45
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Brachytherapy for cervix cancer: low-dose rate or high-dose rate brachytherapy – a meta-analysis of clinical trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The literature supporting high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR) in the treatment of cervical carcinoma derives primarily from retrospective series. However, controversy still persists regarding the efficacy and safety of HDR brachytherapy compared to low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, in particular, due to inadequate tumor coverage for stage III patients. Whether LDR or HDR brachytherapy produces better results for these patients in terms of survival rate, local control rate and the treatment complications remain controversial.

          Methods

          A meta-analysis of RCT was performed comparing LDR to HDR brachytherapy for cervix cancer treated for radiotherapy alone. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT and Cochrane Library databases, as well as abstracts published in the annual proceedings were systematically searched. We assessed methodological quality for each outcome by grading the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We used "recommend" for strong recommendations, and "suggest" for weak recommendations.

          Results

          Pooled results from five randomized trials (2,065 patients) of HDR brachytherapy in cervix cancer showed no significant increase of mortality (p = 0.52), local recurrence (p = 0.68), or late complications (rectal; p = 0.7, bladder; p = 0.95 or small intestine; p = 0.06) rates as compared to LDR brachytherapy. In the subgroup analysis no difference was observed for overall mortality and local recurrence in patients with clinical stages I, II and III. The quality of evidence was low for mortality and local recurrence in patients with clinical stage I, and moderate for other clinical stages.

          Conclusion

          Our meta-analysis shows that there are no differences between HDR and LDR for overall survival, local recurrence and late complications for clinical stages I, II and III. By means of the GRADE system, we recommend the use of HDR for all clinical stages of cervix cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer Statistics, 2008

          Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the number of new cancer cases and deaths expected in the United States in the current year and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival based on incidence data from the National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries and mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Incidence and death rates are age-standardized to the 2000 US standard million population. A total of 1,437,180 new cancer cases and 565,650 deaths from cancer are projected to occur in the United States in 2008. Notable trends in cancer incidence and mortality include stabilization of incidence rates for all cancer sites combined in men from 1995 through 2004 and in women from 1999 through 2004 and a continued decrease in the cancer death rate since 1990 in men and since 1991 in women. Overall cancer death rates in 2004 compared with 1990 in men and 1991 in women decreased by 18.4% and 10.5%, respectively, resulting in the avoidance of over a half million deaths from cancer during this time interval. This report also examines cancer incidence, mortality, and survival by site, sex, race/ethnicity, education, geographic area, and calendar year, as well as the proportionate contribution of selected sites to the overall trends. Although much progress has been made in reducing mortality rates, stabilizing incidence rates, and improving survival, cancer still accounts for more deaths than heart disease in persons under age 85 years. Further progress can be accelerated by supporting new discoveries and by applying existing cancer control knowledge across all segments of the population.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Dose and Volume Specification for Reporting Intracavitary Therapy in Gynecology

            (1985)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a randomized trial.

              This was a prospective randomized clinical trial undertaken at our institution to compare low-dose-rate (LDR) intracavitary radiation therapy versus high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary radiation therapy for the treatment of cervical carcinoma. From January 1984 to December 1997, a total of 132 patients with Stage II or IIIB of invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix were entered into this randomized study. Treatment arm by HDR or LDR was allocated according to the month of each patient's birth. External irradiation consisted of whole pelvis irradiation and pelvic irradiation. Doses of external irradiation for both groups were identical. The authors used 0.588 as the conversion factor of total intracavitary dose from LDR to HDR. The 5-year disease specific survival rates of Stage II and III patients treated with HDR were 69% and 51% whereas those with LDR were 87% and 60%, respectively. The 5-year pelvic recurrence free survival rates of Stage II and III patients treated with HDR were 89% and 73% whereas those with LDR were 100% and 70%, respectively. There was no significant difference in disease specific survival or pelvic recurrence free survival rates between HDR and LDR. The actuarial complication rate (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 3, 4, or 5) at 5 years was 10% in the HDR group and 13% in the LDR group, and the difference between the HDR and LDR groups was not statistically significant. The pelvic control or actuarial complication rates were comparable between HDR and LDR treatment. The difference between the disease specific survival rates for HDR and LDR was not statistically significant for Stage II or III, although in Stage II, patients treated with LDR appeared to have a better survival rate than those treated with HDR. Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Exp Clin Cancer Res
                Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research : CR
                BioMed Central
                0392-9078
                1756-9966
                2009
                5 April 2009
                : 28
                : 1
                : 47
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Radiation Oncology Department at Marilia School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil
                [2 ]Medical Student at Marília School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil
                [3 ]Department of Ophthalmology at Marília medicine school, São Paulo, Brazil
                Article
                1756-9966-28-47
                10.1186/1756-9966-28-47
                2673206
                19344527
                fe48ed52-46f6-45db-9d42-9b9c394ab852
                Copyright © 2009 Viani et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 27 January 2009
                : 5 April 2009
                Categories
                Research

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article