Yang Bo, Hu Yinping, Yu Shuhui, Zhao Chunfang, Dou Zhongyan, Li Lan, Li Kangming, Jiang Meiping, Zhang Lan, Wu Xingrao
Department of Radiation Oncology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Peking University Cancer Hospital Yunnan, No. 519, Kunzhou Road, Kunming, 650118, People's Republic of China.
Discov Oncol. 2025 Jul 15;16(1):1339. doi: 10.1007/s12672-025-03202-x.
To compare whether CT-guided three-tube intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) and hybrid intracavitary with interstitial brachytherapy (IC/ISBT) will cause differences in the hematogenous metastasis of cervical cancer.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze 224 patients in our hospital with FIGO stage Ib-IVa cervical cancer whose complete data were available for CT-guided brachytherapy between January 2020 and June 2021. A total of 110 (49.1%) patients were treated with ICBT, and 114 (50.9%) patients were treated with IC/ISBT. These patients were matched for age, histopathological type and grade, FIGO stage, lymph node metastasis status, total radiation dose, radiation dose in the lymph nodes, tumor size before brachytherapy and chemotherapy status. The number of hematogenous metastases that occurred within 2 years after the end of treatment was compared between the two groups.
There was no significant difference in the number of patients with hematogenous metastases between the ICBT group (n = 5, 4.5%) and the IC/ISBT group (n = 12, 10.5%) (P = 0.091), but there were significant differences in tumor size (P < 0.001), histopathological type (P = 0.023) and lymph node radiation dose (P = 0.006) before brachytherapy between the two groups. By propensity score matching (PSM) between the two groups according to 1:1 matching, single factor logistic regression analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of hematogenous metastasis between the two groups (OR = 0.382, 95% CI = 0.071-2.040; P = 0.260).
CT-guided ICBT and IC/ISBT do not cause differences in hematogenous metastasis.
比较CT引导下三管腔内近距离放射治疗（ICBT）与腔内联合组织间近距离放射治疗（IC/ISBT）是否会导致宫颈癌血行转移的差异。
进行一项回顾性队列研究，分析2020年1月至2021年6月期间在我院接受CT引导下近距离放射治疗且有完整数据的224例国际妇产科联盟（FIGO）Ib-IVa期宫颈癌患者。其中110例（49.1%）患者接受ICBT治疗，114例（50.9%）患者接受IC/ISBT治疗。对这些患者的年龄、组织病理学类型和分级、FIGO分期、淋巴结转移状态、总放射剂量、淋巴结放射剂量、近距离放射治疗前肿瘤大小及化疗状态进行匹配。比较两组治疗结束后2年内发生血行转移的数量。
ICBT组（n = 5，4.5%）和IC/ISBT组（n = 12，10.5%）血行转移患者数量无显著差异（P = 0.091），但两组近距离放射治疗前肿瘤大小（P < 0.001）、组织病理学类型（P = 0.023）和淋巴结放射剂量（P = 0.006）存在显著差异。两组按1:1匹配进行倾向得分匹配（PSM）后，单因素逻辑回归分析显示两组血行转移发生率无显著差异（OR = 0.382，95%CI = 0.071 - 2.040；P = 0.260）。
CT引导下的ICBT和IC/ISBT在血行转移方面无差异。
