4.5 Article

IMRT with 18FDG-PET\CT based simultaneous integrated boost for treatment of nodal positive cervical cancer

Journal

RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-9-83

Keywords

Cervical cancer; Loco-regional lymph nodes; Intensity modulated radiotherapy; Simultaneous integrated boost

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To evaluate toxicity and outcome of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the positive lymph nodes in patients with loco-regional advanced cervical cancer (LRACC). Methods: The study population comprised ten patients with (18)FDG-PET\CT positive lymph nodes (LNs), who underwent chemoradiation with IMRT and SIB. A dose of 50.4 Gy, in daily fractions of 1.8 Gy, was delivered to primary tumor and draining LNs. Primary tumor received an additional external beam boost to a total dose of 55.8 Gy. A SIB of 62 Gy, in daily fractions of 2 Gy, was delivered to the (18)FDG-PET\CT positive LNs. Finally, a high dose rate brachytherapy (HDRB) boost (15 - 18 Gy) was administered to the primary tumor. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate acute and early late toxicity and loco-regional control. Results: The median number of irradiated LNs per patient was 3 (range: 1-6) with a median middle nodal SIB-volume of 26.10 cm(3) (range, 11.9-82.50 cm(3)). Median follow-up was 20 months (range, 12 to 30 months). Acute and late grade 3 toxicity was observed in 1 patient. Three of the patients developed a recurrence, one in the form of a local tumor relapse, one had a paraaortic LN metastasis outside the treated volume and the last one developed a distant metastasis. Conclusion: IMRT with SIB in the region of (18)FDG-PET positive lymph nodes appears to be an effective therapy with acceptable toxicity and might be useful in the treatment of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available