Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A systematic review of stage IVA cervical cancer treatment: Challenges in the management of an understudied group.
Hunsberger, Kyra S; Treiman, Sierra; Monk, Bradley J; Tewari, Krishnansu S; Taunk, Neil K; Chase, Dana M.
Afiliación
  • Hunsberger KS; The University of Arizona, College of Medicine - Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona.
  • Treiman S; Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona.
  • Monk BJ; The University of Arizona, College of Medicine - Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona; Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona.
  • Tewari KS; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of California, Irvine College of Medicine, Irvine, California.
  • Taunk NK; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
  • Chase DM; Division of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: dmchase@mednet.ucla.edu.
Gynecol Oncol ; 187: 120-127, 2024 08.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38759518
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Stage IVA patients comprise a small proportion of participants in cervical cancer trials, yet survival outcomes are disproportionately poor. We aim to perform a systematic review evaluating stage IVA cervical cancer.

METHODS:

This systematic review was completed via PRISMA 2020 guidelines using two databases. Inclusion criteria comprised Phase III trials (2004-2024) assessing stage IVA cervical cancer including patients by stage. Searches had MeSH terms ((cervical cancer) AND (stage IVA) AND (locally advanced)). 761 were articles identified, including books, trials, reviews, and meta-analyses. Of the articles identified, 12 met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS:

A total of 133 (3.8% of study populations) stage IVA and 818 (40% of study populations) stage III-IVA cervical cancer patients were analyzed. Two studies (stage IVA n = 15; 3.1%) established cisplatin as chemoradiotherapy agent of choice, while one study (stage IVA n = 2; 1%) showed no benefit with cisplatin versus radiotherapy alone. Four studies (stage IVA n = 32; 3.6%; stages IIIB-IVA n = 220; 24%) found no benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy, with one analyzing stage IIIB-IVA patients (progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.23). Three studies (stage IVA n = 71; 5%) found no benefit adding immunomodulator (stage IVA overall survival HR = 3.48; 95% CI 0.52-23.29), hypoxic cell sensitizer, or immunotherapy (stage III-IVA PFS HR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.49-1.03) to chemoradiotherapy. One study (stages III-IVA n = 598; 56%) found benefit adding immunotherapy to chemoradiotherapy (stage III-IVA PFS HR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.42-0.8). One study (stage IVA n = 13; 3.5%) showed benefit with induction chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION:

Trials have not included substantial IVA patients to draw reasonable conclusions. Despite mixed results for immunotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, and induction chemotherapy, the exact benefit for stage IVA patients remains unknown. Future clinical trials should include a greater number of stage IVA cervical cancer patients and analyze them individually.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino / Estadificación de Neoplasias Límite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Gynecol Oncol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino / Estadificación de Neoplasias Límite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Gynecol Oncol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article