The MRI-guided two adaptive brachytherapy fractions versus one adaptive brachytherapy fraction in one application for the cervical cancer: a retrospective study

Abstract

Purpose

This study retrospectively compared the clinical and toxicity outcomes for the cervical cancer of the MRI-guided two adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) fractions versus one IGABT fraction in one application.

Methods

One hundred and twenty patients with cervical cancer received external beam radiotherapy combined with or without concurrent chemotherapy, which was followed by the IGABT. The IGABT in 63 patients had one IGABT in each application (Arm 1), while in the other 57 patients, at least one treatment was two continuous IGABT every other day in one application (Arm 2). Clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), progression free survival (PFS), local control (LC) were analyzed. Brachytherapy-related toxicities were evaluated, which included pain, dizziness, nausea/vomiting, fever/infection, blood loss during the removal of applicator and needles, the deep venous thrombosis, and other acute toxicities. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTC-AE 5.0) was used to evaluate the incidence and severity of toxicities of the urinary system, lower digestive system, and reproduction system. Kaplan–Meier and the Log-rank test were used to analyze the clinical outcomes.

Results

The median follow-up time of the patients in Arm 1 and Arm 2 was 23.5 and 12.0 months, respectively. The overall treatment time was significantly shorter in Arm 2 than Arm 1 (60 vs. 64 d; P = 0.017). The OS, CSS, PFS, and LC in Arm1 and Arm 2 was 77.8% vs. 86.0% (P = 0.632), 77.8% vs. 87.7% (P = 0.821), 68.3% vs. 70.2% (P = 0.207), and 92.1% vs. 94.7% (P = 0.583), respectively. The highest NRS of the pain during brachytherapy waiting period (2.22 ± 1.84 vs. 3.02 ± 1.65; P < 0.001) and at the time of the removal of the applicator (4.69 ± 1.49 vs. 5.30 ± 1.18; P < 0.001) in the patients who received one hybrid intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy (IC/ISBT) in one application and two continuous IC/ISBT every other day in one application were significantly different. So far four patients with grade 3 late toxicities have been reported.

Conclusions

The findings of this study demonstrated that the two continuous IGABT every other day in one application is a logistically applicable, safe, and effective treatment strategy that could shorten the overall treatment time and reduce the medical cost, comparing with the one IGABT in one application.