Haematological toxicity in cancer cervix patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation by conventional technique- correlation with bone marrow radiation dose

  • Dr. Prachi Upadhyay Junior Resident, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Dr. Pavan Kumar Assistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Dr. Piyush Kumar Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Dr. Ayush Garg Assistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Dr. Arvind Kumar Chauhan Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
Keywords: Cancer Cervix, Haematological Toxicities, Mean Dose Bone Marrow

Abstract

Introduction: The standard of care for treatment of cancer cervix is concurrent chemoradiation followed by brachytherapy in the majority of cases. Conventional radiotherapy with chemotherapy causes haematological toxicities which may be related to radiation to pelvic bone marrow. The present study aims to study the haematological toxicities and correlate with the mean dose to the bone marrow.

Material and Methods: Retrospective data of cancer patients treated in the institute in the year 2019 was retrieved. Haematological toxicities were analyzed in terms of CTCAE criteria. Mean dose to bone marrow was calculated after the delineation in the CT scan. The correlation between haematological toxicity and mean bone marrow was done using a paired t-test for statistical significance.

Results: The data of 20 patients were retrieved. Anaemia Grade, I and Grade II-IV was seen in 65% and 35% respectively. Leukopenia Grade I and Grade II-IV were seen in 85% and 15% respectively and Lymphopenia Grade I and Grade II-Iv were seen in 55% and 45% respectively. The mean dose to bone marrow did not show any statistical significance with the severity of haematological toxicity. There was no Grade II-IV toxicity of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia.

Conclusion: Conventional radiotherapy can safely be practice for patients with cancer cervix with acceptable haematological toxicities.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Thomas GM. Improved treatment for cervical cancer-concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. N EnglJMed. 1999;340(15):1198-2000. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199904153401509.

Albuquerque K., Giangreco D., Morrison C. Radiation related predictors of hematologic toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for cervical cancer and implication for bone marrow sparing pelvic IMRT. Int Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(4):1043-47 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.12.025.

Roeske JC, Lujan A, Rotmensch J, Waggoner SE, Yamada D, Mundt AJ. Intensity-modulatedwhole pelvic radiation therapy in patients with gynecologic malignancies.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(5):1613-1621 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(00)00771-9.

Green DE, Rubin CT. Consequences of irradiation on bone and marrow phenotypes, and its relation to disruption of hematopoietic precursors. Bone.2014;63:87-94.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2014.02.018.

McGuire SM, Bhatia SK, Sun W, Jacobson GM, Menda Y, Ponto LL, et al. Using [18F]fluorothymidine imaged with positron emission tomography to quantify and reduce hematologic toxicity due to chemoradiation therapy for pelvic cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96(1):228-239. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.04.009.

Hayman JA, Callahan JW, Herschtal A, Everitt S, Binns DS, Hicks RJ, et al. Distribution of proliferatingbone marrow in adult cancer patients determined using FLT-PET imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(3):847-852.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.11.040.

Brixey CJ, Roeske JC, Lujan A, et al. Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on acute hematologic toxicity in women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54(5):1388-1396. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(02)03801-4.

Mundt AJ, Lujan A, Rotmensch J, Yamada SD, Rotmensch J, Mundt AJ. Intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy in women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54(5):1330-1337. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(01)02785-7.

Lujan A, Mundt AJ, Yamada D, Rotmensch J, Roeske JC. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy as a means of reducing dose to bone marrow in gynecologic patients receiving whole pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57(2):516-521. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00521-2.

Mell LK, Kochanski JD, Roeske JC, Haslam JJ, Mehta N, Yamada DS, et al. Dosimetric predictors of acutehematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrentcisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66(5):1356-1365. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.018.

Klopp AH, Moughan J, Portelance L, Miller BE, Salehpour MR, Hildebrandt E, et al. Hematologic toxicity in RTOG 0418: a phase 2 study of postoperative IMRT for gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86(1):83-90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.01.017.

Gandhi AK, Sharma DN, Rath GK, Julka PK, Subramani V, Sharma S, et al. Early Clinical Outcomes and Toxicity of IntensityModulated Versus Conventional Pelvic Radiation Therapyfor Locally Advanced Cervix Carcinoma: A ProspectiveRandomized Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(3):542-548. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.06.2059.

Ashitha EA, Bindu G, Ajayakumar T, Janish K, Jayaraman MB. Association between acute hematological toxicities and bone marrow dosimetric parameters in cervical cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation-a comparison between threedimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy. Int JContemp Med Res. 2018;5(11):1-5. doi:https://doi.org/10.21276/ijcmr.2018.5.11.20.

Wong E, D’Souza DP, Chen JZ, Lock M, Rodrigues G, Coad T, et al. Intensity-modulated arctherapy for treatment of high-risk endometrial malignancies. IntJRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(3):830-841. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.06.253.

Chen MF, Tseng CJ, Tseng CC, Kuo YC, Yu CY, Chen WC. Clinical outcome in posthysterectomycervical cancer patients treated with concurrentcisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy: Comparisonwith conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol BiolPhys. 2007;67(5):1438-1444. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.005.

Ahmed RS, Kim RY, Duan J, Meleth S, Santos JF De L, Fiveash JB. IMRT dose escalation forpositive para-aortic lymph nodes in patients with locally advancedcervical cancer while reducing dose to bone marrowand other organs at risk. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60(2):505-512. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.03.035.

Hong L, Alektiar K, Chui C, LoSasso T, Hunt M, Spirou S, et al. IMRT of large fields: Whole abdomen irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54(1):278-279 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02921-8.

Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, Muderspach LI, Chafe WE, Suggs CL 3rd, et al. Cisplatin, radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(15):1154-1161. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199904153401503.

Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, Grigsby PW, Levenback C, Stevens RE, et al. Pelvic radiation with concurrentchemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiationfor high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(15):1137-1143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199904153401501.

Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, Thigpen JT,Deppe G, Maiman MA, et al. Concurrent cisplatinbasedradiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervicalcancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(9):1144-1153. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199904153401502.

Green JA, Kirwan JM, Tierney JF, P Symonds, L Fresco, M Collingwood M, et al. Survival and recurrenceafter concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer ofthe uterine cervix: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2001;358(9284):781-786. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05965-7.

Peters WA III, Liu PY, Barrett RJ II, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS, et al. Concurrent chemotherapyand pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiationtherapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery inhigh-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(8):1606-1613 doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.8.1606.

Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P,Jeffrey J, Johnston D, Lukka H, et al. Phase III trial comparingradical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapyin patients with advanced squamous cell cancer of thecervix. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(4):966-972. doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.20.4.966.

Torres MA, Jhingran A, Thames HD Jr., Levenback CF, Bodurka DC, Ramondetta LM, et al. Comparison oftreatment tolerance and outcomes in patients with cervical cancertreated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in a prospectiverandomized trial or with standard treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70(1):118-125. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.028.

Published
2020-06-18
How to Cite
1.
Upadhyay P, Kumar P, Kumar P, Garg A, Kumar Chauhan A. Haematological toxicity in cancer cervix patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation by conventional technique- correlation with bone marrow radiation dose. Int J Med Res Rev [Internet]. 2020Jun.18 [cited 2020Aug.9];8(3):234-9. Available from: https://ijmrr.medresearch.in/index.php/ijmrr/article/view/1199
Section
Original Article