Adjuvant External Radiation Impacts Outcome of Pelvis-limited Stage III Endometrial Carcinoma: A Multi-institutional Study

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in stage III endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the impact of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on the survival of patients with stage III endometrial cancer (EC) compared with chemotherapy (CT) alone.

METHODS

Articles involving adjuvant CRT versus CT on survival in stage III EC were retrieved from PubMed and EMBASE. Hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were collected and pooled, and publication bias was measured by Begg's and Egger's test. Quality of researches was measured by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the modified Jadad scale.

RESULTS

Eleven were included in the statistical analysis. A significant advantage of CRT over CT on OS was shown (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49-0.70). Further subgroup analysis suggested the advantage was mostly associated with stage IIIC (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52, 0.76]). A similar result favoring CRT was also reached on RFS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.93). No significant publication bias was observed.

CONCLUSION

CRT was associated with a better OS and RFS than CT alone in stage III EC patients.

Evolution of adjuvant treatment in endometrial cancer-no evidence and new questions?

PURPOSE

For endometrial cancer (EC), clinical and pathological risk factors are taken to triage patients and estimate their prognosis. Lymph node involvement (pN+), lymphovascular space involvement (LSVI), grading, age of the patients, and T classification are internationally accepted parameters for treatment decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies on adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, and chemoradiation are discussed against the background of risk stratification and clinical decision-making in early-to-advanced stage endometrial cancer. Recent publications on adjuvant treatment in high-risk disease and its implications for the patients with regard to expected oncologic benefit and treatment-related toxicity are discussed.

RESULTS

Surgery is the mainstay of treatment of EC patients. Well-differentiated tumors and early disease (FIGO IA) should be followed up without further treatment. In FIGO I stage without risk factors, VBT remains the standard treatment after surgery. FIGO I, II patients with one or more risk factors (MI ≥ 50%, Grading[G]3, age >60 years, LVSI) benefit from external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in terms of survival. There are no data of acceptable quality demonstrating that chemotherapy is superior to radiation in locally advanced carcinomas. Therefore, even in locally advanced disease (FIGO III, IV), EBRT remains the standard of care after surgery. EBRT contributes to the very low rate of local relapses and better DFS in these patients and should not be replaced by chemotherapy only. Whether and which subgroups of patients benefit from an additional (concomitant and/or adjuvant) chemotherapy in terms of disease-free survival remains a controversial issue. The recently published PORTEC-3 trial could not create clear evidence. With a high rate of isolated tumors cells and micrometastases in the specimens, the increasing use of unvalidated sentinel concepts in endometrial cancer raises more questions with regard to indications for adjuvant treatment. In the future, integrated genomic characterization of tumors might be helpful for treatment individualization in the adjuvant setting.

Value of combined adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation on survival for stage III uterine cancer: is less radiation equal to more?

Objective

Locally advanced endometrioid adenocarcinoma (LA-EAC) accounts for the majority of deaths for this cancer, yet there is no consensus on adjuvant treatment after surgery. Past studies suggest that combined modality treatment (CMT) may improve outcomes over treatment with chemotherapy (CT) or radiation therapy (RT, either external beam radiotherapy [EBRT] or vaginal brachytherapy [VBT]) alone. Using a large US-based population-based registry, we evaluated adjuvant CMT in LA-EAC and the relative benefit of regional EBRT compared to focused VBT.

Methods

We studied patients diagnosed with Stage III LA-EAC between 2004 and 2013 from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). We used Cox regression and a log-rank test to assess survival based on treatment with CT alone, EBRT alone, VBT alone, or CMT with EBRT and/or VBT. We used a χ² test to compare covariates between patients receiving CMT with EBRT or VBT.

Results

Patients who received CMT had better survival than those who received CT or EBRT/VBT alone. Compared to CMT with VBT, patients who received CMT with EBRT were slightly older and had more advanced-stage or positive nodes, and fewer had lymph node surgery. We found no survival difference between CMT with EBRT and CMT with VBT even when categorizing patients as high or low risk according to age, grade, and stage (low-risk p=0.3460; high-risk p=0.2158).

Conclusion

CMT was associated with superior survival outcomes compared to monotherapy. We observed no survival difference between radiation modalities in CMT, which highlights the effectiveness of a more focused treatment like brachytherapy.