Phase III randomized trial comparing LDR and HDR brachytherapy in treatment of cervical carcinoma. High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a randomized trial. High-dose rate and low-dose rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Final results of Osaka University Hospital. Phase III trial of high- vs. low-dose-rate interstitial radiotherapy for early mobile tongue cancer. Pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy versus pelvic and para-aortic irradiation for high-risk cervical cancer: an update of radiation therapy oncology group trial (RTOG) 90-01. Radiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for cervical carcinoma. A randomized multicenter study of sequential cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil and radiotherapy in advanced cervical carcinoma stage 3B and 4A. A randomized clinical trial of radiation therapy versus thermoradiotherapy in stage IIIB cervical carcinoma. A prospective, randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy alone in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Multimodal therapy for the management of primary, nonmetastatic Ewing's sarcoma of bone: a long-term follow-up of the First Intergroup study.
Intracavitary brachytherapy plays an important role in the treatment of cervical carcinoma. Previous results have shown controversy between the effect of dose rate on tumor control and the occurrence of complications. We performed a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare the clinical outcomes between low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy for treatment of invasive uterine cervical carcinoma.
                A total of 237 patients with previously untreated invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital were randomized between June 1995 and December 2001. Excluding ineligible, incomplete treatment, and incomplete data patients, 109 and 112 patients were in the LDR and HDR groups, respectively. All patients were treated with external beam radiotherapy and LDR or HDR intracavitary brachytherapy using the Chulalongkorn treatment schedule.
                The median follow-up for the LDR and HDR groups was 40.2 and 37.2 months, respectively. The actuarial 3-year overall and relapse-free survival rate for all patients was 69.6% and 70%, respectively. The 3-year overall survival rate in the LDR and HDR groups was 70.9% and 68.4% (p = 0.75) and the 3-year pelvic control rate was 89.1% and 86.4% (p = 0.51), respectively. The 3-year relapse-free survival rate in both groups was 69.9% (p = 0.35). Most recurrences were distant metastases, especially in Stage IIB and IIIB patients. Grade 3 and 4 complications were found in 2.8% and 7.1% of the LDR and HDR groups (p = 0.23).
                Comparable outcomes were demonstrated between LDR and HDR intracavitary brachytherapy. Concerning patient convenience, the lower number of medical personnel needed, and decreased radiation to health care workers, HDR intracavitary brachytherapy is an alternative to conventional LDR brachytherapy. The high number of distant failure suggests that other modalities such as systemic concurrent or adjuvant chemotherapy might lower this high recurrence, especially in Stage IIB and IIIB. This was a prospective randomized clinical trial undertaken at our institution to compare low-dose-rate (LDR) intracavitary radiation therapy versus high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary radiation therapy for the treatment of cervical carcinoma.
                From January 1984 to December 1997, a total of 132 patients with Stage II or IIIB of invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix were entered into this randomized study. Treatment arm by HDR or LDR was allocated according to the month of each patient's birth. External irradiation consisted of whole pelvis irradiation and pelvic irradiation. Doses of external irradiation for both groups were identical. The authors used 0.588 as the conversion factor of total intracavitary dose from LDR to HDR.
                The 5-year disease specific survival rates of Stage II and III patients treated with HDR were 69% and 51% whereas those with LDR were 87% and 60%, respectively. The 5-year pelvic recurrence free survival rates of Stage II and III patients treated with HDR were 89% and 73% whereas those with LDR were 100% and 70%, respectively. There was no significant difference in disease specific survival or pelvic recurrence free survival rates between HDR and LDR. The actuarial complication rate (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 3, 4, or 5) at 5 years was 10% in the HDR group and 13% in the LDR group, and the difference between the HDR and LDR groups was not statistically significant.
                The pelvic control or actuarial complication rates were comparable between HDR and LDR treatment. The difference between the disease specific survival rates for HDR and LDR was not statistically significant for Stage II or III, although in Stage II, patients treated with LDR appeared to have a better survival rate than those treated with HDR.
                Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society. High-dose rate (HDR) intracavitary radiation therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix has gradually found wider acceptance. In 1983, the authors first presented the results of prospective randomized comparative study of HDR versus low-dose rate (LDR) therapy. In the current study, the final results of this study with a longer follow-up are presented.
                From January 1975 through August 1983, 430 previously untreated patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Stages I-III were treated with either HDR 60Co therapy or LDR 137Cs therapy at our department. HDR was administered to a total of 259 patients: 32 patients in Stage I, 80 in Stage II, and 147 in Stage III. LDR was administered to a total of 171 patients: 28 patients in Stage I, 61 in Stage II, and 82 in Stage III.
                The 5-year cause-specific survival rates of Stage I-III patients treated with HDR were 85%, 73%, and 53%, respectively. The corresponding figures for LDR were 93%, 78%, and 47%, respectively. There was no significant difference between these survival rates. Moderate-to-severe complications developed in 10% of the patients treated with HDR and 4% of those with LDR. This difference in the incidence of complications was statistically significant (P = 0.023).
                Treatment results in terms of cause-specific survival were equivalent for HDR and LDR treatment. However, the incidence of complications was higher for the HDR group, although within acceptable levels, than for the LDR group. Early mobile tongue cancer can be controlled with interstitial radiotherapy (ISRT). We carried out a Phase III trial to compare the treatment results of low-dose-rate (LDR) ISRT and high-dose-rate (HDR) ISRT for early mobile tongue cancer.
                From April 1992 through October 1996, 59 patients with cancer of the early mobile tongue were registered in this Phase III study. Eight patients were excluded from the evaluation because of violations of the requirements for this study. Of 51 eligible patients, 26 patients were treated with LDR-ISRT (70 Gy/4-9 days) and 25 patients with HDR-ISRT (60 Gy/10 fractions/1 week). For the hyperfractionated HDR-ISRT, the time interval between 2 fractions was more than 6 h.
                Five-year local control rates of the LDR and HDR groups were 84% and 87% respectively. Nodal metastasis occurred in 6 patients in each group. Five-year nodal control rates of the LDR and HDR groups were 77% and 76%, respectively.
                Hyperfractionated HDR-ISRT for early mobile tongue cancer has the same local control compared with continuous LDR-ISRT. Hyperfractionated HDR-ISRT is an alternative treatment for continuous LDR-ISRT. To report mature results of a randomized trial that compared extended-field radiotherapy (EFRT) versus pelvic radiotherapy with concomitant fluorouracil and cisplatin (CTRT) in women with locoregionally advanced carcinomas of the uterine cervix.
                Four hundred three women with cervical cancer were randomly assigned to receive either EFRT or CTRT. Patients were eligible if they had stage IIB to IVA disease, stage IB to IIA disease with a tumor diameter > or = 5 cm, or positive pelvic lymph nodes. Patients were stratified by stage and by method of lymph node evaluation.
                The median follow-up time for 228 surviving patients was 6.6 years. The overall survival rate for patients treated with CTRT was significantly greater than that for patients treated with EFRT (67% v 41% at 8 years; P <.0001). There was an overall reduction in the risk of disease recurrence of 51% (95% CI, 36% to 66%) for patients who received CTRT. Patients with stage IB to IIB disease who received CTRT had better overall and disease-free survival than those treated with EFRT (P <.0001); 116 patients with stage III to IVA disease had better disease-free survival (P =.05) and a trend toward better overall survival (P =.07) if they were randomly assigned to CTRT. The rate of serious late complications of treatment was similar for the two treatment arms.
                Mature analysis confirms that the addition of fluorouracil and cisplatin to radiotherapy significantly improved the survival rate of women with locally advanced cervical cancer without increasing the rate of late treatment-related side effects. The locoregional failure rate remains high in advanced cervical carcinoma. Chemotherapy (CT) was added to radiotherapy (RT) in order to increase disease control and to improve 5-year survival.
                CT + RT included cisplatin administered 100mg/m2, d.1 plus 5-fluorouracil 1000 mg/m2 D.1 to 5, ci (120 hrs), q every 3rd week for 3 cycles, followed by RT. RT included external beam irradiation 64.8 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions, five days a week, by 4-field box technique. The median follow-up was 46 months. Ninety-four patients were evaluable for survival, 47 in the CT + RT group and 47 in the RT group. Ninety-two patients were evaluable for response. Known prognostic factors were equally distributed between the two groups.
                Of the 43 patients evaluable before RT, 31 (72%) achieved a partial or complete response after CT alone. After RT, 52 patients attained a complete response, 25 in the CT + RT group and 27 in the RT-group. Sixty-three patients developed distant metastases or local relapse, 30 in the CT + RT group and 33 in the RT group. In the CT + RT group 6 of the 9 patients with metastases also had local progression at relapse, in the RT group, 7 of 17 patients. The survival rates for the two groups are not statistically different. Thirty-seven patients are alive, 29 have no evidence of disease. Fifty-seven have died, 29 in the CT + RT group and 28 in the RT group. Fifty-four deaths were related to cancer, and 3 to therapy.
                Sequential CT and RT did not improve the survival, local control, or metastasis rate compared with RT alone. To clarify the role of thermoradiotherapy for FIGO Stage IIIB cervical carcinomas, both the clinical response and survival of patients treated with radio- or thermoradiotherapy were investigated. Forty patients with Stage IIIB uterine cervix carcinoma were treated with external beam irradiation to the pelvis, combined with iridium 192 high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy. All patients were divided randomly into the following two groups: the radiotherapy (RT) group of 20 patients, who underwent radiotherapy alone; and the thermoradiotherapy (TRT) group of 20 patients, who underwent three sessions of hyperthermia in addition to radiotherapy. The primary endpoint of this study was local complete response and survival. A complete response was achieved in 50% (10 of 20) in the RT group versus 80% (16 of 20) in the TRT group (p = 0.048). The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival of the patients who were treated with TRT (58.2 and 63.6%) were better than those of the patients treated with RT (48.1 and 45%), but these differences were not significant. The 3-year local relapse-free survival of the patients who were treated with TRT (79.7%) was significantly better than that of the patients treated with RT (48.5%) (p = 0.048). TRT, as delivered in this trial, was well tolerated and did not significantly add to either the relevant clinical acute or long-term toxicity over radiation alone. TRT resulted in a better treatment response and 3-year local relapse-free survival rate than RT for patients with FIGO Stage IIIB cervical carcinoma. A prospective, randomized study was performed to determine the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy over radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
                From January 1991 to December 1998, 80 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients with locoregional carcinoma of the nasopharynx were randomized to receive two courses of chemotherapy, consisting of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CDDP-5FU), that were administered before radiation therapy (CT arm) or radiotherapy alone. The patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were treated with radiation therapy, which was scheduled to commence 2 weeks after the second course chemotherapy.
                With a median follow-up of 49 months, a trend toward improved overall survival or disease free survival favoring the CT arm was observed (5-year overall survival rate, 60% vs. 48%; 5-year disease free survival rate, 55% vs. 43%), although this difference was not significant. There were no differences in locoregional failure free survival between the two arms. However, metastasis free survival favored the CT arm, although this difference was not significant. The results also demonstrated that most patients in the CT arm who experienced recurrent disease developed locoregional recurrences before distant metastases, suggesting that improvements in locoregional control may lead to improved disease free survival.
                The use of CDDP-5FU chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma did not result in a significant improvement in disease free survival or overall survival. However, there was a positive tendency in favor of the CT arm for distant metastasis free survival, although there was no improvement in the locoregional recurrence free survival rate.
                Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society. A total of 342 previously untreated eligible children were entered into the first Intergroup Ewing's Sarcoma Study (IESS) between May 1973 and November 1978. In group I institutions, patients were randomized between treatment 1 (radiotherapy to primary lesion plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, dactinomycin, and Adriamycin [doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH] [VAC plus ADR]) or treatment 2 (same as treatment 1 without ADR), and group II institutions randomized patients between treatment 2 or treatment 3 (same as treatment 2 plus bilateral pulmonary radiotherapy [VAC plus BPR]). The percentages of patients relapse-free and surviving (RFS) at 5 years for treatments 1, 2, and 3 were 60%, 24%, and 44%, respectively. There was strong statistical evidence of a significant advantage in RFS for treatment 1 (VAC plus ADR) versus 2 (VAC alone) (P less than .001) and 3 (P less than .05) and also of treatment 3 versus 2 (P less than .001). Similar significant results were observed with respect to overall survival. Patients with disease at pelvic sites have significantly poorer survival at 5 years than those with disease at nonpelvic sites (34% v 57%; P less than .001). Among pelvic cases, there was no evidence of differing survival by treatment (P = .81), but among nonpelvic cases, there was strong evidence of differing survival by treatment (P less than .001). The overall percentage of patients developing metastatic disease was 44%; the percentages by treatments 1, 2, and 3 were 30%, 72%, and 42%, respectively. The overall incidence of local recurrence was 15%, and there was no evidence that local recurrence rate differed by treatment. Patient characteristics related to prognosis, both with respect to RFS and overall survival experience, were primary site (nonpelvic patients were most favorable) and patient age (younger patients were more favorable).
This review showed no significant differences between HDR- and LDR-ICBT when considering OS, DSS, RFS, local control rate, recurrence, metastasis and treatment related complications for women with cervical carcinoma. Due to some potential advantages of HDR-ICBT (rigid immobilization, outpatient treatment, patient convenience, accuracy of source and applicator positioning, individualized treatment) we recommend the use of HDR-ICBT for all clinical stages of cervix cancer.