D. Arthur et al., HEURISTICALLY DERIVED TUMOR BURDEN SCORE AS A PROGNOSTIC FACTOR FOR STAGE IIIB CARCINOMA OF THE CERVIX, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 31(4), 1995, pp. 743-751
Citations number
30
Categorie Soggetti
Oncology,"Radiology,Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Purpose: A retrospective analysis of radiotherapeutic: management of l
ocally advanced carcinoma of the uterine cervix was performed to evalu
ate the effect of various treatment parameters and disease extent upon
treat outcome. Methods and Materials: Between 1976 and 1989, 89 patie
nts with Stage IIIB disease were treated with external beam radiothera
py and brachytherapy. Treatment outcomes were evaluated by dose to Poi
nt A, the proportion of Point A dose delivered by brachytherapy, clini
cal response at 3 months, and a newly developed tumor burden scoring s
ystem that quantifies the anatomical extent of disease. Kaplan-Meier e
stimates of tumor control and survival parameters were determined. Res
ults: Loco-regional control (LRC), disease-free survival (DFS), and ov
erall survival (OVS) at 5 years were 52.9%, 45.5%, and 50.3%, respecti
vely. Clinical response at 3 months was highly predictive of local and
distant tumor control, There was no correlation between proportion of
brachytherapy dose and treatment outcome. The tumor burden scoring sy
stem demonstrates that FIGO Stage IIIB disease can be clinically divid
ed into two prognostic groups of low and high tumor burden. Five year
LRC was 62.9% and 40.2% for the low and high tumor burden groups, resp
ectively (p = 0.024). Within the high tumor burden group the LRC was 5
3.0% and 22.5% when the point A dose given was > 78 Gy and less than o
r equal to 78 Gy, respectively (p = 0.047). This correlated with impro
ved DFS and OVS. Conclusion: The tumor burden scoring system subdivide
s PICO Stage IIIB cervical carcinoma into two prognostic groups, predi
cting for overall survival and demonstrating a dose response in the hi
gh tumor burden group. This system may serve to improve future compari
son of treatment outcome and to guide selection of patients who may be
nefit from a more aggressive treatment approach.