Clinical relevance of addition of conventional treatment to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with FIGO stage III–IV cervical cancer: a retrospective analysis of a Japanese cohort

• Published in: Japanese journal of clinical oncology 2022-03, Vol.52 (3), p.244-250
• Main Authors: Kurosu, Hiroyuki, Todo, Yukiharu, Yamada, Ryutaro, Minowa, Kaoru, Tsuruta, Tomohiko, Minobe, Shinichiro, Nishiyama, Noriaki, Kato, Hidenori
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Chemoradiotherapy; Female; Humans; Japan; Lymphatic Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Prognosis; Retrospective Studies; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - therapy
• ISSN: 1465-3621; 1465-3621
• DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyab191

Abstract Background Concurrent chemoradiotherapy has limited therapeutic efficacy for stage III–IV cervical cancer. We aimed to identify a subgroup of patients with stage III–IV cervical cancer who benefit from concurrent chemoradiotherapy with additional treatment. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 120 patients with stage III–IV cervical cancer who were treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy from 2002 to 2018. We compared overall survival between patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone and those who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy with additional conventional treatments (systemic chemotherapy before and/or after concurrent chemoradiotherapy and/or extended-field radiation). Prognostic factors were statistically analysed. Results Overall, 44 (36.7%) and 21 (17.5%) patients were radiologically diagnosed with pelvic and para-aortic lymph node enlargement, respectively. The median tumour diameter was 5.7 cm. A total of 69 (57.5%) patients received no additional treatment, and 51 (42.5%) received additional treatment. Cox regression analysis identified the following prognostic factors: histological non-squamous cell carcinoma (hazard ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.8–8.2), tumour diameter of ≥6 cm (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2–3.7), radiological pelvic lymph node enlargement (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–4.0) and radiological para-aortic lymph node enlargement (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–4.1). Even in the lowest risk group (no risk factors), the 5-year overall survival rate was lower in the additional treatment group than in the concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone group (78.7% vs. 80.9%, respectively; log-rank test, P = 0.79). Conclusions Addition of conventional treatments to concurrent chemoradiotherapy might not improve survival in patients with advanced cervical cancer. Novel treatment strategies including immune checkpoint inhibitors should be considered for such patients. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy has limited therapeutic efficacy for stage III–IV cervical cancer. Even if systematic chemotherapy or extended-field radiation added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy might not improve survival in patients with advanced cervical cancer.