Clinical results of external beam radiotherapy alone with a concomitant boost program or with conventional fractionation for cervical cancer patients who did not receive intracavitary brachytherapy

Matsuura, K.; Okabe, Takao; Fujita, K.; Tanimoto, Hirotoshi; Akagi, Yukio; Kagemoto, Masayuki

doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.04.163

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Retrospective reports regarding patients with cervical cancer who did not undergo brachytherapy and received only external-beam RT are summarized in Table V (24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29). The one-and two-year OS was 74-100 and 43-64%, which was comparable to the present study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…The one-and two-year OS was 74-100 and 43-64%, which was comparable to the present study. Regarding late toxicity, studies including total dose >70 Gy (24,25) or accelerated hyperfractionation (26), the number of patients with Grade 2 or worse late toxicity was 10-23.7%. On the other hand, studies with conventional fractionation where the dose did not exceed 70 Gy, late toxicity was 0.7-9.1%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Radiosensitization using hydrogen peroxide in patients with cervical cancer

Saito

Mitsuhashi

et al. 2021

Mol Clin Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study was to analyze the feasibility and safety of radiosensitization using hydrogen peroxide for cervical cancer. In superficial tumors, breast cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma, the safety and effectiveness of radiosensitization has been reported; to the best of our knowledge, however, there are no reports on cervical cancer. A total of 20 patients with cervical cancer were recruited. Inclusion criteria were as follows: Patients who required radical external beam radiotherapy (RT); ineligible for or refused brachytherapy; age, ≥20 years; no hematogenous metastasis; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status up to 2; and had not undergone prior treatment. Hydrogen peroxide was used twice a week in combination with RT. A 3% hydrogen peroxide solution-soaked gauze was inserted into the vagina during RT. A total of 45 Gy was delivered in 25 fractions to the whole pelvis with a boost of 10 Gy in 5 fractions if pelvic or para-aortic metastatic lymph nodes were observed. Ultimately, 18 patients were evaluated. Among the 17 patients (excluding one patient with tumor in situ), the oneand two-year overall survival rates were both 90% in patients with stage I/II and 86% in stage III/IV cervical cancer. The adverse events were well tolerated with no severe acute or late adverse events. Although limited by small sample size, short observation time and low radiation dose, the present study demonstrated that radiosensitization treatment may be an option for patients who cannot undergo brachytherapy. The study was retrospectively registered at the university hospital medical information network center (no. UMIN000039045) on January 6, 2020.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiosensitization using hydrogen peroxide in patients with cervical cancer

Saito

Mitsuhashi

et al. 2021

Mol Clin Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Except for 1 study reporting a 5-year local tumor control rate of 21.9%, 13 most of the studies showed that approximately 60% to 100% of patients achieved local tumor control after curative whole pelvic radiotherapy and EBRT-B. 3,8,9,12,15 Likewise, we noted in our study that the 5-year local tumor control rate was 70.0%, and the rate of late grade 3 or higher toxicity was 2.6% after curative radiotherapy using FIGURE 1. A, Comparison of EQD2 10 total between patients treated with 3D-CRT versus IMRT.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Tumor Boost Using External Beam Radiation in Cervical Cancer Patients Unable to Receive Intracavitary Brachytherapy

Kim

Joo

et al. 2018

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21,22 Published reports of EBRT boosts show that the mean total dose is lower than that delivered with EBRT and BT, and although some authors quote adequate local control rates, the cohorts were small and follow-up was relatively short. 23,24 Other retrospective analyses have shown a detriment to disease-specific survival when EBRT alone is used for patients with advanced disease, 13 many recommend against the use of an EBRT boost in place of BT, 25 and authors of a study using EBRT in place of BT have cautioned against the use of an EBRT boost. 26 The American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines published in 2012 specifically recommend against the use of IMRT for patients with locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix, 21 and a recent NCCN publication states that an IMRT boost should not be used in place of BT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%