. [PMID: 30120496 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-018-1347-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2018] [Accepted: 07/31/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate subjective and objective hearing loss in cervical cancer patients after chemoradiation with cisplatin (mono). PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 51 cervical cancer patients with indication for chemoradiation were included. Pure tone and impedance audiometry were performed before and after chemoradiation. Hearing loss was scaled according to ASHA criteria. Subjective hearing was assessed with the Oldenburger Sentence Test. To consider age-dependent changes, hearing loss was corrected for age and the time interval between measurements. RESULTS Median age at diagnosis was 46 years, 46% were active/former smokers (n = 24), 28 (54%) patients were never-smokers. Median total weekly cisplatin dose was 70 ± 14.2 mg. Cumulative doses of cisplatin during chemoradiation ranged between 115.2 and 400 mg cisplatin (mean 336.1 mg, median 342 ± 52.7 mg). The median interval between last chemotherapy and second audiometry was 320 ± 538 days (35-2262 days). Changes in hearing threshold ≥20 dB were experienced by 32/52 patients (62%) following chemoradiation, 55% of them for frequencies ≥6000 Hz. No statistically significant hearing loss remained after chemoradiation upon correction for age and time interval. Patients >40 years had a higher risk of hearing loss than younger patients. Objective data on hearing function did not correlate with subjective hearing loss and did not impair daily activity in any patient. CONCLUSION Chemoradiation with cumulative cisplatin doses up to 400 mg did not lead to significant impairment of objective or subjective hearing. For cervical cancer patients undergoing chemoradiation, standard audiometry is not indicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Marnitz
- Medical Faculty, Department of Radiation Oncology, CyberKnife Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
| | - L Schermeyer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité University Clinic, Berlin, Germany
| | - S Dommerich
- Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Charité University Clinic, Berlin, Germany
| | - C Köhler
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Asklepios Clinic Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - H Olze
- Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Charité University Clinic, Berlin, Germany
| | - V Budach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité University Clinic, Berlin, Germany
| | - P Martus
- Institute of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biosta5s5cs, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Management of Para-aortic Lymph Node Disease in Patients With Cervical Cancer: What Is the Best Approach? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018; 27:543-549. [PMID: 28107261 DOI: 10.1097/igc.0000000000000914] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Cervical cancer remains a prevalent and deadly disease in low-income countries, especially among young and otherwise healthy women. Multimodality treatment has led to a significant improvement in outcomes for patients with locally advanced disease, and this is mainly because of the incorporation of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy in current treatment protocols. However, locally advanced tumors are associated with a greater risk for para-aortic lymph node (PALN) involvement, which is an important adverse prognostic factor. Most staging techniques have low accuracy for detection of disease in this area, which could lead to understaging and undertreatment. Meanwhile, patients with PALN disease are underrepresented in trials addressing the treatment of advanced cervical cancer and a few studies have been directed at this population. The aim of this review is to analyze the current data regarding staging and treatment of cervical cancer with PALN disease to determine which strategy is best when managing these patients.
Collapse
|
13
|
|
14
|
Li H, Wu X, Cheng X. Advances in diagnosis and treatment of metastatic cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 2016; 27:e43. [PMID: 27171673 PMCID: PMC4864519 DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2016.27.e43] [Citation(s) in RCA: 324] [Impact Index Per Article: 40.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2016] [Revised: 04/26/2016] [Accepted: 04/27/2016] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in women worldwide. The outcome of patients with metastatic cervical cancer is poor. We reviewed the relevant literature concerning the treatment and diagnosis of metastatic cervical cancer. There are two types of metastasis related to different treatments and survival rates: hematogenous metastasis and lymphatic metastasis. Patients with hematogenous metastasis have a higher risk of death than those with lymphatic metastasis. In terms of diagnosis, fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and PET-computed tomography are effective tools for the evaluation of distant metastasis. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy and subsequent chemotherapy are well-tolerated and efficient for lymphatic metastasis. As for lung metastasis, chemotherapy and/or surgery are valuable treatments for resistant, recurrent metastatic cervical cancer and chemoradiotherapy may be the optimal choice for stage IVB cervical cancer. Chemotherapy and bone irradiation are promising for bone metastasis. A better survival is achieved with multimodal therapy. Craniotomy or stereotactic radiosurgery is an optimal choice combined with radiotherapy for solitary brain metastases. Chemotherapy and palliative brain radiation may be considered for multiple brain metastases and other organ metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haoran Li
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaohua Wu
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Xi Cheng
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
| |
Collapse
|