This article summarizes the current management of patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer. The topics range from the management of early-stage disease to the phase III randomized studies that have established the current standard of care for patients with locally advanced cancer of the cervix. New approaches to combined-modality therapy with the goal of improving outcomes and decreasing complications are also described.
Worldwide, carcinoma of the cervix is the second most common cancer in women, with an incidence of approximately 500,000 new cases each year and an annual death rate approaching 200,000; many of these women present with advanced-stage disease. Cervical cancer is less prevalent in the United States, but still accounted for over 10,000 new cases and 3,700 deaths in 2005 alone.
The management of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer is determined foremost by clinical stage at presentation, using the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system (Table 1). Surgery is commonly recommended for the definitive management of patients presenting with stage IA disease. The risk of recurrence following curative surgery for patients with stage IA disease is less than 1%. The procedure consists of an extrafascial hysterectomy for stage IA1 disease or radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection and possible para-aortic lymph node sampling for stage IA2 and higher. Patients with stage IA1 disease who are not surgical candidates or who desire to preserve fertility may be managed with a cone biopsy alone if negative margins can be obtained.
Prior to the 1990s, patients with stage IIB or higher advanced disease were treated with radiation alone. However, high rates of recurrence were noted both in the pelvis and distantly. In one series, nearly two-thirds of women treated with radiation alone had recurrent disease in the pelvis; these treatment failures were associated with higher rates of distant metastasis.
Investigators attempted to improve upon these results with the addition of chemotherapy. Early studies examined the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiation. Unfortunately this treatment did not translate into an improvement in cure rates. In fact, one study even showed decreased overall survival.[4-10] Preliminary studies of concurrent chemoradiation (chemotherapy and radiation given simultaneously) demonstrated more promise and led to several US phase III trials (Table 2).[11-15] These studies demonstrated between a 30% and 50% survival benefit for concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiation in locally advanced cervical cancer.
It should be noted that a single study from Canada (not listed in Table 2) failed to document a benefit of chemoradiation compared to radiation alone. However, radiotherapy in this study was administered over a shorter period of time (median: 51 days) compared to other studies (62 to 64 days) and the study was not statistically powered to detect survival differences of less than 15%, a weakness noted by the authors.
Based on the results of these studies, the National Cancer Institute issued a clinical announcement in 1999 urging that strong consideration be given to treating patients diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer with concurrent platinum-based chemoradiation. Despite this clinical announcement, the optimal management of patients diagnosed with stage IB1/IIA cervical cancer is still controversial. These patients may be managed with definitive surgery, definitive chemoradiation, or a combination of surgery and radiation with or without chemotherapy. Patients presenting at these stages are typically managed based on individual factors (eg, comorbidities, age, patient preference) and institutional expertise.
No randomized trial in the United States has compared definitive radiation therapy to radical hysterectomy for patients with stage IB/IIA cervical cancer. In Italy, Landoni and colleagues performed a study to address this question. Patients were randomized to either radical hysterectomy or radiation therapy, and there were no differences in overall survival. However, patients randomized to the surgery arm received adjuvant radiation if final pathology demonstrated extensive disease. Severe complications, defined as morbidities requiring medical or surgical management, were significantly higher in the surgery group (28% vs 12%), and even more so in the patients who received both surgery and radiation. This study has also been criticized for the high rates of complications seen with surgery alone.
1. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 (www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2005f4PWSecured.pdf).
2. NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology-Cervical Cancer, v.2.2006 (www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/cervical.pdf).
3. Fagundes H, Perez CA, Grigsby PW, et al: Distant metastases after irradiation alone in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 24:197-204, 1992.
4. Souhami L, Gil R, Allan S, et al: A randomized trial of chemotherapy followed by pelvic radiation therapy in stage IIIB carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9:970-997, 1991.
5. Cardena J, Olguin A, Figuerosa F, et al: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) + radiotherapy (RT) vs RT in stage IIB, III carcinoma of the cervix: A cooperative study of the French oncology centers (abstract 743). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:1992.
6. Sardi J, Sananes C, Giaroli A, et al: Results of a prospective randomized trial with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB, bulky carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 49:153-155, 1993.
7. Tattersall MH, Ramirez C, Coppleson M: A randomized trial comparing platinum based chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2:244-251, 1993.
8. Kumar L, Jaushal R, Nandy M, et al: Chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in locally advanced cervical cancer: A randomized study. Gynecol Oncol 54:307-315, 1994.
9. Leborgne F, Leborgne JH, Doldan R, et al: Induction chemotherapy and radiotherapy of advanced cancer of the cervix: A pilot study and phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:343-350, 1997.
10. Tattersall MH, Lorvidhaya V, Vootiprux V, et al: Randomized trial of epirubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy followed by pelvic radiation in locally advanced cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol 12:444-451, 1995.
11. Morris M, Eifel P, Jiandong L, et al: Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and paraaortic radiation for high risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1137-1143, 1999.
12. Keys HM, Bundy B, Stehman FB, et al: Cisplatin, radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340:1154-1161, 1999.
13. Rose P, Bundy B, Watkins E, et al: Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1144-1153, 1999.
14. Peters WA III, Liu PY, Rolland JB, et al: Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18:1606-1613, 2000.
15. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy B, et al: Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin vs 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. J Clin Oncol 17:1339-1348, 1999.
16. Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P, et al: Phase III trial comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 20:966-972, 2002.
17. National Cancer Institute Clinical Announcement (direct mailing): Concurrent Chemoirradiation for Cervical Cancer, pp 1-5, February 1999.
18. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al: Randomized study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage IB-IIA cervical cancer. Lancet 350:535-540, 1997.
19. Nag S, Chao C, Erickson B, et al: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for low-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:33-48, 2002.
20. Grinsky T, Rey A, Roche B, et al: Overall treatment time in advanced cervical carcinoma: A critical parameter in treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27:1051-1056, 1993.
21. Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Castro-Vita H, et al: Carcinoma of the uterine cervix. I. Impact of prolongation of overall treatment time and timing of brachytherapy on outcome of radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32:1275-1288, 1995.
22. Lanciano RM, Pajak TF, Martz K, et al: The influence of treatment time on outcome for squamous cell cancer of the uterine cervix treated with radiation: A patterns-of-care study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 25:391-397, 1993.
23. Montana GS, Fowler WC, Varra MA, et al: Carcinoma of the cervix, stage III: Results of radiation therapy. Cancer 57:148-154, 1986.
24. Perez CA, Breaux S, Madoc-Jones H, et al: Radiation therapy alone in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: I. Analysis of tumor recurrence. Cancer 51:1393-1402, 1983.
25. Lanciano RM, Won M, Coia LR, et al: Pretreatment and treatment factors associated with improved outcome in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: A final report of the 1973 and 1978 Patterns of Care studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 20:667-676,
26. Hanks GE, Kerring DF, Kramer S: Patterns of Care outcome studies. Results of the national practice in cancer of the cervix. Cancer 51:959-967, 1983.
27. Coia L, Won M, Lanciano R, et al: The Patterns of Care outcome study for cancer of the uterine cervix. Results of the second national practice survey. Cancer 66:2451-2456, 1990.
28. Montana GS, Hanlon AL, Brickner TL, et al: Carcinoma of the cervix: Patterns of Care studies. Review of 1978, 1983, and 1988-1989 surveys. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32:1481-1486, 1995.
29. Montana GS, Martz KL, Hanks GE: Patterns and sites of failure in cervix cancer treated in the USA in 1978. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 20:87-93, 1991.
30. Corn BW, Hanlon AL, Pajak TF, et al: Technically accurate intracavitary insertions improve pelvic control and survival among patients with locally advanced carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol 53:294-300, 1994.
31. Tod M, Meredith W: A dosage system for use in the treatment of cancer of the uterine cervix. Br J Radiol 11:809-824, 1938.
32. Tod M, Meredith W: Treatment of cancer of the cervix uteri-A revised Manchester method. Br J Radiol 26:252-257, 1953.
33. Nag S, Erickson B, Thomadsen B, et al: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Biol Phys 48:201-211, 2000.
34. Akine Y, Tokita N, Ogino T, et al: Dose equivalence for high-dose rate to low-dose rate intracavitary irradiation in the treatment of cancer of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 19:1511-1514, 1990.
35. Arai T, Nakano T, Morita S, et al: High-dose-rate remote afterloading intracavitary radiation therapy for cancer of the cervix. Cancer 69:175-180, 1992.
36. Cikaric S: Radiation therapy of cervical carcinoma using either HDR or LDR afterloading: Comparison of 5-year results and complications. Strahlenther Onkol 82(suppl): 119-122, 1988.
37. Fu KK, Phillips TL: High-dose-rate vs. low-dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 19:791-796, 1990.
38. Glaser FH: Comparsion of HDR afterloading with 192Ir versus conventional radium therapy in cervix cancer: 5-year results and complications. Strahlenther Onkol 82(suppl):106-113, 1988.
39. Kupiers T: High dose-rate intracavitary irradiation: Results of treatment, in Mould RF (ed): Brachytherapy, pp 169-175. Leersum,
The Netherlands, Nucleotron Trading BV,
40. Orton CG, Seyedsadr M, Somnay A: Comparison of high and low dose rate remote afterloading for cervix cancer and the importance of fractionation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21:1425-1434, 1991.
41. Patel FD, Sharma SC, Negi PS, et al: Low dose rate vs HDR brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: A clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28:335-341, 1994.
42. Sarkaria JN, Petereit DG, Stitt JA, et al: A comparison of the efficacy and complication rates of low-dose rate vs high-dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of uterine cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9:351-356, 1994.
43. Shigematsu Y, Nishiyama K, Masaki N, et al: Treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix by remotely controlled afterloading intracavitary radiotherapy with HDR: A comparative study with a low-dose rate system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9:351-356, 1983.
44. Teshima T, Inoue T, Ikeda H, et al: High-dose rate and low-dose rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cancer 72:2409-2414, 1993.
45. Orton CG: High and low dose brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Acta Oncol 37:117-127, 1998.
46. Petereit DG, Pearcey R: Literature analysis of high dose rate brachytherapy fractionation schedules in the treatment of cervical cancer: Is there an optimal fractionation schedule? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 43:359-366, 1999.
47. Lurain JR: Newer diagnostic approaches to the evaluation of gynecologic malignancies. Obstet Gynecol Surv 37:437-448, 1982.
48. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, et al: Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysis. JAMA 278:1096-1101, 1997.
49. Heller PB, Malfetano JH, Bundy BN, et al: Clinical-pathologic study of stage IIB, III, and IVA carcinoma of the cervix: Extended diagnostic evaluation for paraaortic node metastasis-A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 38:425-430, 1990.
50. Rose PG, Adler LP, Rodriguez M, et al: Positron emission tomography for evaluating para-aortic nodal metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer before surgical staging: A surgicopathologic study. J Clin Oncol 17:41-45, 1999.
51. Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, et al: Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: Detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology 218:776-782, 2001.
52. Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F: Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 19:3745-3749, 2001.
53. Lin LL, Mutic S, Malyapa RS, et al: Sequential FDG brachytherapy treatment planning in carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Biol Phys 63:1494-1501, 2005.
54. Umesaki N, Tanaka T, Miyama M, et al: Early diagnosis and evaluation of therapy in postoperative recurrent cervical cancer by positron emission tomography. Oncol Rep 7:53-56, 2000.
55. Stock R, Chan K, Terk M, et al: A new technique for performing Syed-Neblett template interstitial implants for gynecologic malignancies using transrectal-ultrasound guidance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:819-825, 1997.
56. Erickson B, Albano K, Gillin M: CT-guided interstitial implantation of gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 36:699-709, 1996.
57. Mutic S, Grigsby P, Low D, et al: PET-guided three-dimensional treatment planning of intracavitary gynecologic implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:1104-1110,
58. Nag S, Cardenes H, Chang S, et al: Proposed guidelines for image-based intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical carcinoma: Report from Image-Guided Brachytherapy Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60:1160-1172, 2004.
59. Kirisits C, Potter R, Lang S, et al: Dose and volume parameters for MRI-based treatment planning in intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:901-911, 2005.
60. Haie-Meder C, Potter R, Van Limbergen E, et al: Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (I): Concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol 74:235-245, 2005.
61. Potter R, Haie-Meder C, Van Limbergen E, et al: Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC ESTRO working group (II): Concepts and terms in 3D image-based treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy-3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image-based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology. Radiother Oncol 78:67-77, 2006.
62. Hall EJ: Hyperthermia, in Hall EJ: Radiobiology for the Radiologist, 5th ed, pp 495-520. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000.
63. van der Zee J, Gonzalez DG, van Rhoon GC, et al: Comparison of Radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy plus hyperthermia in locally advanced pelvic tumors: A prospective, randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet 355:1119-1125, 2000.
64. Vasanathan A, Mitsumori M, Park JH, et al: Regional hyperthermia combined with radiotherapy for uterine cervical cancers: A multi-institutional prospective randomized trial of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:145-153, 2005.
65. Westermann AM, Jones EL, Schem B, et al: First results of triple-modality treatment combining radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hyperthermia for the treatment of patients with stage IIB, III, and IVA cervical carcinoma. Cancer 104:763-770, 2005.
66. Portelance L, Chao KS, Grigsby PW, et al: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduces small bowel, rectum, and bladder doses in patients with cervical cancer receiving pelvic and para-aortic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51:261-266, 2001.
67. Mutic S, Malyapa RS, Grigsby PW, et al: PET-guided IMRT for cervical carcinoma with positive para-aortic lymph nodes-a dose-escalation treatment planning study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55:28-35, 2003.
68. Adli M, Mayr NA, Kaiser HS, et al: Does prone positioning reduce small bowel dose in pelvic radiation with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for gynecologic cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57:230-238, 2003.
69. Heron DE, Gerszten K, Selvaraj RN, et al: Conventional 3D conformal versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the adjuvant treatment of gynecologic malignancies: a comparative dosimetric study of dose-volume histograms small star, filled. Gynecol Oncol 91:39-45, 2003.
70. Ahmed RS, Kim RY, Duan J, et al: IMRT dose escalation for positive para-aortic lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer while reducing dose to bone marrow and other organs at risk. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60:505-512, 2004.
71. Mundt AJ, Lujan AE, Rotmensch J, et al: Intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy in women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:1330-1337, 2002.
72. Grdina DJ, Kataoka Y, Murley JS: Amifostine: Mechanisms of action underlying cytoprotection and chemoprevention. Drug Metabol Drug Interact 16:237-279, 2000.
73. Capizzi RL, Oster W: Chemoprotective and radioprotective effects of amifostine: An update of clinical trials. Int J Hematol 72:425-535, 2000.
74. Dorr RT: Radioprotectants: Pharmacology and clinical applications of amifostine. Semin Radiat Oncol 8(4 suppl 1):10-13, 1998.
75. Wadler S, Beitler JJ, Rubin JS, et al: Pilot trial of cisplatin, radiation, and WR2721 in carcinoma of the uterine cervix: A New York Gynecologic Group Study. J Clin Oncol 11:1511-1516, 1993.
76. Gallardo D, Mohar A, Calderillo G, et al: Cisplatin, radiation, and amifostine in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Cancer 9:225-230, 1999.
77. Koukourakis MI, Kyrias G, Kakolyris S, et al: Subcutaneous administration of amifostine during fractionated radiotherapy: A randomized phase II study. J Clin Oncol 18:2226-2233, 2000.
78. Small W Jr: The potential role of amifostine in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: A review. Semin Radiat Oncol 12(1 suppl 1):68-74, 2002.
79. Small W Jr, Winter K, Levenback C, et al: Extended field irradiation and intracavitary brachytherapy combined with cisplatin chemotherapy for cervical cancer with positive para-aortic or high common iliac lymph nodes: Results of arm 1 of RTOG 0116. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63(suppl 2):S94, 2005.
80. Benedet JL, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, et al: Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. J Epidemiol Biostat 6:7-43, 2001.