Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with international federation of gynecology and obstetrics stages IB3 and IIA2 cervical cancer: a multicenter prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been widely used in developing countries for the treatment of patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages IB3 and IIA2 cervical cancer. However, the effectiveness of NACT and treatment options for NACT-insensitive patients have been concerning. This study will assess prognostic differences between NACT and primary surgery treatment (PST), determine factors associated with prognosis, and explore better adjuvant treatment modalities for NACT-insensitive patients.

METHODS

This study analyzed clinical characteristics, pathological characteristics, treatment options, and follow-up information of 774 patients with FIGO stages IB3 and IIA2 cervical cancer from 28 centers from January 2016 to October 2019 who participated in a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial.

RESULTS

For patients undergoing NACT, the 5-year OS and PFS rate was 85.8 and 80.5% respectively. They were similar in the PST group. There was no significant difference in OS and PFS between clinical response (CR)/partial response (PR) groups and stable disease (SD)/progressive disease (PD) groups. Apart from deep cervical invasion (p = 0.046) affecting OS for patients undergoing NACT, no other clinical and pathological factors were associated with OS. 97.8% of NACT-insensitive patients opted for surgery. If these patients did not have intermediate- or high-risk factors, whether they had undergone postoperative adjuvant therapy was irrelevant to their prognosis, whereas for patients with intermediate- or high-risk factors, adjuvant chemotherapy resulted in better PFS (chemotherapy vs. no therapy, p < 0.001; chemotherapy vs. radiotherapy, p = 0.019) and OS (chemotherapy vs. no therapy, p < 0.001; chemotherapy vs. radiotherapy, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

NACT could be a choice for patients with FIGO stages IB3 and IIA2 cervical cancer. The main risk factor influencing prognosis in the NACT group is deep cervical invasion. After systematic treatment, insensitivity to NACT does not indicate a poorer prognosis. For NACT-insensitive patients, Chinese prefer surgery. Postoperative adjuvant therapy in patients with no intermediate- or high-risk factors does not improve prognosis, and chemotherapy in patients with intermediate- and high-risk factors is more effective than radiation therapy and other treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03308591); date of registration: 12/10/2017.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in woman with early or locally advanced cervical cancer

Cervical cancer is a major global health problem for women. Despite the screening and vaccines available today, it continues to be the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide with 85% of cases occurring in developing countries. Standard treatments for early or locally advanced cervical cancer are surgery (S) or concomitant chemo-radiotherapy (CT-RT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) prior to surgery or radiotherapy has been proposed and tested in clinical trials and has been included in clinical practice in some countries.In order to determine the true role of NACT either prior to S or RT in terms of achieving benefits in OS or DFS, randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses published from its beginnings to the present have been searched and analyzed in this study.The analysis of published clinical trials shows that NACT followed by S and NACT followed by RT have failed to demonstrate benefits in OS or DFS. Clinical trials comparing NACT followed by S versus exclusive RT have also been analyzed, where NACT followed by S could not show benefits for RT either.

CONCLUSION

Adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy to S or RT cannot be recommended outside the context of clinical trials.

Phase III randomised controlled trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radical surgery vs radical surgery alone for stages IB2, IIA2, and IIB cervical cancer: a Japan Clinical Oncology Group trial (JCOG 0102)

Background:

A phase III trial was conducted to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) before radical surgery (RS) improves overall survival.

Methods:

Patients with stage IB2, IIA2, or IIB squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix were randomly assigned to receive either BOMP (bleomycin 7 mg days 1–5, vincristine 0.7 mg m⁻² day 5, mitomycin 7 mg m⁻² day 5, cisplatin 14 mg m⁻² days 1–5, every 3 weeks for 2 to 4 cycles) plus RS (NACT group) or RS alone (RS group). Patients with pathological high-risk factors received postoperative radiotherapy (RT). The primary end point was overall survival.

Results:

A total of 134 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. This study was prematurely terminated at the first planned interim analysis because overall survival in the NACT group was inferior to that in the RS group. Patients who received postoperative RT were significantly lower in the NACT group (58%) than in the RS group (80% P=0.015). The 5-year overall survival was 70.0% in the NACT group and 74.4% in the RS group (P=0.85).

Conclusion:

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with BOMP regimen before RS did not improve overall survival, but reduced the number of patients who received postoperative RT.

Clinical efficacy of paclitaxel/cisplatin as an adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of paclitaxel/cisplatin (TP) as an adjuvant chemotherapy to adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after radical hysterectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy for patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

A total of 125 patients with early-stage cervical cancer, who underwent radical hysterectomy, and received adjuvant therapy due to recurrent risk factors were retrospectively analyzed. Forty-nine patients were treated with RT, and 32 received paclitaxel/cisplatin (TP) for three to six cycles at 4-week interval. Survival and postoperative complications were compared between two modalities.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference of 3-year disease-free survival between two groups (P = 0.23), while significantly better 3-year overall survival in TP group than RT group (P = 0.02). Seven of 32 patients (21.9%) treated with adjuvant TP, 16 of 49 patients (32.7%) treated with RT showed disease recurrence. Median of survival time after recurrence in RT group and TP group was 8.5 months, 12.0 months, respectively. Postoperative bowel obstruction was significantly more frequent in the RT group compared to the TP group (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative chemotherapy using TP might be more beneficial for survival than adjuvant RT and can reduce postoperative complications for cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

A prior systematic review found that giving neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improved survival compared with radiotherapy. However, the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with early or locally advanced cervical cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (to March 2009), LILACS (to March 2009), Physician's Data Query (PDQ) (to March 2009). Both published and unpublished trials were sought and systematic searches of a number of trial sources were undertaken with no restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery in women with early or locally advanced cervical cancer who had not undergone any prior treatment likely to interfere with the treatment comparison. Trials giving radical radiotherapy for inoperable tumours and/or post-operative radiotherapy were also eligible. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), local and distant recurrence, rates of resection and surgical morbidity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from trial reports and independently checked by two review authors. Depending on the type of outcome, trial hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) were obtained or estimated from trial reports or sought from trial investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (1072 women) were identified for inclusion in the review. Although data on PFS was available for all six trials (1036 women), data on overall survival, resection rates and pathological response were only available for five trials (909 to 938 women) and data on recurrence were only available for three trials (604 women). Whilst PFS was significantly improved with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.94, p = 0.01), no OS benefit was observed (HR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.07, p = 0.17). Furthermore, estimates for both local (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.49 to 1.17, p = 0.21) and distant (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.41 to 1.13, p = 0.13) recurrence and rates of resection (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.96 to 2.50, p = 0.07) only tended to be in favour of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and heterogeneity was observed. Exploratory analyses of pathological response showed a significant decrease in adverse pathological findings with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.73, p = < 0.0001 for lymph node status; OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.82, p = 0.002 for parametrial infiltration) which despite a high level of heterogeneity was still significant when the random effects model was used. There was also no difference in the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to total cisplatin dose, chemotherapy cycle length or by cervical cancer stage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite outcomes tending to be in favour of neoadjuvant chemotherapy few, including overall survival, were significant. Therefore, it remains unclear whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy consistently offers a benefit over surgery alone for women with early-stage or locally advanced cervical cancer.

Treatment of (“bulky”) stage IB cervical cancer with or without neoadjuvant vincristine and cisplatin prior to radical hysterectomy and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy: A phase III trial of the gynecologic oncology group

OBJECTIVE

A randomized phase III trial was conducted to determine if neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) prior to radical hysterectomy and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RHPPL) could improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), as well as operability, with acceptable levels of toxicity. Adjuvant radiation therapy was prescribed for specific surgical/pathological risk factors for both regimens.

METHODS

Eligible patients were required to have bulky FIGO Stage IB cervical cancer, tumor diameter > or =4 cm, adequate bone marrow, renal and hepatic function, and performance status < or =2. Prospective random allocation was to either NACT (vincristine-cisplatin chemotherapy every 10 days for 3 cycles) before exploratory laparotomy and planned RHPPL (NACT+RHPPL), or RHPPL only.

RESULTS

The study was closed prematurely, because of slow accrual, after 291 patients were enrolled, three were ineligible; thus 288 were eligible and randomly allocated to RHPPL (N=143) or NACT+RHPPL (N=145). There were no notable differences between regimens with regard to patient age, race, performance status, or tumor size. The median follow-up time is 62 months among living patients. The NACT+RHPPL group had very similar recurrence rates (relative risk: 0.998) and death rates (relative risk: 1.008) when compared to the RHPPL group. There were 79% that had surgery in the RHPPL group compared to 78% in the NACT RHPPL group. There were 52% who received post op RT in the RHPPL group compared to 45% in the NACT+RHPPL group (not statistically significant).

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence from this trial that NACT offered any additional objective benefit to patients undergoing RHPPL for suboptimal Stage IB cervical cancer.