Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2019; 40(03): 353-357
DOI: 10.4103/ijmpo.ijmpo_14_18
Original Article

A Prospective Randomized Comparison of Concurrent Chemoradiation with Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Chemotherapy with Concurrent Chemoradiation Alone for Locally Advanced Carcinoma Cervix

Rahul Singh
Department of Clinical Oncology, Delhi State Cancer Institute, New Delhi, India
,
M LB Bhatt
Department of Radiation Oncology, KGMU, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Rajendra Kumar
Department of Radiation Oncology, KGMU, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Kirti Srivastava
Department of Radiation Oncology, KGMU, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
R K Grover
Department of Clinical Oncology, Delhi State Cancer Institute, New Delhi, India
,
Pragya Shukla
Department of Clinical Oncology, Delhi State Cancer Institute, New Delhi, India
,
Vijay P Raturi
Department of Radiation Oncology, KGMU, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Roopali,
Jalaj Gaur
Department of Radiation Oncology, KGMU, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Mandira Saha
Department of Radiation Oncology, KGMU, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Dewesh Kishan
Department of Clinical Oncology, Delhi State Cancer Institute, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare concurrent chemoradiation along with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiation alone in locally advanced cervical cancer regarding treatment response and toxicities. Subjects and Methods: A randomized control study was done on 116 patients with locally advanced carcinoma cervix (Stage IIB to IIIB) registered between January 2014 and February 2015. Patients were randomly divided to receive either one cycle of cisplatin/5-fluorouracil neoadjuvant chemotherapy and two cycles of the same adjuvant chemotherapy with concurrent chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin (Arm A) or only concurrent chemoradiation (Arm B). All patients received three fractions of high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy after completion of the external radiation. Results: A higher proportion of the patients of chemotherapy arm achieved complete response (94%) as compared to the nonchemotherapy arm (56%), and this was statistically significant. There was a trend toward more treatment-related acute toxicity with chemotherapy. Conclusions: These results have corroborated the view that if neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapies are added to concurrent chemoradiation, it could further the effects of concurrent chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced cancer of the uterine cervix.

Keywords

Acute toxicity - adjuvant chemotherapy - complete response - concurrent chemoradiation - locally advanced cervical cancer - neoadjuvant chemotherapy


Publication History

Received: 15 January 2018

Accepted: 21 June 2018

Article published online:
03 June 2021

© 2019. Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-Analysis Collaboration. Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5802-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wong LC, Ngan HY, Cheung AN, Cheng DK, Ng TY, Choy DT. Chemoradiation and adjuvant chemotherapy in cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 2055-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vrdoljak E, Prskalo T, Omrcen T, Situm K, Boraska T, Frleta Ilić N. et al. Concomitant chemobrachyradiotherapy with ifosfamide and cisplatin followed by consolidation chemotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: Results of a phase II study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61: 824-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Choi CH, Kim TJ, Lee SJ, Lee JW, Kim BG, Lee JH. et al. Salvage chemotherapy with a combination of paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin for the patients with recurrent carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006; 16: 1157-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Reagan JW, Fu YS. Histologic types and prognosis of cancers of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1979; 5: 1015-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Crissman JD, Budhraja M, Aron BS, Cummings G. Histopathologic prognostic factors in stage II and III squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. An evaluation of 91 patients treated primarily with radiation therapy. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1987; 6: 97-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Peters 3rd WA, Liu PY, Barrett 2nd RJ, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS. et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1606-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lanciano RM, Won M, Coia LR, Hanks GE. Pretreatment and treatment factors associated with improved outcome in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: A final report of the 1973 and 1978 patterns of care studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 20: 667-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Coia L, Won M, Lanciano R, Marcial VA, Martz K, Hanks G. The patterns of care outcome study for cancer of the uterine cervix. Results of the second national practice survey. Cancer 1990; 66: 2451-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Horiot JC, Pigneux J, Pourquier H, Schraub S, Achille E, Keiling R. et al. Radiotherapy alone in carcinoma of the intact uterine cervix according to G. H. Fletcher guidelines: A French cooperative study of 1383 cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1988; 14: 605-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar