Search

The prognosis of cervical cancer is linked to lymph node involvement, and this is predicted clinically and pathologically by the stage of the disease, as well as the volume and grade of the tumor. Staging of cervical cancer based on International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging uses physical examination, cystoscopy, proctoscopy, intravenous urography, and barium enema. It does not include CT or MRI. Evaluation of the parametrium is limited in FIGO staging, and lymph node metastasis, an important prognostic factor, is not included in FIGO staging. The most important role for imaging is to distinguish stages Ia, Ib, and IIa disease treated with surgery from advanced disease treated with radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy. This article reviews the current role of imaging in pretreatment planning of invasive cervical cancer. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria((R)) are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the toxicity, patterns of recurrence, and survival in high-risk endometrial cancer patients treated with whole-abdominal radiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with endometrial cancer treated at Northwestern University since 1994 and at Rush University since 1993 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients believed to be at high risk for intra-abdominal recurrence and who received whole-abdominal radiation were reviewed for this study. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients completed whole-abdominal radiation (WAR) and were available for study. The mean and median follow-up was 2.3 and 2.1 years, respectively, with a range of 0.13 to 6.1 years. Seventy-eight percent of the cohort received surgical staging with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy/total abdominal hysterectomy/lymph node sampling. Forty-seven percent of the patients were found to have serous histology as a component of their tumor. Surgical staging results included 19% stage 1B, 4% stage IC, 8% stage IIB, 37% stage IIIA, 26% stage IIIC, and 7% stage IVB. Two patients had gross residual disease at the completion of surgery. Megestrol acetate (Megace) was used as an adjuvant treatment in 37% of patients, and no cases received initial chemotherapy. All patients received WAR with a mean total dose and dose per fraction of 2620 and 143 cGy, respectively. Twenty-two percent of patients received a para-aortic boost. The mean total pelvic dose was 4956 cGy. Seventy percent of patients received a vaginal cuff boost. Eight percent of patients had grade 3 acute gastrointestinal morbidity, and 4% had grade 4 acute gastrointestinal morbidity. No other grade 3 or greater acute or long-term morbidity was noted. At last follow-up, seven (23%) patients had experienced recurrence. The pattern of first recurrence was 0% in the vaginal cuff, 3% other vaginal, 7% pelvic, 7% upper abdominal, 3% lung, 7% bone, and 7% para-aortic lymph nodes. Ultimate recurrences were similar. At last follow-up, 77% patients had no evidence of disease, 13% were alive with disease, and 10% had died of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a conservatrive total whole-abdominal radiation dose and limited para-aortic nodal boost resulted in very tolerable treatments. The patterns of recurrence and survival in this early report are encouraging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For patients with rectal cancer, the standard approach of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery (trimodality therapy) is associated with significant long-term toxicity and/or colostomy for most patients. Patient options focused on quality of life (QOL) have dramatically improved, but there remains limited guidance regarding comparative effectiveness. This systematic review and associated guidelines evaluate how various treatment strategies compare to each other in terms of oncologic outcomes and QOL. Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology were used to search for prospective and retrospective trials and meta-analyses of adequate quality within the Ovid Medline database between January 1, 2012, and June 15, 2023. These studies informed the expert panel, which rated the appropriateness of various treatments in 6 clinical scenarios through a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi). The search process yielded 197 articles that advised voting. Increasing data have shown that nonoperative management (NOM) and primary surgery result in QOL benefits noted over trimodality therapy without detriment to oncologic outcomes. For patients with rectal cancer for whom total mesorectal excision would result in permanent colostomy or inadequate bowel continence, NOM was strongly recommended as usually appropriate. Restaging with tumor response assessment approximately 8 to 12 weeks after completion of radiation therapy/chemoradiation therapy was deemed a necessary component of NOM. The panel recommended active surveillance in the setting of a near-complete or complete response. In the setting of NOM, 54 to 56 Gy in 27 to 31 fractions concurrent with chemotherapy and followed by consolidation chemotherapy was recommended. The panel strongly recommends primary surgery as usually appropriate for a T3N0 high rectal tumor for which low anterior resection and adequate bowel function is possible, with adjuvant chemotherapy considered if N+. Recent data support NOM and primary surgery as important options that should be offered to eligible patients. Considering the complexity of multidisciplinary management, patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting, and therapy should be tailored to individual patient goals/values., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Early-stage endometrial cancer is often treated with hysterectomy followed by adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB). Financial toxicity from cancer treatment can impact treatment completion. The Short Course Adjuvant Vaginal Cuff Brachytherapy in Early Endometrial Cancer Compared to Standard of Care trial is a multicenter, prospective randomized trial of standard of care (SoC) VCB doses delivered in 3 to 5 fractions per the physician's discretion compared with a 2-fraction course. We report on secondary cost endpoints, quantifying the financial impacts of shorter treatment courses on institutions and participating patients., Methods and Materials: Technical (TechCs), professional, and total charges (TotCs) were collected prospectively and are reported as raw and Medicare-adjusted charges per patient. Distance to the treatment center and the median income for each patient's zip code were estimated. The Mann-Whitney U statistic, t test, and X 2 test were used to compare characteristics between the 2 groups., Results: One hundred eight patients were analyzed. SoC VCB was delivered in 3, 4, and 5 fractions for 27 of 54 patients (50%), 11 of 54 (20%), and 16 of 54 (30%), respectively. The median total distance traveled per patient for SoC versus experimental arms was 213 versus 137 miles (p = .12), and the median cost of commute for patients was $36.3 versus $18.0 (p = .11). Compared with 2-fraction treatment, 5-fraction treatment resulted in longer travel distances (median, 462 vs 137 miles; p < .01) and increased travel costs (median, $59.3 vs $18.0; p ≤ .01). Unadjusted raw professional charges in USD per patient did not differ between SoC versus experimental arms ($9159 vs $7532; p = .19). TechCs were significantly higher in the SoC arm ($35,734 vs $24,696; p ≤ .01), as were TotCs ($44,892 vs $32,228; p < .01;). Medicare-adjusted TechCs and TotCs were higher for the SoC arm., Conclusions: Two-fraction VCB resulted in fewer treatments per patient, reduced cost of travel compared with longer courses, and an adjusted reduction in health care expenditures compared with SoC., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)