Abstract
External beam radiotherapy with concomitant platinum-based chemotherapy followed by brachytherapy is defined as radical radiotherapy of cervix uteri carcinoma. Radical radiotherapy is the gold standard treatment for locally advanced cervix uteri carcinoma. The rates of survival and treatment-related adverse events in patients with cervix uteri carcinoma are affected by both stage of disease and treatment. Both should be optimal in proportion to the available facilities. Here, recommendations from the current literature are presented.
Keywords
Brachytherapy, Cervix cancer, Chemotherapy, Radiotherapy
Short Communication
Cervix uteri carcinoma is the most common gynecological cancer worldwide. In addition, it is the fourth most common malignancy and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in women [1]. The most common histopathological subtype is squamous cell carcinoma (85%). Non-squamous cell carcinoma is less common and is associated with poor prognosis. From 36% to 50% of cervix uteri carcinoma patients are diagnosed in a locally advanced stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] stage IB2-IVA) [2]. Based on the results of five randomized-controlled trials, locally advanced cervix uteri carcinoma (LACC) is treated with radical radiotherapy (RT) [3-7]. Radical RT includes external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concomitant platinum-based chemotherapy (CHT) followed by brachytherapy (BRA) [8].
The diagnosis of invasive carcinoma should be confirmed histopathologically with a punch biopsy of grossly visible tumor, or conization of non visible tumor or dilation and curettage for repetitive nondiagnostic materials before staging workup [9]. The FIGO staging system is used for cervix uteri carcinoma and was revised in 2018. While FIGO-2018 does not standardize any imaging technique, lymph node biopsy, or surgical assessment and recommends using them for staging based on the available local resources, it allows under-resourced physicians to continue staging with clinical assessment, including physical examination, biopsy, endoscopy, and conventional imaging techniques (X-ray, intravenous pyelography, and barium enema) [10].
Staging should be accurate to facilitate appropriate treatment, which can improve local control and survival. Adverse events are also reduced secondary to correct staging [11]. Staging is divided into three categories, i.e., clinical, radiological, and surgical staging. The accuracy of clinical staging decreases from 85% to 21% with increasing stage [12]. Therefore, if available, cross-sectional imaging techniques are strongly recommended for staging [10]. Computed tomography (CT) is widely available but its poor soft tissue resolution represents a limitation for local staging (tumor size, parametrial invasion, and so forth) of cervix uteri carcinoma. The absolute agreement between clinical staging and CT staging is 28.30%. While CT shows no superiority over clinical assessment in local staging, it allows more accurate FIGO staging as it can detect urinary obstruction (FIGO III-B), lymph node involvement (FIGO III-C1 and C2), bladder/rectum invasion (FIGO IV-A), and extrapelvic metastasis (FIGO IV-B) [13,14]. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has high soft tissue contrast and resolution, and therefore is superior to both CT and clinical assessment for local staging [15-18]. Unfortunately, lymph node involvement is determined by size and shape in both CT and MRI, and both techniques show low sensitivity in assessment of the lymph nodes. Positron emission tomography (PET)-CT is superior to MRI for evaluating nodal involvement because of its high sensitivity. In addition, PET-CT is recommended for detecting extrapelvic metastases. PET-CT prompts changes in the RT field and treatment plan in 34% and 23% of patients, respectively. While PET-MRI is superior to PET-CT only in local staging, it is not superior in detecting regional lymph node involvement and extrapelvic metastasis [19]. Due to the complementary roles of MRI and PET-CT, also known as trimodality staging workup, FIGO and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend both MRI and PET-CT for pretreatment assessment of cervix uteri carcinoma [10-12, 19]. Unfortunately, surgical staging determines metastasis in 10–15% of patients who do not have paraaortic node metastasis based on staging with PET-CT. In the absence and presence of pelvic lymph node metastasis, the risk for paraaortic lymph node metastasis is 5% and 25–30%, respectively. Therefore, surgical staging is recommended particularly for patients with pelvic lymph node metastasis [20].
EBRT is used to reduce the macroscopic tumor volume and eradicate subclinical disease with acceptable toxicity in patients with LACC. The optimal RT technique for cervix uteri carcinoma has yet to be determined. Although there are no recommendations that two-dimensional (2D) RT should not be used, because this may be the only method available in low- and middle-income countries, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is considered the gold standard in patients with LACC [21,22]. However, 3D-CRT causes significant early adverse events in the gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) tracts and the hematopoietic system, which causes treatment interruptions [23,24]. Interruption of RT negatively affects prognosis. A higher radiation dose can be prescribed with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), increasing target volume coverage and protecting the organs at risk (OAR) [21]. Therefore, the use of IMRT in patients with cervix uteri carcinoma has increased gradually over the last decade [25]. As of 2020, a limited number of studies have compared 2D-RT and 3D-CRT (non-IMRT) techniques with IMRT in patients with LACC [24,26-29]. A meta-analysis showed that early GIS, early GUS, and late GUS adverse events were less common in the IMRT group, and there were no differences between the IMRT and non- IMRT groups in terms of overall survival (OS) or diseasefree survival (DFS) [30]. A recent report indicated that the incidence of hematological toxicity in patients with LACC receiving concomitant radiochemotherapy was reduced with pelvic bone marrow-sparing IMRT [31,32].
CHT is administered concomitantly with RT to increase radiosensitivity. Concomitant cisplatin (DDP) ± fluorouracil (FU) is the standard regimen in radical RT of LACC. DDP can be administered via the intravenous bolus route, weekly (40 mg/m2), triweekly (70–75 mg/m2), or every 4 weeks (50 mg/m2) [3-7]. The use of non-weekly regimens was evaluated in two groups, i.e., single DDP and DDP-based multiagent CHT regimens. The results of two meta-analyses examining this difference indicated that weekly single-DDP causes less hematological toxicity than non-weekly DDP ± multiagent CHT with no differences in survival rates, but the local recurrence rates were lower with triweekly single DDP [33,34]. In patients for whom DDP is contraindicated, although tumor response and survival rates are lower than DDP, usage of carboplatin (weekly; AUC 2) is recommended [35].
BRA is an integral part of radical RT in patients with LACC, and delivers high (>80 Gy) radiation doses to the tumor, while sparing the OAR [36]. In parallel with EBRT, significant advances have been made in BRA image guidance techniques, treatment planning technologies, and application systems. Image guidance techniques in BRA are designated as 2D if using plain radiography, two and a half dimensional (2.5D) if using ultrasonography (USG), and 3D if using CT or MRI. The 2D-BRA technique is also referred to as the conventional technique and is based on two points representing doses to the paracervical triangle (Point A) and pelvic wall (Point B) in accordance with the Manchester system. Unfortunately, the 2D-BRA technique does not take into account tumor size and changes (or variation) in adjacent OAR. Therefore, tumor control rates are decreased in large tumors and the risk of developing adverse events are increased in small tumors [37,38]. In BRA, USG can be performed through both transabdominal and transrectal routes [39]. Although both USG techniques require operator experience and expertise, both are economical, widely available, portable, and have real-time applicability in the BRA room with relatively short application times. Neither can be used to assess target volume coverage, OAR, residual tumor, vaginal extension, or cumulative dose to the sigmoid colon. Therefore, USG should be used together with MRI for BRA planning [38,40]. BRA planning with CT is also increasing in parallel with the increase in use of CT simulators in radiation oncology departments. Contouring OAR with CT is not different from MRI. However, as mentioned in the staging paragraph as MRI has higher soft tissue contrast and resolution than CT, the guidelines recommend using CT together with MRI (T2 weighted sequence) in BRA planning to increase both local control and survival without increasing early and late adverse events. MRI can be used in two methods for BRA planning. BRA planning CT with applicators followed by fusion with pelvic MRI, or pelvic MRI with MRI-compatible applicators followed by fusion with BRA planning CT [41-43]. Second, BRA can be applied at a low dose rate (LDR) or high dose rate (HDR). There were no differences between LDR-BRA and HDRBRA in terms of local control and survival. In LDR-BRA, the healthcare personnel performing the application are exposed to radiation, the treatment period is long (days for LDR vs. minutes for HDR) and pulmonary embolism due to prolonged hospitalization is more common. Therefore, HDR-BRA is preferred at present [44]. Third, different applicators are used in BRA according to the patient’s anatomy and tumor characteristics. The most commonly used are tandem ovoid (TO) with vaginal packing and tandem ring (TR) with a rectal retractor. While there are no differences in tumor treatment outcome between the two types of applicator, the OAR radiation exposure is lower with the use of TR and a rectal retractor compared to TO and vaginal packing. Therefore, if the patient’s anatomy and tumor characteristics are suitable, TR and a rectal retractor should be used [45-47]. In addition, HDR-BRA can be applied as an interdigitated or sequential form [48]. However, the total treatment time (radiochemotherapy + BRA) should not exceed 8 weeks [49].
Adverse events (early or late) increase with combined treatments such as radical RT of cervix uteri carcinoma that includes EBRT with concomitant CHT followed by BRA. The most commonly seen early adverse events are seen both in hematopoietic and gastrointestinal systems [50]. Most of them are self-limited and are treated symptomatically. Intraoperative complications in BRA are vaginal laceration and uterine perforation. Uterine perforation risk is reported between 1.75% and 13.7% in the literature. In uterine perforation, the tandem is removed and prophylactic antibiotics are administered [51]. Late adverse event rates (5-9.5% in 3 years) were reduced with the use of 3D treatment planning techniques including both with EBRT and BRA. The most common late adverse events occur in the rectum (eg.: bleeding, perforation and fistula), small intestine (eg.: obstruction, necrosis, perforation and fistula) and bladder (eg.: hematuria and contracted bladder). More rare adverse events are pelvic insufficiency fracture, vaginal stenosis, lymphedema and neuropathy [52-60].
As mentioned before, EBRT with concomitant platinum-based CHT followed by BRA is defined as radical RT of cervix uteri carcinoma. This combination treatment scheme is applied as a standard at Ondokuz Mayis University Oncology Center to all patients with locally advanced cervix uteri carcinoma without contraindications. In 2019, we presented our results of radical RT of 64 patients with local-advanced cervix uteri carcinoma. All of the patients were treated with 3D–CRT and concomitant cis-platinum-based CHT (40 mg/m2) followed by 3D intra-cavitary HDR-BRA. According to our results, 3-year PFS and OS rates were 67.5 and 76.9%, respectively. Our survival results were compared with the results of 3D-planned radical RT that was published in the literature in Table 1. Additionally, in our study, while grade 3 early adverse effects were detected only in the hematopoietic system at a rate of 3.1% in the early period, no grade 4 and higher early adverse events and any late adverse events were detected [50].
| Author | Three year DFS (%) | Three year OS (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Nomden et al. [52] | 71 | 65 |
| Lakosi et al. [53] | 85 | 81 |
| Rijkmans et al. [54] | 83 | 86 |
| Pötter et al. [55] | 75 | 68 |
| Lindegaard et al. [56] | 87 | 79 |
| Sturdza et al. [57] | 79 | 74 |
| Kawashima et al. [58] | 81 | 94 |
| Choong et al. [59] | 78 | 77 |
| Oh et al. [60] | 72 | 84 |
| Serarslan et al. [50] | 67 | 76 |
Abbreviations: DFS: Disease Free Survival; OS: Overall Survival
Table 1: Results of treatments including three-dimensional radical radiotherapy plannings.
Follow-up and surveillance are as important as treatment. Patients should be followed up in terms of tumor response and adverse events. After radical RT, it is recommended to perform the first control imaging between months 3 and 6. Imaging results have prognostic significance. Followup in cases of complete response or further treatment in cases of non-response are planned according to the tumor response [61-63].
Declaration of Conflict of Interest
None.
Authors’ contributions
AS and DM were responsible for the overall study concept. AS, DM and REY were responsible for treatments. AS, DM and REY collected the clinical data AS, DM and REY provided technical and material support. AS, DM and REY analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed, edited, and approved the final manuscript.
References
2. Leblanc E, Katdare N, Narducci F, Bresson L, Gouy S, Morice P, et al. Should systematic infrarenal paraaortic dissection be the rule in the pretherapeutic staging of primary or recurrent locally advanced cervix cancer patients with a negative preoperative para-aortic PET imaging?. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2016 Jan 1;26(1) :169-175
3. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, Muderspach LI, Chafe WE, Suggs CL, et al. Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 1999 Apr 15;340(15):1154-61.
4. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, Grigsby PW, Levenback C, Stevens RE, et al. Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 1999 Apr 15;340(15):1137-43.
5. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, Thigpen JT, Deppe G, Maiman MA, et al. Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 1999 Apr 15;340(15):1144-53.
6. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, Malfetano JH, Hannigan EV, Fowler, et al. Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1999 May;17(5):1339-1148.
7. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in highrisk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18:1606-1613.
8. Tharavichitkul E, Chakrabandhu S, Wanwilairat S, Tippanya D, Nobnop W, Pukanhaphan N, et al. Intermediate-term results of image-guided brachytherapy and high-technology external beam radiotherapy in cervical cancer: Chiang Mai University experience. Gynecologic Oncology. 2013 Jul 1;130(1):81-5.
9. Viswanathan AN. Uterine Cervix. In: Halperin EC, Wazer DE, Perez CA, Brady LW (editors). Perez and Brady’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology. 7th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Wolters-Kluwer, 2018. pp. 1651- 1739.
10. Bhatla N, Berek JS, Fredes MC, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2019 Apr 1;145(1):129-35.
11. Akkas BE, Demirel BB, Vural GU. Clinical impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the pretreatment evaluation of patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2012 Oct 1;33(10):1081-1188.
12. Robbins J, Kusmirek J, Barroilhet L, Anderson B, Bradley K, Sadowski E. Pitfalls in Imaging of Cervical Cancer. InSeminars in Roentgenology 2015 Nov 26 (Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 17-31).
13. Bipat S, Glas AS, van der Velden J, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecologic Oncology. 2003 Oct 1;91(1):59-66.
14. Prasad TV, Thulkar S, Hari S, Sharma DN, Kumar S. Role of computed tomography (CT) scan in staging of cervical carcinoma. The Indian Journal of Medical Research. 2014 May;139(5):714-19.
15. Burghardt E, Hofmann HM, Ebner F, Haas J, Tamussino K, Justich E. Magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer: a basis for objective classification. Gynecologic Oncology. 1989 Apr 1;33(1):61-7.
16. Kim SH, Choi BI, Han JK, Kim HD, Lee HP, Kang SB, et al. Preoperative staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MRI in 99 patients. Journal of Computer assisted Tomography. 1993 Jul 1;17(4):633-40.
17. Subak LE, Hricak H, Powell CB, Azizi E, Stern JL. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1995 Jul 1;86(1):43-50.
18. Hawighorst H, Knapstein PG, Weikel W, Knopp MV, Schaeffer U, Essig M, et al. Invasive cervix carcinoma (pT2b-pT4a). Value of conventional and pharmacokinetic magnetic resonance tomography (MRI) in comparison with extensive cross sections and histopathologic findings. Radiologe. 1997; 37:130-138.
19. Queiroz MA, Kubik-Huch RA, Hauser N, Freiwald- Chilla B, von Schulthess G, Froehlich JM, et al. PET/MRI and PET/CT in advanced gynaecological tumours: initial experience and comparison. European Radiology. 2015 Aug 1;25(8):2222-30.
20. Martinez A, Angeles MA, Querleu D, Ferron G, Pomel C. How should we stage and tailor treatment strategy in locally advanced cervical cancer? Imaging versus para-aortic surgical staging. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2020 Sep 1;30(9). 1434-1443.
21. Guy JB, Falk AT, Auberdiac P, Cartier L, Vallard A, Ollier E, et al. Dosimetric study of volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer and comparison with 3-dimensional conformal technique for definitive radiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer. Medical Dosimetry. 2016 Mar 1;41(1):9-14.
22. Vordermark D. Radiotherapy of cervical cancer. Oncology Research and Treatment. 2016;39(9):516-20.
23. Lan ML, Yu X, Xiao H, Zhou P, Hu N, Li J, et al. Clinical outcomes and toxicity of postoperative intensitymodulated versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in patients with cervical cancer. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016 Dec;12(4):430-6.
24. Naik A, Gurjar OP, Gupta KL, Singh K, Nag P, Bhandari V. Comparison of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity of intensity-modulated and three-dimensional radiotherapy in patients with cervix carcinoma: a randomized prospective study. Cancer/Radiothérapie. 2016 Jul 1;20(5):370-6.
25. Lv Y, Wang F, Yang L, Sun G. Intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy provides effective dosimetric outcomes for cervical cancer treatment with lower toxicities. Cancer/Radiothérapie. 2014 Dec 1;18(8):745- 52.
26. Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader JS, Mutic S, Mutch DG, et al. Clinical outcomes of definitive intensitymodulated radiation therapy with fluorodeoxyglucose– positron emission tomography simulation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2010 Jul 15;77(4):1085-91.
27. Du XL, Tao J, Sheng XG, Lu CH, Yu H, Wang C, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for advanced cervical cancer: a comparison of dosimetric and clinical outcomes with conventional radiotherapy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2012 Apr 1;125(1):151-7.
28. Chen SW, Liang JA, Yeh LS, Chang WC, Lin WC, Chien CR. Does initial 45Gy of pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduce late complications in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer? A cohort control study using definitive chemoradiotherapy with high-dose rate brachytherapy. Radiology and Oncology. 2013 Jun 1;47(2):176-84.
29. Gandhi AK, Sharma DN, Rath GK, Julka PK, Subramani V, Sharma S, et al. Early clinical outcomes and toxicity of intensity modulated versus conventional pelvic radiation therapy for locally advanced cervix carcinoma: a prospective randomized study. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2013 Nov 1;87(3):542-8.
30. Lin Y, Chen K, Lu Z, Zhao L, Tao Y, Ouyang Y, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for definitive treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiation Oncology. 2018 Dec 1;13(1):177.
31. Mell LK, Sirák I, Wei L, Tarnawski R, Mahantshetty U, Yashar CM, et al. Bone marrow-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy with concurrent cisplatin for stage IB-IVA cervical cancer: an international multicenter phase II clinical trial (INTERTECC-2). International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2017 Mar 1;97(3):536-45.
32. Huang J, Gu F, Ji T, Zhao J, Li G. Pelvic bone marrow sparing intensity modulated radiotherapy reduces the incidence of the hematologic toxicity of patients with cervical cancer receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Radiation Oncology. 2020 Dec;15(1): 180.
33. Chen X, Zou H, Li H, Lin R, Su M, Zhang W, et al. Weekly versus triweekly cisplatin-based chemotherapy concurrent with radiotherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2017 Feb 1;27(2). 344-349.
34. Zhu J, Ji S, Hu Q, Chen Q, Liu Z, Wu J, et al. Concurrent weekly single cisplatin vs triweekly cisplatin alone with radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Cancer Management and Research. 2018;10:1975-85.
35. Xue R, Cai X, Xu H, Wu S, Huang H. The efficacy of concurrent weekly carboplatin with radiotherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecologic Oncology. 2018 Sep 1;150(3):412-9.
36. Banerjee R, Kamrava M. Brachytherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer: a review. International Journal of Women’s Health. 2014;6:555-64.
37. D’Souza D, Baldassarre F, Morton G, Falkson C, Batchelar D. Imaging technologies for high dose rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Clinical Oncology. 2011 Sep 1;23(7):460-75.
38. Tharavichitkul E, Tippanya D, Jayavasti R, Chakrabandhu S, Klunklin P, Onchan W, et al. Twoyear results of transabdominal ultrasound-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Brachytherapy. 2015 Mar 1;14(2):238-44.
39. Van Dyk S, Schneider M, Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan S, Bernshaw D, Narayan K. Ultrasound use in gynecologic brachytherapy: time to focus the beam. Brachytherapy. 2015 May 1;14(3):390-400.
40. Nesvacil N, Schmid MP, Pötter R, Kronreif G, Kirisits C. Combining transrectal ultrasound and CT for imageguided adaptive brachytherapy of cervical cancer: Proof of concept. Brachytherapy. 2016 Nov 1;15(6):839-44.
41. Eskander RN, Scanderbeg D, Saenz CC, Brown M, Yashar C. Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer brachytherapy target and normal tissue contouring. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2010 Jan 1;20(1). 47-53.
42. Dolezel M, Odrazka K, Zizka J, Vanasek J, Kohlova T, Kroulik T, et al. MRI-based preplanning using CT and MRI data fusion in patients with cervical cancer treated with 3D-based brachytherapy: feasibility and accuracy study. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2012 Sep 1;84(1):146-52.
43. Harkenrider MM, Shea SM, Wood AM, Chinsky B, Bajaj A, Mysz M, et al. How one institution overcame the challenges to start an MRI-based brachytherapy program for cervical cancer. Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy. 2017 Apr;9(2):177-86.
44. Lee KK, Lee JY, Nam JM, Kim CB, Park KR. Highdose- rate vs. low-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Brachytherapy. 2015 Jul 1;14(4):449-57.
45. Gaudet M, Lim P, Yuen C, Zhang S, Spadinger I, Dubash R, et al. Comparative analysis of rectal dose parameters in image-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer with and without a rectal retractor. Brachytherapy. 2014 May 1;13(3):257-62.
46. Ma JK, Mourad WF, Allbright R, Packianathan S, Harrell LM, Chinchar E, et al. Short-term clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of tandem and ring versus tandem and ovoids intracavitary applicators. Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy. 2015 Jun;7(3):218-23.
47. Gursel SB, Serarslan A, Meydan AD, Okumus N, Yasayacak T. A comparison of tandem ring and tandem ovoid treatment as a curative brachytherapy component for cervical cancer. Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy. 2020 Apr;12(2):111-7.
48. Alam N, Akram M, Siddiqui SA, Hussain MB. Interdigitated versus sequential high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma cervix. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2019 Oct 1;15(6):1254-9.
49. Petereit DG, Sarkaria JN, Chappell R, Fowler JF, Hartmann TJ, Kinsella TJ, et al. The adverse effect of treatment prolongation in cervical carcinoma. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 1995 Jul 30;32(5):1301-7.
50. Serarslan A, Gursel B, Meydan D, Okumus NO. Radical radiotherapy in patients with cervix uteri carcinoma: experience of Ondokuz Mayis University. BMC Cancer. 2019 Dec 1;19(1):1208.
51. Onal C, Guler OC, Dolek Y, Erbay G. Uterine perforation during 3-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy in patients with cervical cancer: Baskent University experience. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2014 Feb 1;24(2). 346-351.
52. Nomden CN, de Leeuw AA, Roesink JM, Tersteeg RJ, Moerland MA, Witteveen PO, et al. Clinical outcome and dosimetric parameters of chemo-radiation including MRI guided adaptive brachytherapy with tandem-ovoid applicators for cervical cancer patients: a single institution experience. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2013 Apr 1;107(1):69-74.
53. Lakosi F, de Cuypere M, Viet Nguyen P, Jansen N, Warlimont B, Gulyban A, et al. Clinical efficacy and toxicity of radio-chemotherapy and magnetic resonance imaging-guided brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer patients: a mono-institutional experience. Acta Oncologica. 2015 Oct 21;54(9):1558-66.
54. Rijkmans EC, Nout RA, Rutten IH, Ketelaars M, Neelis KJ, Laman MS, et al. Improved survival of patients with cervical cancer treated with image-guided brachytherapy compared with conventional brachytherapy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2014 Nov 1;135(2):231-8.
55. Pötter R, Georg P, Dimopoulos JC, Grimm M, Berger D, Nesvacil N, et al. Clinical outcome of protocol based image (MRI) guided adaptive brachytherapy combined with 3D conformal radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2011 Jul 1;100(1):116- 23.
56. Lindegaard JC, Fokdal LU, Nielsen SK, Juul- Christensen J, Tanderup K. MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer from a Nordic perspective. Acta Oncologica. 2013 Oct 1;52(7):1510-9.
57. Sturdza A, Pötter R, Fokdal LU, Haie-Meder C, Tan LT, Mazeron R, et al. Image guided brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: improved pelvic control and survival in RetroEMBRACE, a multicenter cohort study. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2016 Sep 1;120(3):428-33.
58. Kawashima A, Isohashi F, Mabuchi S, Sawada K, Ueda Y, Kobayashi E, et al. A 3-year follow-up study of radiotherapy using computed tomography–based imageguided brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Journal of Radiation Research. 2019 Mar 1;60(2):264-9.
59. Choong ES, Bownes P, Musunuru HB, Rodda S, Richardson C, Al-Qaisieh B, et al. Hybrid (CT/MRI based) vs. MRI only based image-guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer: Dosimetry comparisons and clinical outcome. Brachytherapy. 2016 Jan 1;15(1):40-8.
60. Oh D, Huh SJ, Park W, Ju SG, Nam H, Lee JE. Clinical outcomes in cervical cancer patients treated by FDG-PET/CT-based 3-dimensional planning for the first brachytherapy session. Medicine. 2016 Jun;95(25):e3895.
61. Onal C, Erbay G, Guler OC. Treatment response evaluation using the mean apparent diffusion coefficient in cervical cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2016 Oct;44(4):1010-9.
62. Marth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, McCormack M, Gonzalez-Martin A, Colombo N, ESMO Guidelines Committee. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv72-83.
63. Kim YJ, Han S, Kim YS, Nam JH. Prognostic value of post-treatment 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in uterine cervical cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2019 May 16;30(5) :e66.