Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Interdigitated Brachytherapy versus Standard Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer

Abstract

Aims and Objective

To compare the clinical outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interdigitated brachytherapy versus standard chemoradiation in locally advanced cervical cancer.

Materials and Methods

We enrolled 108 patients with histologically confirmed carcinoma of the cervix, at International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages IIB to IIIC1. They were then randomized into two groups. The study group received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel 175 mg/m² and carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]: 5) at every 3 weeks, followed by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) 45 Gy/20 fractions and concurrent cisplatin with interdigitated high dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDRICBT) 5 Gy/fraction weekly for a total of four fractions. Patients in the control group received EBRT 50 Gy/25 fractions and concurrent cisplatin with sequential HDRICBT 7 Gy/fraction weekly for a total of three fractions.

Results

At the end of the study, the results of both groups were compared in terms of response to therapy and acute toxicities. A total of 108 patients were enrolled (54 in each two arms). Ninety-three patients who completed treatment were included in the analysis. The median follow-up duration was 10 months (range: 6–18 months). Complete response was observed in 24 (53.3%) and 26 (55.3%) patients, and partial response was in 12 (26.6%) and 12 (25.5%) patients in the study and control groups, respectively. Most of the acute and late toxicities were of grades 1 and 2 and comparable in both groups.

Conclusion

In a busy department where resources are limited, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by EBRT with HDRICBT is an alternative option for current standard concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) as its tolerance and toxicity are at par with CCRT.

 

MissingLinkText

Keywords

carcinoma cervix - neoadjuvant chemotherapy - interdigitated brachytherapy

Jitendra Patel

Introduction

Cervical cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related death among females in less developed countries. In developing countries, however, it remains the second most common cause for both cancer incidence and mortality. There are approximately 96,922 new cases and around 60,078 deaths each year among Indian women. Nearly 90% of cervical cancer deaths occur in developing parts of the world as patients present in advanced stages due to suboptimal screening and lack of knowledge and appropriate health care infrastructure.[1]

The standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT). However, overall survival (OS) rates for stage IIB and III to IV cancer are approximately 60 to 65% and 25 to 50%, respectively, which are frustratingly low.[2] Therefore, development of new treatment strategies to improve survival rate is imperative.

The aim of chemotherapy preceding local modalities is to reduce the volume of the disease, making subsequent irradiation or surgery more effective while controlling the micrometastatic disease. A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed including 4,727 cases from 13 publications to precisely assess the prognostic role of NACT in LACC.[3] The response rate, specifically the clinical and pathological responses to NACT, ranged from 58.49 to 86.54% and 7.5 to 78.81%, respectively; the treatment response indicated that LACC was sensitive to chemotherapy. (These data are from previous studies.) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) plays an unproven role in cervical cancer treatment, particularly when followed by CCRT.[3] [4] [5] [6] Particularly in developing nations, the incidence of advanced cervical cancer is high, and access to radiotherapy (RT) facilities is limited. These factors result in a delay in treatment initiation, contributing to worse prognosis.

If the benefit of NACT is validated, it may lessen delays in treatment and improve outcomes in communities with scarce resources. We have conducted a clinical study comparing the efficacy and side effects of patients with cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 2020 stage IIB to IIIC1 cancers) who were assigned to three cycles of NACT paclitaxel 175 mg/m² and carboplatin (AUC: 5) followed by CCRT with interdigitated brachytherapy versus CCRT with sequential induction chemotherapy (ICRT).

Specific Objectives and Endpoints of This Study

The primary endpoint was assessment of locoregional tumor response. The secondary endpoints were assessment of acute toxicities in these two groups of patients including the bladder, bowel, rectal, vaginal mucosa, skin, and hematological. The study design was presented and duly approved by the institutional ethics committee.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Women with FIGO stage IIB to IIIC1 cervical carcinoma, histologically proven squamous cell carcinoma, or adenocarcinoma who met the following criteria were eligible: no prior chemotherapy or pelvic RT; no concurrent antitumor or investigational therapy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤ 2; age greater than 30 years and less than 75 years; life expectancy ≥ 6 months; adequate bone marrow (leukocyte count ≥ 3.0 × 109/L or platelet count ≥ 100 × 109/L); adequate hepatic and renal functions defined as bilirubin ≤1.5× and serum glutamic–oxaloacetic transaminase/serum glutamic–pyruvic transaminase ≤1.5× of the upper normal value; and creatinine clearance ≥40 mg/dL. Consent to participate was taken.

 

MissingLinkText

Exclusion Criteria

Patients with enlarged para-aortic lymph nodes on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and those with active infection, cardiac failure, renal impairment/failure, peripheral or central neuropathy, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, pregnancy, or lactation were excluded.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Study Protocol

The patients fulfilling the above criteria were randomly assigned to the study arm or the control arm in a 1:1 ratio with informed consent.

Study Arm A

NACT was administered in patients in this arm, which consisted of paclitaxel 175 mg/m² intravenous (i.v.) in 500 mL 0.9% NaCl glass bottle with codan set over 3 hours and carboplatin (AUC: 5) according to the Calvert formula (carboplatin dose = [creatinine clearance + 25] × AUC) i.v. in 500 mL 5% glucose over 60 minutes, both on the same day every 3 weeks. To avoid hypersensitivity reactions, Phenergan 25 mg, dexamethasone 16 mg, Graniset 3 mg, and pantoprazole 40 mg were administered i.v. in all the patients prior to initiation of paclitaxel infusion. The patients were excluded from the study in case of unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent.

The patients received RT to the whole pelvis at 45 Gy/20 fractions, 1 fraction per day, 5 days per week using a 6- to 15-MV photon beam with the three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) technique. Cisplatin 40 mg/m² was administered weekly simultaneously with radiation. HDR intracavitary brachytherapy (HDRICBT) was given weekly during external RT on Saturday: 4 fractions of 5 Gy each to point A (2 cm superior and 2 cm lateral to the cervical os) on a weekly basis.

 

MissingLinkText

Control Arm B

The patients received RT to the whole pelvis at 50 Gy/25 fractions, 1 fraction per day, 5 days per week by a 6- to 15-MV photon beam with the 3DCRT technique. Cisplatin 40 mg/m² was administered weekly simultaneously with radiation. HDRICBT was given 1 week after completing external RT: three fractions of 7 Gy each to reference point A (2 cm superior and 2 cm lateral to the cervical os) on a weekly basis.

The biologically effective dose (BED) calculation was done, which was found to be balanced in both arms.

Arm	EBRT	ICBT	BED-EBRT	BED-ICBT	TOTAL BED
Study arm A	45 Gy/20#	05 Gy/04#	55.13 Gy	30 Gy	85.13 Gy
Control arm B	50 Gy/25#	07 Gy/03#	60 Gy	27.30 Gy	87.30 Gy

Response Assessments

Clinical remission was evaluated according to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, the (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1).[7] Complete response (CR) was defined as the disappearance of all target lesions, and any pathological lymph nodes (whether target or nontarget) must have a reduction in the short axis to less than 10 mm. Partial remission (PR) was defined as at least 30% decrease in the sum of the diameters of the target lesions, taking as the reference of the baseline sum of the diameters. Progressive disease (PD)was defined as at least 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of the diameters, with the smallest sum of increase of at least 5 mm. In addition, a relative increase of more or new lesions is also considered progression. Stable disease (SD) was defined as neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR nor a sufficient increase to qualify for PD. Patients with CR or PR will be classified as clinical responders, and those patients with SD and disease progression will be defined as clinical nonresponders.

Adverse Effects

The adverse effects of NACT and chemoradiation were be evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. All the patients were monitored for marrow function suppression as well as gastrointestinal side effects. Full blood counts were be performed every 3 weeks during NACT and weekly during CCRT. All grade 3/4 acute and late toxicities were considered significant. Adverse events occurring 3 months after the end of treatment were considered as late toxicity.

Statistical Analysis

For continuous variables, the means/medians were compared with unpaired t-test and for a categorical set of data, two groups were compared using the chi-squared test.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Observation and Results

Results

Forty-five patients in the study arm and 47 patients in the control arm completed the entire therapeutic schedule from January 2021 to April 2022, and they were followed up till November 2022. The median age was 45 and 47 years (range: 30–65 years). In all, 25 and 22% patients in the study arm and control arm presented with stage IIB, 12 and 15% patients in the study arm and control arm with stage IIIA, 48 and 47% patients in the study arm and control arm with stage IIIB, and 18 and 13% patients in the study arm and control arm with stage IIIC1 disease, respectively (FIGO 2020). Squamous cell carcinoma was the most common histology at 93%, whereas adenocarcinoma was seen in 7% cases. [Table 1] The median size of the cervical mass was 5.35 ± 1.20 cm. Most patients underwent contrast-enhanced (CECT) of the abdomen and pelvis during staging and assessment.

Table 1 Patient characteristics

	Study arm A	Control arm B
Number of patients	45	47
Age (y), median (range)	47(30–60)	50 (30–65)
ECOG performance score
0	10	09
1	12	16
2	23	22
Tumor histology
Squamous carcinoma	42	43
Adenocarcinoma	03	04
Tumor stage
IIb	10 (22%)	12 (25%)
IIIA	05 (12%)	07 (15%)
IIIB	22 (48%)	22 (47%)
IIIC1	08 (18%)	06 (13%)
Total	45 (100%)	47 (100%)

Abbreviation: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

 

MissingLinkText

Response Rate

The response rates are shown in [Tables 2] and [3]. In the assessment 1 month after completion of treatment, 79.9% patients in arm A and 80.8% of patients in arm B responded: CR was 53.3 and 55.3%, PR was 26.6 and 25.5%, SD was 15.5 and 10.6%, and PD was 4.4 and 08.5% in arms A and B, respectively.

Table 2 Response to treatment at 1 month

Response	Study arm A No. of patients: 45	Control arm B No. of patients: 47
Complete response	24 (53.3%)	26 (55.3%)
Partial response	12 (26.6%)	12 (25.5%)
Stable disease	07 (15.5%)	05 (10.6%)
Progressive disease	02 (04.4%)	04 (08.5%)
Total	45 (100%)	47 (100%)

Table 3 Response to treatment at 3 months

Response	Study arm A No. of patients: 45	Control arm B No. of patients: 47
Complete response	28 (62.2%)	28 (59.5%)
Partial response	10 (22.2%)	12 (25.5%)
Stable disease	05 (11.1%)	03 (06.5%)
Progressive disease	02 (04.4%)	04 (08.5%)
Total	45 (100%)	47 (100%)

 

MissingLinkText

Treatment Compliance

During NACT, 6 patients discontinued NACT because of severe myelosuppression (three NACT cycles). Three patients delayed the initiation of chemoradiation by approximately 3 weeks (two had grade 3 neutropenia with high fever) and 4 weeks (the other had grade 3 anemia). The number of weekly cisplatin doses concurrent with RT was four to five cycles of chemotherapy. In nine patients, the dose of cisplatin had to be reduced as five patients had grade 3 neutropenia, three had grade 3 thrombocytopenia, and one had renal insufficiency ([Table 4]).

Table 4 Adverse reactions/toxicity

Toxicity	Study arm A			Control arm B
	Grade II	Grade III	Grade IV	Grade II	Grade III	Grade IV
Anemia	3	2	1	2	1	0
Neutropenia	6	4	4	3	3	0
Thrombocytopenia	2	2	0	2	3	0
Hypersensitivity	3	0	0	1	0	0
Anorexia/nausea	5	5	4	4	4	2
Vomiting	5	3	3	4	3	2
Diarrhea	2	4	2	2	2	0
Neurotoxicity	2	1	0	1	0	0

The patients were followed up in an outpatient department every 1 month for the first 3 months and then at 3-month intervals. The median follow-up period was 12 months (range: 7–23 months, 23.90 ± 10.23 months). This time was calculated from the beginning of treatment. Four patients developed recurrence and/or lung metastasis, 9 and 7 patients in arms A and B defaulted for treatment during RT and were lost to follow-up in due course ([Fig. 1]).

Fig. 1 Tumour Stage.

When the data were analyzed with the help of chi-squared test, it was not found to be significant (p = 0.981; [Fig. 2]).

Fig. 2 Response at 1 month.

When the data were analyzed with the help of chi-squared test it was not found to be significant (p = 0.933; [Fig. 3]).

Fig. 3 Response at 3 months.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Discussion

The idea/concept behind NACT is to acquire proper negotiation of OS before starting HDRICBT in the first week of EBRT. In India too, dose/fraction varies from institution to institution. Apart from dose/fraction and number of fractions, overall treatment time (OTT) has a significant impact on treatment outcome. Treatment with EBRT and brachytherapy should be completed in less than 8 weeks as better local tumor control and survival can be expected with relatively shorter treatment courses.[8] [9] [10]

In a study by Petereit et al,[8] the impact of OTT was retrospectively analyzed. For all stages combined, the 5-year survival (65 and 54%, p = 0.03) and pelvic control rates (87 and 72%, p = 0.006) were significantly different when the OTT was more than 55 days. Shorter treatment duration was significant for 5-year OS and pelvic control for stages IB/IIA and III but not for stage IIB. The authors claimed that survival decreased by 0.6%/d and pelvic control decreased by 0.7%/d for each additional day of treatment beyond 55 days for all stages of disease.

Similarly, a study conducted by Lanciano et al[9] demonstrated a quite significant decrease in survival (p = 0.0001) and pelvic control (p = 0.0001) as the OTT increased from less than 6, 6 to 7.9, 8 to 9.9, and greater than 10 weeks. Stage III accounted for the majority of negative effects due to prolongation of OTT. When the analysis was performed by stage to evaluate the effect of OTT with respect to the extent of pelvic disease, it continued to be an independent prognostic factor for infield pelvic control (p = 0.01) and survival (p = 0.02) for stage III but not for stages I and II.

One of the methods to decrease the OTT is to interdigitate the HDRICBT at some stage in EBRT. According to the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) guidelines, HDRICBT may be interdigitated with EBRT to shorten the OTT, with the later typically given in 1.8-Gy fractions to achieve 45 Gy. However, very few studies are available on the timing of HDRICBT insertion during the EBRT course.

Despite the availability of an effective screening program and the papillomavirus vaccine, a large proportion of patients are diagnosed with cervical cancer at an advanced stage and suffer from local recurrences and distant metastases. A Cochrane meta-analysis reported a stage-dependent advantage of CCRT over RT, with 5-year survival benefits of 10% for women with stage IB to IIA cervical cancer, 7% for women with stage IIB cervical cancer, and 3% for women with stage III to IVA cancer.[11]

Marita et al[13] retrospectively analyzed the survival of 207 stage IIB to IIIB cervical cancer patients who received two to four cycles of platinum based NACT prior to CCRT. The results revealed that the 5-year survival rates for stage IIB to IIIA and IIIB cancers were 84 and 61%, respectively, which are superior to the survival rates of traditional CCRT reported in the literature. A randomized open-label phase II trial enrolled 107 patients, 55 randomly assigned to the NACT arm and 52 to the CCRT-alone arm. NACT was associated with an inferior 3-year PFS (40.9 vs. 60.4%), a lower 3-year OS rate (60.7 vs. 86.8%), and a lower complete response rate (56.3 vs. 80.3%). Similarly, a meta-analysis of 21 randomized trials showed no increase in OS despite a significant reduction in tumor volume by primary chemotherapy compared to RT alone with RT preceded by chemotherapy. However, subgroup evaluation showed a 7% improvement in the 5-year OS with a chemotherapy cycle length of less than 14 days over that shown in studies with longer cycle lengths, and cisplatin dose intensities ≥25 mg/m² per week tended to show a survival benefit.

Concerning the distribution and metabolism of these drugs, Koshiba et al[14] found that paclitaxel was retained in cervical cancer tissues for 6 days after i.v. administration of a dose of 60 mg/m², but could not be detected after 2 weeks, suggesting that a weekly schedule was most effective for tumor cell death rather than the standard thrice weekly regimen. Thus, administering NACT at shorter intervals (dose dense) may result in enhanced cell death and overcome accelerated repopulation. A dose-dense (weekly) schedule is likely to result in improvement in outcomes.

The preliminary outcomes from two phase II studies[4] [7] have been reported on patients who received NACT with weekly paclitaxel (60–80 mg/m²) and carboplatin (AUC = 2) for 6 weeks followed by CCRT. Following NACT, a response rate of 67.5 to 70% was achieved, mostly partial responses. Post-CCRT, 85 to 100% of eligible patients achieved CR. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity was observed in approximately 20% of patients. A 3-year OS rate of 68% was observed in 42 stage IB2 to IVA patients. These observations are encouraging. The approach is now being evaluated in a randomized trial (Induction chemotherapy plus chemoradiation (INTERLACE) trial). The combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin used in a weekly schedule maximizes the potential additive/synergistic interactions with different mechanisms of action.

Which NACT regimen is the best? Regarding chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer, cisplatin has been considered the most effective agent. The cisplatin/paclitaxel (TP) combination is superior to other regimens. In a phase III trial comparing four regimens (cisplatin/paclitaxel, cisplatin/vinorelbine, cisplatin/gemcitabine, and cisplatin/topotecan), the cisplatin/paclitaxel combination appeared superior to the others.[15] According to the results from JCOG0505 (Japan Clinical Oncology Group), among patients who had not received prior cisplatin, TP resulted in longer OS than TC (23.2 vs. 13.0 months).

Gupta et al[16] randomly allocated 635 patients with FIGO stage Ib2 to II squamous cell cervical cancer to receive either three cycles of Paclitaxel (PTX) (175 mg/m²) plus Carboplatin (CBDCA) (AUC: 5–6) every 3 weeks, followed by radical surgery or standard CDDP-based CCRT. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly lower in the NACT arm than in the CCRT arm (69.3 vs. 76.7%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02–1.87; p = 0.038), whereas the corresponding 5-year OS rates were similar (75.4 vs. 74.7%; HR = 1.025; 95%CI = 0.752–1.398; p = 0.87). In subgroup analyses, the detrimental effect of NACT plus surgery on DFS was even greater in patients with stage IIb disease (67.2 vs. 79.3%; HR = 1.90; 95%CI = 1.25–2.89; p = 0.003), whereas no significant DFS difference was observed between the two arms in patients with stage Ib2 or IIa disease. The rates of rectal toxicity (5.7 vs. 13.3%, p = 0.002), bladder toxicity (2.8 vs. 7.3%, p = 0.017), and vaginal toxicity (19.9 vs. 36.9%, p < 0.001).

The ongoing INTERLACE trial aims to investigate whether additional ICRT chemotherapy given on a weekly schedule immediately before standard chemoradiation leads to an improvement in the OS and DFS. On a similar background, we conducted a randomized trial to compare the response and toxicity of NACT followed by CCRT with HDRICBT versus CCRT alone for newly diagnosed stage IIB to IIIC1 cervical cancer patients.

 

MissingLinkText

Conclusion

Considering the poor prognosis of LACC, the use of NACT with HDRICBT is an attempt to improve the treatment outcome. In a busy department where resources are limited, NACT with HDRICBT is an alternative option for the current standard CCRT as its tolerance and toxicity is at par with CCRT. We are still enrolling patients considering the encouraging results to obtain a longer-term follow-up and assess the maximum DFS. Future large trials are required to demonstrate the need and efficacy, toxicities, and quality of life.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Government Medical College and Cancer Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. Written, informed consent to participate was obtained from all the participants.

• References

• 1 Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68 (06) 394-424
• 2 Tharavichitkul E, Lorvidhaya V, Kamnerdsupaphon P. et al. Combined chemoradiation of cisplatin versus carboplatin in cervical carcinoma: a single institution experience from Thailand. BMC Cancer 2016; 16: 501
• 3 de Azevedo CRAS, Thuler LCS, de Mello MJG, Ferreira CG. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation in cervical carcinoma: a review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016; 26: 729-736
• 4 Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 21 randomised trials. Eur J Cancer 2003; 39 (17) 2470-2486
• 5 Narayan S, Sharma N, Kapoor A. et al. Pros and cons of adding of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer: a regional cancer center experience. J Obstet Gynecol India 2016; 66 (05) 385-390
• 6 da Costa SCS, Bonadio RC, Gabrielli FCG. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine followed by chemoradiation versus chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer: a randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (33) 3124-3131
• 7 Singh RB, Chander S, Mohanti BK. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by chemoradiation in locally advanced cervical carcinoma: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 129 (01) 124-128
• 8 Petereit DG, Sarkaria JN, Chappell R. et al. The adverse effect of treatment prolongation in cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 32 (05) 1301-1307
• 9 Lanciano RM, Pajak TF, Martz K, Hanks GE. The influence of treatment time on outcome for squamous cell cancer of the uterine cervix treated with radiation: a patterns-of-care study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 25 (03) 391-397
• 10 Song S, Rudra S, Hasselle MD. et al. The effect of treatment time in locally advanced cervical cancer in the era of concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Cancer 2013; 119 (02) 325-331
• 11 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. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26 (35) 5802-5812
• 12 Li J, Liu H, Li Y. et al. Comparison of outcomes and side effects for neoadjuvant chemotherapy with weekly cisplatin and paclitaxel followed by chemoradiation vs. chemoradiation alone in stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2022; 23 (01) 29
• 13 Marita A, Ordeanu C, Rancea A, Nicolae T, Nagy VM. Long-term survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and concomitant radiochemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: results of the Oncology Institute “Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta” experience. J Med Life 2018; 11 (01) 42-50
• 14 Koshiba H, Hosokawa K, Mori T, Kubo A, Watanabe A, Honjo H. Intravenous paclitaxel is specifically retained in human gynecologic carcinoma tissues in vivo. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009; 19 (04) 484-488
• 15 McCormack M, Kadalayil L, Hackshaw A. et al. A phase II study of weekly neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 2013; 108 (12) 2464-2469
• 16 Gupta S, Maheshwari A, Parab P. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery versus concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with stage Ib2, IIa, or IIb squamous cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (16) 1548-1555

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
19. August 2025