Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer.

Oncology Letters 2017 December
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the distinctions in survival and toxicity between patients with cervical cancer with common iliac node or para-aortic node involvement, who were treated with extended-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (EF-IMRT) and patients with or without lower involved pelvic nodes, who were treated with pelvic IMRT. A total of 55 patients treated with EF-IMRT and 52 patients treated with pelvic IMRT at the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (Guangzhou, China) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients treated with EF-IMRT had the highest level of lymph node involvement to the para-aortic or common iliac nodes, while patients treated with pelvic IMRT had no para-aortic or common iliac nodes involved (P<0.001). The median follow-up time was 29.5 months. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates of EF-IMRT and pelvic IMRT were 79.4 and 82.3% (P=0.45), respectively, and the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of EF-IMRT and pelvic IMRT were 61.0 and 73.7% (P=0.55), respectively. Cox's regression analysis revealed that EF irradiation was a protective prognostic factor for OS and DFS. A total of 16 patients in the EF-IMRT group and 13 patients in the pelvic IMRT group experienced treatment failure (P=0.67), with the patterns of failure being the same for the two groups (P=0.88). The cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 acute toxicities in the EF-IMRT group was 34.5%, in comparison with 19.2% in the pelvic group (P=0.048). The results of the present study suggest that patients with cervical cancer with grossly involved common iliac or para-aortic nodes should be electively subjected to EF irradiation to improve the survival and alter patterns of recurrence. Notably, EF irradiation delivered via IMRT exhibits an increased toxicity incidence, however, this remains within an acceptable range.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app