Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Radiation Oncology 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Cervical Cancer | Research

Whether individualized dose escalation should be recommended for lymph nodes with different sizes in the definitive radiotherapy of cervical cancer?

Authors: Xiaojuan Lv, Huiting Rao, Tao Feng, Chufan Wu, Hanmei Lou

Published in: Radiation Oncology | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background and purpose

Dose escalation for positive node maybe improve the regional control of patients with node-positive cervical cancer, but the optimal dose for nodes of different sizes remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to explore the individualized dose escalation for lymph nodes (LNs) with different sizes in the definitive radiotherapy of cervical cancer.

Methods

A total of 1002 cervical cancer patients with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO 2009) stage IB1–IVA, who were treated by definitively radiotherapy between September 2013 and December 2016 were enrolled. All LNs identified by computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) were assigned into three groups according to the short diameters of < 1 cm, 1–2 cm or ≥ 2 cm at pretreatment.

Results

In total, 580 patients with 1310 LNs were detected. The nodal control rate in groups of LNs < 1 cm, 1–2 cm and ≥ 2 cm was 99.4%, 96%, and 75.9%, respectively (P = 0.000). Among LNs < 1 cm, the control, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates did not significantly differ among three dose-based groups (≤ 50.4 Gy, 50.4–60 Gy, > 60 Gy) (control rate, 99.4% vs. 99.3% vs. 100%, P = 0.647) (5-year OS, 76.2% vs. 79% vs. 81.6%, P = 0.682) (5-year PFS, 74.1% vs. 73.9% vs. 78.9% P = 0.713). Among LNs of 1–2 cm, the control and PFS rates were significantly higher in the group of dose ≥ 55 Gy than the group of dose < 55 Gy (control rate, 98% vs. 93.6%, P = 0.028) (5-year PFS, 69.6% vs. 56.7%, P = 0.025). However, this did not cause a significant difference for 5-year OS rate (72.6% vs. 68.3%, P = 0.5). Among LNs ≥ 2 cm, the control, OS, and PFS rates were higher in the group of dose ≥ 55 Gy than the group of dose < 55 Gy, while no significant difference was found (control rate, 82.1% vs. 63.2%, P = 0.107) (5-year OS, 60.6% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.141) (5-year PFS, 51.5% vs.37.5%, P = 0.232).

Conclusions

Radiation dose escalation is not necessary for LNs < 1 cm, and dose escalation of 55 Gy is enough for LNs of 1–2 cm.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Li W, Xiong L, Zhu Q, Lu H, Zhong M, Liang M, et al. Assessment of retroperitoneal lymph node status in locally advanced cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):484.CrossRef Li W, Xiong L, Zhu Q, Lu H, Zhong M, Liang M, et al. Assessment of retroperitoneal lymph node status in locally advanced cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):484.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Katanyoo K, Thavaramara T. Clinical impact of pelvic lymph node status in locally advanced cervical cancer patients treated by concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2021;22(2):491–7.CrossRef Katanyoo K, Thavaramara T. Clinical impact of pelvic lymph node status in locally advanced cervical cancer patients treated by concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2021;22(2):491–7.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Park JW, Bae JW. Prognostic significance of positive lymph node number in early cervical cancer. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016;4(6):1052–6.CrossRef Park JW, Bae JW. Prognostic significance of positive lymph node number in early cervical cancer. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016;4(6):1052–6.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;145(1):129–35.CrossRef Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;145(1):129–35.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Kilic C, Kimyon Comert G, Cakir C, Yuksel D, Codal B, et al. Recurrence pattern and prognostic factors for survival in cervical cancer with lymph node metastasis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(6):2175–84.CrossRef Kilic C, Kimyon Comert G, Cakir C, Yuksel D, Codal B, et al. Recurrence pattern and prognostic factors for survival in cervical cancer with lymph node metastasis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(6):2175–84.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Kwon J, Eom KY, Kim YS, Park W, Chun M, Lee J, et al. The prognostic impact of the number of metastatic lymph nodes and a new prognostic scoring system for recurrence in earlystage cervical cancer with high risk factors: a Multicenter Cohort Study (KROG 15–04). Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50(3):964–74.CrossRef Kwon J, Eom KY, Kim YS, Park W, Chun M, Lee J, et al. The prognostic impact of the number of metastatic lymph nodes and a new prognostic scoring system for recurrence in earlystage cervical cancer with high risk factors: a Multicenter Cohort Study (KROG 15–04). Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50(3):964–74.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Sethi R, Mayadev J, Sethi S, Rash D, Chen LM, Brooks R, et al. Patterns of recurrence in node-positive cervical cancer patients treated with contemporary chemoradiation and dose escalation: a multi-institutional study. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019;9(2):e180–6.CrossRef Sethi R, Mayadev J, Sethi S, Rash D, Chen LM, Brooks R, et al. Patterns of recurrence in node-positive cervical cancer patients treated with contemporary chemoradiation and dose escalation: a multi-institutional study. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019;9(2):e180–6.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gaffney DK, Erickson-Wittmann BA, Jhingran A, Mayr NA, Puthawala AA, Moore D, et al. ACR appropriateness Criteria® on advanced cervical cancer expert panel on radiation oncology–gynecology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(3):609–14.CrossRef Gaffney DK, Erickson-Wittmann BA, Jhingran A, Mayr NA, Puthawala AA, Moore D, et al. ACR appropriateness Criteria® on advanced cervical cancer expert panel on radiation oncology–gynecology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(3):609–14.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Wakatsuki M, Ohno T, Kato S, Ando K, Noda SE, Kiyohara H, et al. Impact of boost irradiation on pelvic lymph node control in patients with cervical cancer. J Radiat Res. 2014;55(1):139–45.CrossRef Wakatsuki M, Ohno T, Kato S, Ando K, Noda SE, Kiyohara H, et al. Impact of boost irradiation on pelvic lymph node control in patients with cervical cancer. J Radiat Res. 2014;55(1):139–45.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kim H, Park W, Cho WK. Who can benefit from a lymph node boost in definitive chemoradiotherapy for node-positive cervical cancer: an evaluation of nodal failure in patients without nodal boost. J Radiat Res. 2020;61(3):479–86.CrossRef Kim H, Park W, Cho WK. Who can benefit from a lymph node boost in definitive chemoradiotherapy for node-positive cervical cancer: an evaluation of nodal failure in patients without nodal boost. J Radiat Res. 2020;61(3):479–86.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Yoshizawa E, Koiwai K, Ina H, Fukazawa A, Sakai K, Ozawa T, et al. Outcomes of uterine cervical cancer patients with pelvic lymph node metastases after radiotherapy without boost irradiation of metastases. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(4):718–22.CrossRef Yoshizawa E, Koiwai K, Ina H, Fukazawa A, Sakai K, Ozawa T, et al. Outcomes of uterine cervical cancer patients with pelvic lymph node metastases after radiotherapy without boost irradiation of metastases. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(4):718–22.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hata M, Koike I, Miyagi E, Numazaki R, Asai-Sato M, Kasuya T, et al. Radiation therapy for pelvic lymph node metastasis from uterine cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131(1):99–102.CrossRef Hata M, Koike I, Miyagi E, Numazaki R, Asai-Sato M, Kasuya T, et al. Radiation therapy for pelvic lymph node metastasis from uterine cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131(1):99–102.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Rash DL, Lee YC, Kashefi A, Durbin-Johnson B, Mathai M, Valicenti R, et al. Clinical response of pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenopathy to a radiation boost in the definitive management of locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(2):317–22.CrossRef Rash DL, Lee YC, Kashefi A, Durbin-Johnson B, Mathai M, Valicenti R, et al. Clinical response of pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenopathy to a radiation boost in the definitive management of locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(2):317–22.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Choi KH, Kim JY, Lee DS, Lee YH, Lee SW, Sung S, et al. Clinical impact of boost irradiation to pelvic lymph node in uterine cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Medicine. 2018;97(16): e0517.CrossRef Choi KH, Kim JY, Lee DS, Lee YH, Lee SW, Sung S, et al. Clinical impact of boost irradiation to pelvic lymph node in uterine cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Medicine. 2018;97(16): e0517.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Bacorro W, Dumas I, Escande A, Gouy S, Bentivegna E, Morice P, et al. Dose-volume effects in pathologic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;148(3):461–7.CrossRef Bacorro W, Dumas I, Escande A, Gouy S, Bentivegna E, Morice P, et al. Dose-volume effects in pathologic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;148(3):461–7.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Song S, Kim JY, Kim YJ, Yoo HJ, Kim SH, Kim SK, et al. The size of the metastatic lymph node is an independent prognostic factor for the patients with cervical cancer treated by definitive radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2013;108(1):168–73.CrossRef Song S, Kim JY, Kim YJ, Yoo HJ, Kim SH, Kim SK, et al. The size of the metastatic lymph node is an independent prognostic factor for the patients with cervical cancer treated by definitive radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2013;108(1):168–73.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Gogineni E, Bloom B, Diaz Molina F, Villella J, Goenka A. Radiotherapy dose escalation on pelvic lymph node control in patients with cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31(4):524–9.CrossRef Gogineni E, Bloom B, Diaz Molina F, Villella J, Goenka A. Radiotherapy dose escalation on pelvic lymph node control in patients with cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31(4):524–9.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):103–4.CrossRef Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):103–4.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, Subak L, Segal MR. Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1997;278(13):1096–101.CrossRef Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, Subak L, Segal MR. Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1997;278(13):1096–101.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kidd EA, Thomas M, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Changes in cervical cancer FDG uptake during chemoradiation and association with response. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(1):116–22.CrossRef Kidd EA, Thomas M, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Changes in cervical cancer FDG uptake during chemoradiation and association with response. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(1):116–22.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Cox JD, Stetz J, Pajak TF. Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31(5):1341–6.CrossRef Cox JD, Stetz J, Pajak TF. Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31(5):1341–6.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Klopp AH, Yeung AR, Deshmukh S, Gil KM, Wenzel L, Westin SN, et al. Patient-reported toxicity during pelvic intensity-modulated radiation therapy: NRG Oncology-RTOG 1203. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(24):2538–44.CrossRef Klopp AH, Yeung AR, Deshmukh S, Gil KM, Wenzel L, Westin SN, et al. Patient-reported toxicity during pelvic intensity-modulated radiation therapy: NRG Oncology-RTOG 1203. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(24):2538–44.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wu SY, Huang EY, Chanchien CC, Lin H, Wang CJ, Sun LM, et al. Prognostic factors associated with radiotherapy for cervical cancer with computed tomography-detected para-aortic lymph node metastasis. J Radiat Res. 2014;55(1):129–38.CrossRef Wu SY, Huang EY, Chanchien CC, Lin H, Wang CJ, Sun LM, et al. Prognostic factors associated with radiotherapy for cervical cancer with computed tomography-detected para-aortic lymph node metastasis. J Radiat Res. 2014;55(1):129–38.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Grigsby PW, Singh AK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader J, Zoberi I. Lymph node control in cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(3):706–12.CrossRef Grigsby PW, Singh AK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader J, Zoberi I. Lymph node control in cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(3):706–12.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Vargo JA, Kim H, Choi S, Sukumvanich P, Olawaiye AB, Kelley JL, et al. Extended field intensity modulated radiation therapy with concomitant boost for lymph node-positive cervical cancer: analysis of regional control and recurrence patterns in the positron emission tomography/computed tomography era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90(5):1091–8.CrossRef Vargo JA, Kim H, Choi S, Sukumvanich P, Olawaiye AB, Kelley JL, et al. Extended field intensity modulated radiation therapy with concomitant boost for lymph node-positive cervical cancer: analysis of regional control and recurrence patterns in the positron emission tomography/computed tomography era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90(5):1091–8.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Nomden CN, Pötter R, de Leeuw AAC, Tanderup K, Lindegaard JC, Schmid MP, et al; EMBRACE Collaborative Group. Nodal failure after chemo-radiation and MRI guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer: Patterns of failure in the EMBRACE study cohort. Radiother Oncol. 2019;134:185–90. Nomden CN, Pötter R, de Leeuw AAC, Tanderup K, Lindegaard JC, Schmid MP, et al; EMBRACE Collaborative Group. Nodal failure after chemo-radiation and MRI guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer: Patterns of failure in the EMBRACE study cohort. Radiother Oncol. 2019;134:185–90.
27.
go back to reference Mohamed SM, Aagaard T, Fokdal LU, Pedersen EM, Lindegaard JC, Tanderup K. Assessment of radiation doses to the para-aortic, pelvic, and inguinal lymph nodes delivered by image-guided adaptive brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Brachytherapy. 2015;14(1):56–61.CrossRef Mohamed SM, Aagaard T, Fokdal LU, Pedersen EM, Lindegaard JC, Tanderup K. Assessment of radiation doses to the para-aortic, pelvic, and inguinal lymph nodes delivered by image-guided adaptive brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Brachytherapy. 2015;14(1):56–61.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Bacorro W, Dumas I, Levy A, Rivin Del Campo E, Canova CH, Felefly T, et al. Contribution of image-guided adaptive brachytherapy to pelvic nodes treatment in locally advanced cervical cancer. Brachytherapy. 2017;16(2):366–72.CrossRef Bacorro W, Dumas I, Levy A, Rivin Del Campo E, Canova CH, Felefly T, et al. Contribution of image-guided adaptive brachytherapy to pelvic nodes treatment in locally advanced cervical cancer. Brachytherapy. 2017;16(2):366–72.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Whether individualized dose escalation should be recommended for lymph nodes with different sizes in the definitive radiotherapy of cervical cancer?
Authors
Xiaojuan Lv
Huiting Rao
Tao Feng
Chufan Wu
Hanmei Lou
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Radiation Oncology / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02132-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Radiation Oncology 1/2022 Go to the issue