Dataset Information

Comparison of survival, acute toxicities, and dose-volume parameters between intensity-modulated radiotherapy with or without internal target volume delineation method and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in cervical cancer patients: A retrospective and propensity score-matched analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To evaluate whether the use of the internal target volume (ITV) delineation method improves the performance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in terms of survival, acute toxicities, and dose-volume parameters.

Methods

A total number of 477 cervical cancer patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) from January 2012 to December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into four groups: the non-ITV (N-ITV) + IMRT, ITV + IMRT, N-ITV + 3DCRT, and ITV + 3DCRT groups, with 76, 41, 327, and 33 patients, respectively. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier and the log-rank tests, and acute toxicity analysis was performed with the chi-squared test and the binary logistic regression test. Using the propensity score matching (PSM) method, 92 patients were matched among the four groups, and their dose-volume parameters were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis method.

Results

The median follow-up time was 49 months (1-119) for overall survival (OS). The 5-year OS rate was 66.4%. The ITV delineation method was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR [95% CI]: 0.52 [0.27, 0.98], p = 0.044) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.36, 0.99], p = 0.045). The ITV + IMRT group had the lowest incidence rate (22%) and the N-ITV + IMRT group had the highest incidence rate of grade ≥3 hematological toxicity (HT) (46.1%) among the four groups. The pelvic bone marrow relative V10, V20, and V30 in the N-ITV + IMRT group was higher than those in the ITV + IMRT and N-ITV + 3DCRT groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The use of ITV for IMRT treatment planning was associated with improved overall survival and progression-free survival, with lower HT rate.

SUBMITTER: Liang YQ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8704157 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeAlthough 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is the worldwide standard for the treatment of esophageal cancer, intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) improves dose conformality and reduces the radiation exposure to normal tissues. We hypothesized that the dosimetric advantages of IMRT should translate to substantive benefits in clinical outcomes compared with 3D-CRT.Methods and materialsAn analysis was performed of 676 nonrandomized patients (3D-CRT, n=413; IMRT, n=263) with stage Ib-IVa (American Joint Committee on Cancer 2002) esophageal cancers treated with chemoradiotherapy at a single institution from 1998-2008. An inverse probability of treatment weighting and inclusion of propensity score (treatment probability) as a covariate were used to compare overall survival time, interval to local failure, and interval to distant metastasis, while accounting for the effects of other clinically relevant covariates. The propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression analysis.ResultsA fitted multivariate inverse probability weighted-adjusted Cox model showed that the overall survival time was significantly associated with several well-known prognostic factors, along with the treatment modality (IMRT vs 3D-CRT, hazard ratio 0.72, P<.001). Compared with IMRT, 3D-CRT patients had a significantly greater risk of dying (72.6% vs 52.9%, inverse probability of treatment weighting, log-rank test, P<.0001) and of locoregional recurrence (P=.0038). No difference was seen in cancer-specific mortality (Gray's test, P=.86) or distant metastasis (P=.99) between the 2 groups. An increased cumulative incidence of cardiac death was seen in the 3D-CRT group (P=.049), but most deaths were undocumented (5-year estimate, 11.7% in 3D-CRT vs 5.4% in IMRT group, Gray's test, P=.0029).ConclusionsOverall survival, locoregional control, and noncancer-related death were significantly better after IMRT than after 3D-CRT. Although these results need confirmation, IMRT should be considered for the treatment of esophageal cancer.