A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Radiation Sequence in Women With Stage IIIC Endometrial Cancer

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate the effect of sequence and type of adjuvant therapy for patients with stage IIIC endometrial carcinoma (EC) on outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study, patients with stage IIIC EC who had surgical staging and received both adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy (RT) were included. Adjuvant treatment regimens were classified as adjuvant chemotherapy followed by sequential RT (upfront chemo), which was predominant sequence; RT with concurrent chemotherapy followed by chemotherapy (concurrent); systemic chemotherapy before and after RT (sandwich); adjuvant RT followed by chemotherapy (upfront RT); or chemotherapy concurrent with vaginal cuff brachytherapy alone (chemo-brachy). Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 686 eligible patients were included with a median follow-up of 45.3 months. The estimated 5-year OS and RFS rates were 74% and 66%, respectively. The sequence and type of adjuvant therapy were not correlated with OS or RFS (adjusted P = .68 and .84, respectively). On multivariate analysis, black race, nonendometrioid histology, grade 3 tumor, stage IIIC2, and presence of adnexal and cervical involvement were associated with worse OS and RFS (all P \u3c .05). Regardless of the sequence of treatment, the most common site of first recurrence was distant metastasis (20.1%). Vaginal only, pelvic only, and paraortic lymph node (PALN) recurrences occurred in 11 (1.6%),15 (2.2 %), and 43 (6.3 %) patients, respectively. Brachytherapy alone was associated with a higher rate of PALN recurrence (15%) compared with external beam radiation therapy (5%) P \u3c .0001. CONCLUSIONS: The sequence and type of combined adjuvant therapy did not affect OS or RFS rates. Brachytherapy alone was associated with a higher rate of PALN recurrence, emphasizing the role of nodal radiation for stage IIIC EC. The vast proportion of recurrences were distant despite systemic chemotherapy, highlighting the need for novel regimens

Reconstructive complications and early toxicity in breast cancer patients treated with proton-based postmastectomy radiation therapy

BackgroundPostmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) decreases the risk of locoregional recurrence and increases overall survival rates in patients with high-risk node positive breast cancer. While the number of breast cancer patients treated with proton-based PMRT has increased in recent years, there is limited data on the use of proton therapy in the postmastectomy with reconstruction setting. In this study, we compared acute toxicities and reconstructive complications in patients treated with proton-based and photon-based PMRT.MethodsA retrospective review of our institutional database was performed to identify breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy with implant or autologous reconstruction followed by PMRT from 2015 to 2020. Baseline clinical, disease, and treatment related factors were compared between the photon-based and proton-based PMRT groups. Early toxicity outcomes and reconstructive complications following PMRT were graded by the treating physician.ResultsA total of 11 patients treated with proton-based PMRT and 26 patients treated with photon-based PMRT were included with a median follow-up of 7.4 months (range, 0.7-33 months). Six patients (55%) in the proton group had a history of breast cancer (3 ipsilateral and 3 contralateral) and received previous RT 38 months ago (median, range 7-85). There was no significant difference in mean PMRT (p = 0.064) and boost dose (p = 0.608) between the two groups. Grade 2 skin toxicity was the most common acute toxicity in both groups (55% and 73% in the proton and photon group, respectively) (p = 0.077). Three patients (27%) in the proton group developed grade 3 skin toxicity. No Grade 4 acute toxicity was reported in either group. Reconstructive complications occurred in 4 patients (36%) in the proton group and 8 patients (31%) in photon group (p = 0.946).ConclusionsAcute skin toxicity remains the most frequent adverse event in both proton- and photon-based PMRT. In our study, reconstructive complications were not significantly higher in patients treated with proton- versus photon-based PMRT. Longer follow-up is warranted to assess late toxicities

Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy for Cervical Cancer and Effect of Timing and Duration on Treatment Outcome

PURPOSE: Worse treatment outcomes can be expected with prolongation of the overall treatment time (OTT) during definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for cervical cancer. In the adjuvant setting, data on the relative importance of the OTT and the importance of RT and chemotherapy synchronization are scarce. Using the National Cancer Database, we evaluated the effect of these treatment variables on overall survival in the adjuvant CRT setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The present analysis included nonmetastatic cervical cancer patients undergoing hysterectomy followed by adjuvant CRT. The proportional hazard model was used to estimate the effect of prognostic factors (age, comorbidity, race, tumor size, tumor grade, tumor histologic type, number of high-risk pathologic factors) and time-related variables (surgery to RT start interval [SR], OTT [RT start to end dates], package time [from diagnosis date to CRT end date] and optimum CRT synchronization [whether chemotherapy and RT start dates coincided]) on survival. RESULTS: Of 3051 patients, 60% finished RT within 7 weeks and 85% received optimum CRT. Among other factors, univariate analysis identified longer OTT (hazards ratio [HR] 1.33; P7 weeks remained a significant factor even after propensity score matching (P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our analysis suggest that prolongation of the adjuvant CRT duration \u3e7 weeks is associated with poor survival and SR offeasible

Can chemotherapy boost the survival benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy in early stage cervical cancer with intermediate risk factors? A population based study

PURPOSE: The Gynecologic Oncology group (GOG) 0263 trial is currently exploring whether adding chemotherapy to adjuvant radiotherapy improves recurrence-free and/or overall survival in stage IB-IIA cervical cancer patients with pathologic intermediate-risk factors. Using the National Cancer Data Base, we evaluated the benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy over adjuvant radiotherapy alone in the community practice setting. MATERIALS: The analysis included 869 stage IB-IIA cervical cancer patients who underwent radical hysterectomy retrieving intermediate-risk factors justifying adjuvant therapy. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant radiotherapy were delivered in 440 and 429 patients, respectively. Chi-square test assessed the distribution of variables in each group and the overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Proportional hazard models were performed to evaluate the impact of the different prognostic factors on survival and propensity score analysis adjusted variables imbalanced distribution. RESULTS: Adding chemotherapy to ART did not show a survival benefit at 48months median follow-up; the 5-year overall survival was 87% and 81% (p=0.6) in the adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant radiotherapy groups, respectively. On univariate analysis, age older than 60, a higher comorbidity score, and stage IIA were significantly associated with worse survival, while none of the other covariates were significant prognosticator on multivariate analysis. The same findings held after propensity score analysis. CONCLUSION: Our analysis could not detect a significant survival benefit for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy over adjuvant radiotherapy in women with intermediate-risk factors. Until GOG 0263 results become available, the benefits of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy should be considered on an individual basis within a multidisciplinary approach

Revisiting Milan cervical cancer study: Do the original findings hold in the era of chemotherapy?

BACKGROUND: The primary treatment of early stage cervical carcinoma (IB-IIA) is either surgery or radiation therapy based on the pivotal Milan randomized study published twenty years ago. In the presence of high-risk features, the gold standard treatment is concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT) whether it is the in the postoperative or the definitive setting. Using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), the goal of our study is to compare the outcomes of surgery and radiation therapy in the chemotherapy era. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2013, 5478 patients diagnosed with early stage cervical cancer were divided into 2 groups based on their primary treatment: non-surgical (n=1980) and surgical groups (n=3498). The distribution of patient/tumor characteristics and treatment variables with their relation to overall survival and proportional regression models were assessed to investigate the superiority of one approach over the other. Propensity score analysis adjusted for imbalance of covariates to create a well-matched-patient cohort. FINDINGS: At 46months median follow-up, the 5-year overall survival was similar between both groups (73·8% vs. 75.7%; p=0.619) after applying propensity score analysis. On multivariate analysis, high Charlson comorbidity score, stage IIA disease, larger tumor size, positive lymph nodes and high-grade disease were significant predictors of poor outcome while older age and treatment approach were not. INTERPRETATION: Our analysis suggests that surgery (followed by adjuvant RT or CRT) and definitive radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) result in equivalent survival. Prospective studies are warranted to establish this paradigm in the chemotherapy era

Radiation Therapy for Endometrial Cancer: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE: With the results of several recently published clinical trials, this guideline informs on the use of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) and systemic therapy in the treatment of endometrial cancer. Updated evidence-based recommendations provide indications for adjuvant RT and the associated techniques, the utilization and sequencing of adjuvant systemic therapies, as well as the impact of surgical staging techniques and molecular tumor profiling. METHODS: The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) convened a multidisciplinary task force to address 6 key questions that focused on the adjuvant management of patients with endometrial cancer. The key questions emphasized the 1) indications for adjuvant RT, 2) RT techniques, target volumes, dose-fractionation, and treatment planning aims, 3) indications for systemic therapy, 4) sequencing of systemic therapy with RT, 5) impact of lymph node assessment on utilization of adjuvant therapy, and 6) impact of molecular tumor profiling on utilization of adjuvant therapy. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using consensus-building and ASTRO\u27s Guideline Methodology for quality of evidence grading and strength of recommendation. RESULTS: The task force recommends RT (either vaginal brachytherapy or external beam radiation therapy [EBRT]) be given based on the patient\u27s clinical-pathologic risk factors to reduce risk of vaginal and/or pelvic recurrence. When EBRT is delivered, intensity modulated radiation therapy with daily image guided radiation therapy is recommended to reduce acute and late toxicity. Chemotherapy is recommended for patients with FIGO stage I-II with high-risk histologies and those with FIGO stage III-IVA with any histology. When sequencing chemotherapy and RT, there is limited data and no prospective data to support an optimal sequence. Sentinel lymph node mapping is recommended over pelvic lymphadenectomy for surgical nodal staging, and use of adjuvant therapy should be based on the pathologic ultrastaging status with isolated tumor cells treated as node negative and micrometastasis treated as node positive. The available data on molecular characterization of endometrial cancer is compelling and should be increasingly considered when making recommendations for adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations guide evidence-based best clinical practices on the use of adjuvant therapy for endometrial cancer