Phase I-II study of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery in locally advanced cervical cancer

Hysterectomy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy or both for women with locally advanced cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2015. Cervical cancer is one of the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Many new cervical cancer cases in low-income countries present at an advanced stage. Standard care in Europe and the US for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is chemoradiotherapy. In low-income countries, with limited access to radiotherapy, LACC may be treated with chemotherapy and hysterectomy. It is not certain if this improves survival. It is important to assess the value of hysterectomy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, as an alternative.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether hysterectomy, in addition to standard treatment with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, in women with LACC (Stage IB2 to III) is safe and effective compared with standard treatment alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, LILACS, trial registries and the grey literature up to 3 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatments involving hysterectomy versus radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, in women with LACC International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stages IB2 to III.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) or disease-free (DFS) survival in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Adverse events (AEs) were incompletely reported and we described the results of single trials in narrative form. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

From the searches we identified 968 studies. After deduplication, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment, we included 11 RCTs (2683 women) of varying methodological quality. This update identified four new RCTs and three ongoing RCTs. The included studies compared: hysterectomy (simple or radical) with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus radiotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) alone or CCRT and brachytherapy. There is also one ongoing study comparing three groups: hysterectomy with CCRT versus hysterectomy with NACT versus CCRT. There were two comparison groups for which we were able to do a meta-analysis. Hysterectomy (radical) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone Two RCTs with similar design characteristics (620 and 633 participants) found no difference in five-year OS between NACT with hysterectomy versus CCRT. Meta-analysis assessing 1253 participants found no evidence of a difference in risk of death (OS) between women who received NACT plus hysterectomy and those who received CCRT alone (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16; moderate-certainty evidence). In both studies, the five-year DFS in the NACT plus surgery group was worse (57%) compared with the CCRT group (65.6%), mostly for Stage IIB. Results of single trials reported no apparent difference in long-term severe complications, grade 3 acute toxicity and severe late toxicity between groups (very low-quality evidence). Hysterectomy (simple or radical) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus radiotherapy alone Meta-analysis of three trials of NACT with hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone, assessing 571 participants, found that women who received NACT plus hysterectomy had less risk of death (OS) than those who received radiotherapy alone (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, a significant number of participants who received NACT plus hysterectomy also had radiotherapy. There was no difference in the proportion of women with disease progression or recurrence (DFS and PFS) between NACT plus hysterectomy and radiotherapy groups (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.05; I2 = 20%; moderate-quality evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low or very-low for all other comparisons for all outcomes. None of the trials reported quality of life outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the available RCTs, we found insufficient evidence that hysterectomy with radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, improves the survival of women with LACC who are treated with radiotherapy or CCRT alone. The overall certainty of the evidence was variable across the different outcomes and was universally downgraded due to concerns about risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence for NACT and radical hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone for survival outcomes was moderate. The same occurred for the comparison involving NACT and hysterectomy compared with CCRT alone. Evidence from other comparisons was generally sparse and of low or very low-certainty. This was mainly based on poor reporting and sparseness of data where results were based on single trials. More trials assessing medical management with and without hysterectomy may test the robustness of the findings of this review as further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Preoperative chemoradiation followed by hysterectomy for cervical cancer: patterns of care and survival in a large, hospital database

OBJECTIVE

Adjuvant hysterectomy following chemoradiation (CRT) is a treatment option used worldwide for early-stage cervical cancer but the benefit of hysterectomy in this setting is unclear. An analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was performed to identify patterns of care and determine the survival impact of adjuvant hysterectomy.

METHODS

The NCDB was queried for patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB2 to IIA2 cervical cancer diagnosed from 2010-2014 who underwent preoperative concurrent chemoradiation followed by hysterectomy (CRT+S) or definitive CRT. Overall survival (OS) curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via the log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression were used to determine covariables associated with utilization and OS.

RESULTS

There were 1,546 patients who met the study criteria, of which 1,407 (91.0%) received concurrent CRT alone and 139 (9.0%) received CRT+S. Four-year OS for the CRT+S group was 82.2% and 74.9% for the CRT group (p=0.036). On subgroup analysis by lymph node status, the 4-year OS for patients without positive pelvic or para-aortic lymph nodes was 84.9% in the CRT+S group vs. 77.8% in the CRT group (p=0.072). On multivariable Cox regression, there was no difference in survival based on treatment group (hazard ratio=0.63; 95% confidence interval=0.06-1.04; p=0.069).

CONCLUSION

We found from this hospital database that completion hysterectomy is used infrequently and did not result in a significant survival difference when accounting for other factors.

Hysterectomy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy or both for women with locally advanced cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is the second commonest cancer among women up to 65 years of age and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Sources suggest that a very high proportion of new cervical cancer cases in developing countries are at an advanced stage (IB2 or more) and more than a half of these may be stage III or IV. Cervical cancer staging is based on findings from clinical examination (FIGO) staging). Standard care in Europe and US for stage IB2 to III is non-surgical treatment (chemoradiation). However in developing countries, where there is limited access to radiotherapy, locally advanced cervical cancer may be treated with a combination of chemotherapy and hysterectomy (surgery to remove the womb and the neck of the womb, with or without the surrounding tissues). It is not certain if this improves survival. Therefore, it is important to systematically assess the value of hysterectomy in addition to radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, as an alternative intervention in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer (stage IB2 to III).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether hysterectomy, in addition to standard treatment with radiation or chemotherapy, or both, in women with locally advanced cervical cancer (stage IB2 to III) is safe and effective compared with standard treatment alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to February 2014. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment protocols involving hysterectomy versus radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, in women with advanced stage (IB2 to III) cervical cancer presenting for the first time.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed study eligibility independently, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, overall and progression or disease-free survival outcomes were synthesised in a meta-analysis using the random-effects model. Adverse events were incompletely reported so results of single trials were described in narrative form.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs (1217 women) of varying methodological quality in the review; most trials were at moderate or high risk of bias.Three were multi-centre trials, two were single-centre trials, and in two trials it was unclear if they were single or multi-centre. These trials compared the following interventions for women with locally advanced cervical cancer (stages IB2 to III):hysterectomy (simple or radical) with radiotherapy (N = 194) versus radiotherapy alone (N = 180); hysterectomy (simple or radical) with chemoradiotherapy (N = 31) versus chemoradiotherapy alone (N = 30); hysterectomy (radical) with chemoradiotherapy (N = 111) versus internal radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy (N = 100); hysterectomy (simple or radical) with upfront (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy (N = 298) versus radiotherapy alone (N = 273).One trial (N = 256) found no difference in the risk of death or disease progression between women who received attenuated radiotherapy followed by hysterectomy and those who received radiotherapy (external and internal) alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.29). This trial also reported no difference between the two groups in terms of adverse effects (18/129 grade 3 or 4 adverse effects in the hysterectomy and radiation group and 19 cases in 18/121 women in the radiotherapy alone group). There was no difference in 5-year tumour-free actuarial survival (representation of the probable years of survivorship of a defined population of participants) or severe complications (grade 3) in another trial (N = 118) which reported the same comparison (6/62 versus 6/56 in the radiation with surgery group versus the radiotherapy alone group, respectively). The quality of the evidence was low for all these outcomes.One trial (N = 61) reported no difference (P value > 0.10) in overall and recurrence-free survival at 3 years between chemoradiotherapy and hysterectomy versus chemoradiotherapy alone (low quality evidence). Adverse events and morbidity data were not reported.Similarly, another trial (N = 211) found no difference in the risk of death (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.21, P value = 0.19, low quality evidence), disease progression (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34, P value = 0.24, low quality evidence) or severe late complications (P value = 0.53, low quality evidence) between women who received internal radiotherapy versus hysterectomy after both groups had received external-beam chemoradiotherapy.Meta analysis of three trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone, assessing 571 participants, found that women who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus hysterectomy had less risk of death than those who received radiotherapy alone (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). However, a significant number of the participants that received neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus hysterectomy had radiotherapy as well. There was no difference in the proportion of women with disease progression or recurrence between the two groups (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.05, I(2) = 20%, moderate quality evidence).Results of single trials reported no apparent (P value > 0.05) difference in long-term severe complications, grade 3 acute toxicity and severe late toxicity between the two groups (low quality evidence).Quality of life outcomes were not reported in any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the available RCTs, we found insufficient evidence that hysterectomy with radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, improves the survival of women with locally advanced cervical cancer who are treated with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy alone. The overall quality of the evidence was variable across the different outcomes and was universally downgraded due to concerns about risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone for survival outcomes was moderate, with evidence from other comparisons of low quality. This was mainly based on poor reporting and sparseness of data where results were based on single trials. More trials that assess medical management with and without hysterectomy may test the robustness of the findings of this review as further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Neoadjuvant high-dose intraarterial infusion chemotherapy under percutaneous pelvic perfusion with extracorporeal chemofiltration in patients with stages IIIa–IVa cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the response rate and survival of patients with locally advanced uterine cervical cancer who were treated with intraarterial infusion chemotherapy under percutaneous pelvic perfusion with extracorporeal chemofiltration (PPPEC).

METHODS

Twenty-three untreated patients with stages IIIa-IVa cervical cancer were enrolled in the study. PPPEC was administered twice at 2 weeks interval using high-dose cisplatin alone (140-250 mg/m(2)) or high-dose cisplatin plus mitomycin C (7 mg/m(2)), pepleomycin (7 mg/m(2)) and 5-fluorouracil (700 mg/m(2)). Eighteen patients in whom the tumor downstaging was confirmed underwent radical surgery following PPPEC, whereas in the remaining five patients, radiotherapy was administered.

RESULTS

Two weeks after the second PPPEC, the median volumetric tumor reduction and tumor response were 76% and 87%, respectively. Histologic response was 96%, while the tumor downstaging reached 83%. The curative surgery rate achieved was 89%. Five-year progression-free survival was 47% and 5-year survival rate was 74%.

CONCLUSION

High-dose intraarterial infusion chemotherapy under PPPEC effectively achieved tumor downstaging and resulted in the favorable performance of the subsequent radical surgery and improved the 5-year survival rate of patients with locally advanced uterine cervical cancer.