Currently Viewing
Better Survival With Vaginal Brachytherapy in Endometrial Cancer
September 19, 2016 – Allie Strickler
Setback for Novel Agent to Treat Subset of Patients With Bladder Cancer
September 19, 2016 – Jason M. Broderick
BCAN Focused on Building a High-Energy Community for Bladder Cancer
September 16, 2016 – Andrew J. Roth
High Body Mass Index Associated With Improved Survival in Kidney Cancer
September 16, 2016 – Allie Strickler
New Agents on Horizon in CLL, Though Advantages Are Not Yet Clear
September 16, 2016
Flashy for a Cause: Raising Awareness for Childhood Cancers
September 15, 2016 – Brielle Urciuoli
New Specialized Social Network Connects Women With Ovarian Cancer
September 14, 2016 – Anitra Cotton Hunt, digital coordinator, National Ovarian Cancer Coalition
Kidney Cancer Association Strives to Bridge Gaps in Knowledge
September 14, 2016 – Allie Casey
Novel Agent Continues to Progress in BRCA-Positive Advanced Ovarian Cancer
September 14, 2016 – Jason M. Broderick

Better Survival With Vaginal Brachytherapy in Endometrial Cancer

Women with stage 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus showed improved survival with vaginal brachytherapy (VB), according to a large database analysis published in the journal Cancer.
BY Allie Strickler
PUBLISHED September 19, 2016
Women with stage 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus showed improved survival with vaginal brachytherapy (VB), according to a large database analysis published in the journal Cancer.

Compared with patients who received no form of radiotherapy (RT), adjuvant VB was associated with a 19 percent and 38 percent reduction in the risk of death in women with stage 1A and stage 1B disease, respectively. It was also discovered that use of vaginal brachytherapy was not consistent with guideline recommendations.

“Using the [National Cancer Data Base (NCDB)], we found that vaginal brachytherapy after hysterectomy for stage 1 endometrial cancer was underused as compared to modern consensus guidelines,” Jonathan Strauss, M.D., senior author of the study, said in an interview with CURE. “We also found, that, after controlling for other factors, the use of vaginal brachytherapy was associated with a survival advantage. This suggests that greater adherence to current guidelines may improve patient outcomes.”

There has been a significant absence of survival benefit associated with reduction in locoregional recurrence (LRR) in this patient population. Prior to the current study, a wealth of data generally supported the role of pelvic RT after total abdominal hysterectomy bilateral salpingo oophorectomy in early-stage endometrial cancer. Reductions in cumulative incidence of LRR were seen across many of these studies, but these results did not translate into statistically significant advantages in overall survival (OS).

The current study hypothesized that the dearth of significantly advantageous OS results in this space may be attributed to limited sample sizes in the currently available randomized trials and their corresponding lack of statistical power.

Therefore, in this trial, the NCDB was used to evaluate the effect of postoperative RT on morbidity in a large population of women with stage 1A or 1B endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium.

A total of 44,309 patients were divided into four treatment groups: those who received no RT, those who received pelvis RT, those who received VB, and those who received both pelvis RT and VB.

Among 33,380 women with stage 1A disease, 8.9 percent received adjuvant VB alone, 1.8 percent received adjuvant pelvic RT alone, and 0.9 percent received a combination of the two therapies. The remaining 88.4 percent of women with stage 1A disease did not receive any form of adjuvant RT.

Among 10,929 women with stage 1B disease, 27.7 percent received adjuvant VB, 13.1 percent received adjuvant pelvic RT, and 7.5 percent received a combination of pelvic RT and VB. Approximately 52 percent of women with stage 1B disease did not receive any adjuvant RT.

A multivariate regression analysis assessed demographic and clinical predictors of treatment. For both women with stage 1A and 1B endometrial cancer, comorbid disease, living farther from the hospital and lower grade histology were significantly associated with the omission of RT.

Among only women with stage 1A disease, age 50 years or younger and smaller tumor size were associated with the omission of RT. Receipt of care at a community hospital and age 70 years or older were associated with the omission of RT in women with stage 1B disease.

These data on patient and tumor factors of prognostic significance are consistent with findings from smaller clinical cohorts.

Survival was compared among treatment groups with the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression, which controlled for demographic and clinical covariates.

The Cox regression analysis indicated that older age, higher grade, larger tumor size and comorbid disease were all significantly associated with poorer survival in both women with stage 1A and 1B disease.

For women with stage 1A endometrial cancer, lower education level, Medicaid or uninsured status, and living farther from the hospital were associated with poorer survival.

In patients with stage 1A disease, adjuvant VB was significantly associated with improved survival. In women with stage 1B disease, adjuvant VB was also found to be significantly associated with improved survival.

These results are quite similar to data found in an earlier and much smaller analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database, which demonstrated a survival advantage associated with the use of postoperative RT in women with stage 1B disease.

The recent national consensus guidelines from the American Society of Radiation Oncology and ASCO have attempted to optimize the selection of postoperative therapy by balancing the benefits seen with a reduction in LRR and the treatment-associated toxicities. For women with low-risk stage 1A endometrial cancer, the guidelines currently support observation without RT. On the other hand, VB is recommended for women with higher-risk stage 1A or any stage 1B disease, and pelvic RT is recommended for women at highest risk (stage 1B with high-grade histology).

Across both groups of women with stage 1A and 1B disease, 88 percent and 52 percent, respectively, did not receive RT. Moreover, an examination of a subset of women with stage 1B grade 2 and grade 3/4 endometrial cancer — a group of patients that all guidelines say should receive RT — 50 percent and 41 percent, respectively, received no RT. These results point to a clear disparity between what national guidelines recommend and what is actually happening in common clinical practice in the United States.

This disparity could potentially be explained by the excessive toxicities associated with RT, which some may feel outweigh the oncologic benefits. For example, in PORTEC-1, a study that evaluated long-term outcomes and quality of life of in patients with endometrial carcinoma, a questionnaire-based analysis of the treatment-associated toxicity showed that the receipt of pelvic RT was associated with increased rates of urinary incontinence, diarrhea, and fecal leakage, as well as reduced scores on an index of physical functioning.

In PORTEC-2, a trial in which VB was compared with pelvic RT in patients with endometrial cancer, multiple quality-of-life measures were superior in the VB arm. These results, along with the findings in the current study, suggest that VB is the preferred RT approach.

However, the results of the current study seem to support the notion that the discrepancy between the national guidelines and common clinical practice is actually attributed to the statistical power of the moderately sized randomized trials that may be insufficient to detect an OS benefit.
 
 
 
Be the first to discuss this article on CURE's forum. >>
Talk about this article with other patients, caregivers, and advocates in the General Discussions CURE discussion group.

Related Articles

1
×

Sign In

Not a member? Sign up now!
×

Sign Up

Are you a member? Please Log In