High Versus Low Dose-Rate Intracavitary Irradiation for Adenocarcinoma of the Uterine Cervix.
- Author:
Woo Chul KIM
;
Gwi Eon KIM
;
Eun Ji CHUNG
;
Chang Ok SUH
;
Soon Won HONG
;
Young Kap CHO
;
Juhn LOH
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Adenocarcinoma;
Uterine cervix;
High dose-rate;
Low dose-rate
- MeSH:
Adenocarcinoma*;
Brachytherapy;
Cervix Uteri*;
Female;
Humans;
Incidence;
Radiation Oncology;
Radium;
Retrospective Studies;
Survival Rate
- From:The Journal of the Korean Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
2000;18(1):32-39
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The incidence of adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix is low. Traditionally, Low Dose R ate (LDR) brachytherapy has been used as a standard modality in the treatment for patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix. The PURPOSE of this report is to evaluate the effects of the High dose rate (HL)R) brachytherapy in the patients with adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix compared with the LDR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1971 to December 1992, 106 patients of adenocarcinoma of uterine cervix were treated with radiation therapy in the Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University with curative intent. LDR brachytherapy was carried out on 35 patients and 7 1 patients w -re treated with HDR brachytherapy. In LDR Group, 8 patients were in stage I, 18 in stage II and 9 in st;ge III. External radiation therapy was delivered with 10 MV X-ray, daily 2 Gy fractionation, total dose 40-46 Gy (median 43 Gy), And LDR Radium intracavitary irradiation was performed with Henschke applicator, 22-59 Gy to point A (median 43 Gy). In HDR Group, there were 16 patients in stage I, 38 in stag <, II and 17 in stage III. The total dose of external radiation was 40-61 Gy(median 45 Gy), daily 1.8-2.0 3y. HDR Co-60 intracavitary irradiation was performed with RALS (Remote Afterloading System), 30-57 Gy (median 39 Gy) to point A, 3 times a week, 3 Gy per fraction. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival rate in LDR Group was 72.9%, 6 1.9%, 45.0% in stage I, II, III, respectively and corresponding figures for HDR were 87.1%, 58.3%, 41.2%, respectively (p>0.05). There was no statistical difference in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate between HDR Group and LDR Group in a denocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. There was 1 1% of late complication rates in LDR Group and 27% in HDR Group. There were no prognostic factors compared HDR with LDR group. The incidence of the late complication rate in HDR Group stage II, III was higher than that in LDR Group ( 16.7% vs. 31.6% in stage II, 11. 1% vs. 35.3% in stage III, p>0.05). Although the incidence of radiation induced late complication rate was higher in HDR Group stage II and III patients than that in the LDR Group, statistical significance was not detected and within acceptable level. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in terms of 5-year survival rate and failure pattern in the patients with adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with HDR and LDR brachytherapy. Even late complication rates were higher in the HDR group it was an acceptable range. This retrospective study suggests that HDR brachytherapy seems to replace the LDR brachytherapy in the adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. However, further studies will be required to refine the dose rate effects.
