Adjuvant chemotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for high-risk cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy

Background The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy (CT) compared with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) after radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy in high-risk patients with early-stage cervical cancer and to evaluate whether the radicality of the lymp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of clinical oncology 2016-08, Vol.21 (4), p.741-747
Hauptverfasser: Takekuma, Munetaka, Kasamatsu, Yuka, Kado, Nobuhiro, Kuji, Shiho, Tanaka, Aki, Takahashi, Nobutaka, Abe, Masakazu, Hirashima, Yasuyuki
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy (CT) compared with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) after radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy in high-risk patients with early-stage cervical cancer and to evaluate whether the radicality of the lymphadenectomy would affect the outcome and toxicity of postoperative adjuvant therapy. Methods The cases of all patients ( n = 393) with FIGO IB1–IIB cervical cancer who were treated by radical surgery at Shizuoka Cancer Center between January 2002 and December 2013 were reviewed. Of these, 111 patients met the inclusion criteria for this retrospective study: (1) high risk for occurrence due to pathologically confirmed parametrial invasion and/or pelvic lymph node metastasis; (2) postoperative treatment with adjuvant CT or CCRT. The clinical data of these patients were reviewed. Results Of the 111 patients, 37 and 74 patients underwent CT and CCRT, respectively. The 4-year progression-free survival rate [PFS; 71.7 (CT) vs. 68.3 % (CCRT)] and overall survival rate [76.0 (CT) vs. 82.7 % (CCRT)] did not differ significantly between the two groups. The CT group contained significantly more patients with severe neutropenia than the CCRT group (66.7 vs. 23.0 %, respectively; p  
ISSN:1341-9625
1437-7772
DOI:10.1007/s10147-016-0955-3