Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Apr 1;67(5):1438-44.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.005.

Clinical outcome in posthysterectomy cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent Cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy: comparison with conventional radiotherapy

Affiliations

Clinical outcome in posthysterectomy cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent Cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy: comparison with conventional radiotherapy

Miao-Fen Chen et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. .

Abstract

Purpose: To assess local control and acute and chronic toxicity with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as adjuvant treatment of cervical cancer.

Methods and materials: Between April 2002 and February 2006, 68 patients at high risk of cervical cancer after hysterectomy were treated with adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy and concurrent chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy consisted of cisplatin (50 mg/m(2)) for six cycles every week. Thirty-three patients received adjuvant radiotherapy by IMRT. Before the IMRT series was initiated, 35 other patients underwent conventional four-field radiotherapy (Box-RT). The two groups did not differ significantly in respect of clinicopathologic and treatment factors.

Results: IMRT provided compatible local tumor control compared with Box-RT. The actuarial 1-year locoregional control for patients in the IMRT and Box-RT groups was 93% and 94%, respectively. IMRT was well tolerated, with significant reduction in acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities compared with the Box-RT group (GI 36 vs. 80%, p = 0.00012; GU 30 vs. 60%, p = 0.022). Furthermore, the IMRT group had lower rates of chronic GI and GU toxicities than the Box-RT patients (GI 6 vs. 34%, p = 0.002; GU 9 vs. 23%, p = 0.231).

Conclusion: Our results suggest that IMRT significantly improved the tolerance to adjuvant chemoradiotherapy with compatible locoregional control compared with conventional Box-RT. However, longer follow-up and more patients are needed to confirm the benefits of IMRT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types