Differing prognosis of cervical cancer patients with high risk of treatment failure after radical hysterectomy warrants trial treatment modification

Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2009³â 20±Ç 1È£ p.17 ~ p.21

±è¿ì¿µ(Kim Woo-Young) - ¾ÆÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ »êºÎÀΰúÇб³½Ç
Àå¼®ÁØ(Chang Suk-Joon) - ¾ÆÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ »êºÎÀΰúÇб³½Ç
Àå±âÈ«(Chang Ki-Hong) - ¾ÆÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ »êºÎÀΰúÇб³½Ç
À¯Èñ¼®(Ryu Hee-Sug) - ¾ÆÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ »êºÎÀΰúÇб³½Ç
À¯½Âö(Yoo Seung-Chul) - ¾ÆÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ »êºÎÀΰúÇб³½Ç
Àü¹Ì¼±(Chun Mi-Son) - ¾ÆÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇб³½Ç

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to ascertain whether all cervical cancer patients who received adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) for high risk of treatment failure after radical hysterectomy are at the same risk of treatment failure, and if not, to propose trial treatment modification.

Methods: Between January 1999 and December 2007, 58 patients with FIGO stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer received adjuvant CCRT due to high risk factors such as positive lymph nodes or positive parametrium, or positive vaginal resection margins. Patients were divided into two Groups. Group A were patients with negative parametrium, negative vaginal resection margins, and only unilateral lymph node metastasis (involved L/N¡Â2). Group B were those with either bilateral pelvic lymph node involvement, or more than 2 lymph node involvement, or positive parametrium with lymph node involvement.

Results: During a median follow-up period of 34 months (range, 6 to 102 months), 9 patients (15.5%) experienced recurrence; among whom 2 patients (2/28, 7.1%) were Group A, and 7 patients (7/30, 23.3%) were Group B. At 3 years, the estimated progression-free survival rate of all 58 patients was 78.3%, and the overall survival rate was 89.7%. Patients in Group A had significantly better progression-free survival (88.2% vs. 68.2%, p=0.042) and overall survival rate (100% vs. 78.8%, p=0.034) than Group B.

Conclusion: Treatment modifications such as consolidation chemotherapy after CCRT may be considered based on the poor prognosis of very high risk patients such as those patients in Group B.

Å°¿öµå

Concurrent chemoradiation, High risk factor, Treatment modification, Consolidation chemotherapy
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
SCI(E) MEDLINE ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) KoreaMed ´ëÇÑÀÇÇÐȸ ȸ¿ø 
ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
This study suggested that the concept of consolidation chemotherapy (such as 2-3 more cycles of 5-FU+cisplatin) after primary CCRT for locally advanced cervical cancer may be extended to the area of adjuvant treatment after radical hysterectomy.
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå