Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan Wangfujing Dongcheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Department of Radiation Oncology, The second hospital Affiliated by Jilin University, Changchun, People's Republic of China.
BMC Cancer. 2022 Mar 14;22(1):266. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09343-4.
This research aimed to provide an overview of the impact of adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) and external beam pelvic radiotherapy (EBRT) with or without VBT on survival in stage I to II EC patients in China from a long-term multi-institutional analysis.
We retrospectively analyzed stage I to II EC patients from 13 institutions treated between 2003 and 2015. All patients underwent surgical staging and received adjuvant RT. Patients were divided into groups of low-risk (LR), intermediate-risk (IR), high-intermediate-risk (HIR) and high-risk (HR). Survival statistics, failure pattern, and toxicity of different radiation modalities in different risk groups were analyzed.
A total of 1048 patients were included. HR disease represented 27.6%, HIR 17.7%, IR 27.7% and LR 27.1%, respectively. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EAC) and non-endometrioid carcinoma (NEC) accounted for 92.8 and 7.2%. A total of 474 patients received VBT alone and 574 patients received EBRT with or without VBT. As for EAC patients, the 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rate was: 94.6, 90.4, 93.0 and 91.6%, respectively. For LR patients, EBRT (with or without VBT) seemed to be a risk factor. With the higher risk category, the survival benefit of EBRT gradually became remarkable. EBRT (with or without VBT) significantly increased DFS, LRFS and DMFS compared to VBT alone in the HR group (p < 0.05). Distant metastasis was the main failure pattern for all risk groups. As for NEC patients, the 5-year OS, DFS, LRFS and DMFS rate was: 93.4, 87.2, 91.7 and 89.3%, respectively. As for toxicity, EBRT (with or without VBT) significantly increased the incidence of grade 1-2 gastrointestinal, urinary, and hematological toxicity.
For stage I to II EC patients, EAC accounted for the majority and had better prognosis than NEC. For EAC patients, VBT alone resulted in comparable survival to EBRT in the LR, IR and HIR groups, while EBRT significantly increased survival in the HR group. EBRT had higher rate of toxicity than VBT.
本研究旨在通过长期多机构分析,提供中国 I 期至 II 期子宫内膜癌(EC)患者接受辅助阴道近距离放疗(VBT)和盆腔外照射放疗(EBRT)或不接受 VBT 治疗对生存的影响概述。
我们回顾性分析了 2003 年至 2015 年期间来自 13 个机构的 I 期至 II 期 EC 患者。所有患者均接受手术分期,并接受辅助 RT。患者分为低危(LR)、中危(IR)、高中危(HIR)和高危(HR)组。分析了不同风险组中不同放射治疗方式的生存统计、失败模式和毒性。
共纳入 1048 例患者。HR 疾病占 27.6%,HIR 占 17.7%,IR 占 27.7%,LR 占 27.1%。子宫内膜样腺癌(EAC)和非子宫内膜样癌(NEC)分别占 92.8%和 7.2%。474 例患者单独接受 VBT,574 例患者接受 EBRT 联合或不联合 VBT。对于 EAC 患者,5 年总生存率(OS)、无病生存率(DFS)、局部无复发生存率(LRFS)和远处无转移生存率(DMFS)分别为:94.6%、90.4%、93.0%和 91.6%。对于 LR 患者,EBRT(联合或不联合 VBT)似乎是一个危险因素。随着风险类别的升高,EBRT 的生存获益逐渐显著。EBRT(联合或不联合 VBT)与单独 VBT 相比,显著提高了 HR 组的 DFS、LRFS 和 DMFS(p<0.05)。远处转移是所有风险组的主要失败模式。对于 NEC 患者,5 年 OS、DFS、LRFS 和 DMFS 分别为:93.4%、87.2%、91.7%和 89.3%。对于毒性,EBRT(联合或不联合 VBT)显著增加了 1-2 级胃肠道、泌尿系统和血液学毒性的发生率。
对于 I 期至 II 期 EC 患者,EAC 占多数,且预后优于 NEC。对于 EAC 患者,VBT 单独治疗与 LR、IR 和 HIR 组的 EBRT 相比,生存率相当,而 EBRT 显著提高了 HR 组的生存率。EBRT 的毒性发生率高于 VBT。