Radical surgery or definitive radiotherapy is effective treatment for
many women with nonbulky, early-stage cervical cancer (stage IB1 to
IIA). However, for women with bulky, early-stage (IB2) or late-stage
disease (stage IIB to IVA), treatment results are
unsatisfactory.[1,2] The patterns of failure are characterized by an
increase in both local and distant metastases related to increasing
tumor size. However, the main cause of failure is uncontrolled
disease within the pelvis. Local failure can be reduced with higher
doses of radiation, but this also causes an increase in
Our previous study demonstrated that strategies to augment tumor
shrinkage prior to intracavitary brachytherapy are necessary to
improve local control and increase survival because of the geometric
limitation of intracavitary brachytherapy. Strategies to enhance the
efficacy of irradiation, such as hyperbaric oxygen,[6,7] hypoxic cell
sensitization, neutron therapy, and hyperthermia,[10,11] have
been attempted, especially in late-stage disease, but have shown
little or no success in most studies. Many investigations are
currently being conducted to identify more effective treatments.
Chemotherapy combined with radiation is the logical choice to improve
local control as well as reduce distant failure. The use of
chemotherapy with radiation therapy in locally advanced cervical
cancer evolved as encouraging results were reported in trials
investigating chemoradiotherapy in squamous cell cancer of the head
and neck, esophagus, lung, and anal canal. The
utility of cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with advanced cervical
cancer has been the subject of extensive clinical investigations,
with variable results. These studies can be categorized as: (1)
neoadjuvant chemotherapy administered prior to radiation; (2)
concurrent chemotherapy in which both chemotherapy and radiotherapy
are administered together; and (3) adjuvant chemotherapy in which
radiation is followed by chemotherapy.
The rationale of combining chemotherapy and radiotherapy has been
reviewed previously. Despite the controversy concerning its
efficacy, the use of chemotherapy with irradiation appears to be
increasing rapidly. Recently, the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
distributed a clinical announcement to physicians recommending the
use of concurrent cisplatin (Platinol)-based chemoradiotherapy for
the treatment of cervical cancer. This article presents an overview
of the results of phase III randomized trials of combined
chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cancer of the cervix.
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been used prior to local regional
radiotherapy for advanced cervical cancer. The theoretical rationale
for the use of cytoreductive systemic agents prior to radiation
therapy includes the following factors:
(1) Access of chemotherapy to the tumor may be optimal before local
treatment interferes with tumor vascularity;
(2) The efficacy of radiation treatment may be improved by reduced
cancer cell numbers and improved oxygenation; and
(3) Distant relapse may be reduced by effects on micrometastases.
Therefore, the potential exists for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to both
improve local cancer control and reduce distant metastasis.
Numerous studies of the combination of chemotherapy and radiation
therapy for advanced cancer of the cervix appear in the literature,
but most are uncontrolled phase II trials involving small numbers of
patients. Conclusions cannot be drawn about the relative merits of
these regimens without data from a large, well-designed phase III
Reports From Phase III Trials
Ten phase III trials of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in advanced
cancer of the cervix have been reported (see Table
1).[18-27] All were single-center trials except for those
reported by Sundfør et al and Tattersall et al. Many of the
trials were small, with fewer than 100 patients in each arm.
Cisplatin-based chemotherapy was utilized in all these trials. In
general, two or three courses were administered before radiation
treatment. Complete response rates achieved with neoadjuvant
chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy ranged from 0% to 26% (average,
7%). Complete response rates for radiotherapy alone and for
neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiation treatment ranged from
33% to 89%, and 42% to 85%, respectively. Median follow-up in these
studies ranged from 1.3 years to 5.0 years.
None of these trials demonstrated a significant difference in
survival with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to radiotherapy
alone. Two studies reported a decreased survival rate and increased
treatment complication rate with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.[20,25]
This was due partially to the death of several patients in one study
from bleomycin (Blenoxane)-associated pulmonary toxicity.
The failure of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to improve local control
indicates that partial regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was
not translated into better local control by subsequent radiotherapy.
The possibility of cross-resistance between cisplatin-based drugs and
radiation has also been proposed, but requires further exploration.
Accelerated repopulation of clonogenic cells in the tumor may provide
another possible explanation for the failure of neoadjuvant
As ineffective chemotherapy may prejudice response to radiation
simply by delaying its initiation, neoadjuvant therapy is potentially
risky. Until regimens are developed that produce a high complete
response rate, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is unlikely to be beneficial.[28-31]
Using chemotherapy during radiation treatment as a radiation
sensitizer is an attractive approach. With this strategy,
the entire treatment course is not prolonged and, thus, the effects
of tumor proliferation are minimized. Unfortunately, these same
mechanisms apply to normal tissue and result in greater toxicity.
We analyzed nine phase III trials of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for
cervical cancer (Table 2).[32-40]
Seven of the nine trials were primarily radiotherapy trials, with or
without concurrent chemotherapy, for late-stage disease. Two other
trials utilized surgery as the primary approach for the treatment of
patients with early-stage disease; one employed preoperative
chemoradiotherapy for bulky stage IB disease, and the other employed
postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with high-risk factors.
Radiation With Concurrent Hydroxyurea
Of the seven trials using primary radiation therapy, the first
two[32,33] evaluated the concurrent use of hydroxyurea. Hydroxyurea
was advocated as a radiation sensitizer in earlier studies by Piver
et al. In 1979, the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) published
the results of a randomized, prospective trial favoring concurrent
hydroxyurea over radiation therapy alone. However, hydroxyurea
has not been incorporated into general use because of its greater
hematologic toxicity and uncertainty about its real benefit.
Moreover, half of the patients in the 1979 GOG trial were inevaluable
due to protocol violations. The 3-year disease-free survival in this
trial was only 13% in the control arm and 26% in the hydroxyurea arm.
Nevertheless, on the basis of these data, three subsequent GOG trials
of concurrent chemoradiotherpy used hydroxyurea as a control arm (Table 3).[41-43]
First, Stehman et al compared hydroxyurea with misonidazole and
reported no survival advantage for misonidazole. Next, Whitney et
al compared hydroxyurea with cisplatin-based combination
chemotherapy and showed survival benefits for the cisplatin
When Rose et al were designing their trial, the results of the
hydroxyurea vs cisplatin-based combined chemotherapy trial were not
available. Therefore, in a three-armed study, they compared treatment
with radiation plus hydroxyurea, radiation plus weekly cisplatin, and
radiation plus hydroxyurea, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (5-FU). These
investigators found that the relapse-free survival rate was
significantly higher in both regimens containing cisplatin. In
addition, patients treated with hydroxyurea had significant
hematologic toxicity: Grade III or IV neutropenia occurred in 24.5%
of patients receiving hydroxyurea and 3.6% of patients receiving
cisplatin/5-FU. Concurrent weekly cisplatin alone was a more
effective, less toxic regimen than radiation plus hydroxyurea.[42,43]
1. Perez CA, Grisby PW, Chao KSC, et al: Tumor size, irradiation
dose, and long-term outcome of carcinoma of uterine cervix. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:307-317, 1998.
2. Kim RY: Radiotherapeutic management in carcinoma of the uterine
cervix: Current status. Int J Gynecol Cancer 3:337-348, 1993.
3. Kim RY, Trotti A, Wu CJ, et al: Radiation alone in the treatment
of cancer of the uterine cervix: Analysis of pelvic failure and dose
response relationship. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17:973-978, 1989.
4. Choy D, Wong LC, Sham J, et al: Dose-tumor response for carcinoma
of cervix. Analysis of 594 patients treated by radiotherapy. Gynecol
Oncol 49:311-317, 1993.
5. Kim RY, Spencer SA, Caranto JF: Significance of cervical tumor
regression prior to intra-
cavitary brachytherapy in the era of image-based treatment planning.
Radiology 213(P):290, 1999.
6. Dische S: Hyperbaric oxygen. The Medical Research Council trials
and their clinical significance. Br J Radiol 51:888-894, 1978.
7. Fletcher GH, Lindberg RD, Caderado JB, et al: Hyperbaric oxygen as
a radiotherapeutic adjuvant in advanced carcinoma of the uterine
cervix. Preliminary results of randomized trials. Cancer 39:617-623, 1997.
8. Medical Research Council: Report on MRC Working Party on the use
of misonidazole in the treatment of carcinoma of the cervix. Br J
Radiol 57:491-499, 1984.
9. Maor MH, Gillespie BW, Peter LJ: Neutron therapy in cervical
cancer. Results of a phase III RTOG study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 14:805-891, 1988.
10. Hornback NB, Shupe RE, Shidnia H, et al: Advanced stage IIIb
cancer of the cervix treated with hyperthermia and radiation. Gynecol
Oncol 23:160-167, 1986.
11. Bloss JD, Berman ML, Syed N, et al: Treatment of advanced
carcinoma of the uterine cervix with interstitial radiotherapy and
hyperthermia. Endocurietherapy/Hyperthermia Oncol 8:145-150, 1992.
12. Stupp R, Weichselbaum RR, Vokes EE: Combined modality therapy of
head and neck cancer. Semin Oncol 21:349-358, 1994.
13. Herskovic A, Martz K, Al-Sarraf M, et al: Combined chemotherapy
and radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with
cancer of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 326:1592-1598, 1992.
14. Schaake-Koming C, Van der Bogaert W, Dalesio O, et al: Effects of
concomitant cisplatin and radiotherapy on inoperable
nonsmall-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 326:524-530, 1992.
15. Cummings BJ, Keane TJ, OSullivan B, et al: Epidermoid anal
cancer: Treatment by radiation alone or by radiation and 5-flurouracil
with and without mitomycin C. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
16. Fu KK, Phillips TL: Biologic rationale of combined radiotherapy
and chemotherapy. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 5:737-751, 1991.
17. Russell AH, Shingleton HM, Jones WB, et al: Trends in the use of
radiation and chemotherapy in the initial management of patients with
carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
18. Chauvergne J, Rohart J, Heron J, et al: Randomized phase III
trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) + radiotherapy (RT) vs RT in
stage IIB, III carcinoma of the cervix: A cooperative study of the
French Oncology Centres (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 7:136,
19. Tobias J, Buxton EJ, Blackledge G, et al: Neoadjuvant bleomycin,
ifosfamide, and cis-
platin in cervical cancer. Cancer Chemother Phamacol
20. Souhami L, Gil RA, Allen S: Randomized trial of chemotherapy
followed by pelvic radiotherapy vs radiotherapy alone in stage IIIB
carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 9:970-977, 1991.
21. Cardenas J, Ogliun A, Figueroa F, et al: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
(CT) + radiotherapy (RT) vs radiotherapy (RT) alone in stage IIIB
cervical carcinoma: Preliminary results (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin
Oncol 11:A743, 1992.
22. Tattersall MHN, 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, 1992.
23. Chiara S, Bruzzone M, Merlini L: Randomized study comparing
chemotherapy plus radiotherapy vs radiotherapy alone in FIGO stage
IIIb-III cervical carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 17:294-297, 1994.
24. Kumar L, Kaushal R, Nandy M: Chemotherapy followed by
radiotherapy vs radiotherapy alone in locally advanced cervical
cancer: A randomized study. Gynecol Oncol 54:307-315, 1994.
25. Tattersall MHN, Lorvidhaya V, Vootiprux V: Randomized trial of
epirubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy followed by pelvic radiation in
locally advanced cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:444-451, 1995.
26. Sundfør K, Trope CG, Högberg T, et al: Radiotherapy
and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for cervical carcinoma. Cancer
27. 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 17:343-350, 1997.
28. Potish RA, Twiggs LB: On the lack of demonstrated clinical
benefit of neoadjuvant cisplatinum therapy for cervical cancer. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27:975-979, 1993.
29. Morton GC, Thomas GM: Does adjuvant chemotherapy change the
prognosis of cervical cancer? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 6:17-20, 1995.
30. Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Chao CKS: Chemotherapy and irradiation in
locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: A
review. Semin Radiat Oncol 7:45-65, 1997.
31. Shueng PW, Hsu WL, Jen YM, et al: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
followed by radiotherapy should not be a standard approach for
locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
32. Hreshchyshyn MM, Aron BS, Boronow RC, et al: Hydroxyurea or
placebo combined with radiation to treat stages IIIB and IV cervical
cervix confined to the pelvis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
33. Piver MS, Barlow JJ, Vongtama V, et al: Hydroxyurea: A radiation
potentiator in carcinoma of the uterine cervix: A randomized
double-blind study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 147:803-808, 1983.
34. Wong LC, Choo YC, Choy D, et al: Long-term follow-up of
potentiation of radiotherapy by cisplatinum in advanced cervical
cancer. Gynecol Oncol 35:159-163, 1989.
35. Mickiewicz E, Roth B, Alvarez A, et al: Chemotherapy (CT) +
radiotherapy (RT) vs radiotherapy alone in cervical cancer stage IIAB
to IVA: A randomized study (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 10:192, 1991.
36. Tseng CJ, Chang CT, Lai CH, et al: A randomized trial of
concurrent chemoradiaotherapy vs radiotherapy in advanced carcinoma
of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 66:52-58, 1997.
37. Thomas G, Dembo A, Ackerman I, et al: A randomized trial of
standard vs partially hyperfractionated radiation with or without
concurrent 5-flurouracil in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol
Oncol 69:137-145, 1998.
38. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al: Pelvic radiation with concurrent
chemotherapy with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk
cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1137-1143, 1999.
39. Keys HM, Bundy BN, 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
40. Peters WA III, Liu PY, Barrett R, et al: Cisplatin,
5-fluorouracil plus radiation therapy are superior to radiation
therapy as adjunctive in high-risk, early-stage carcinoma of the
cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy
(abstract). Gynecol Oncol 72:443, 1999.
41. Stehman FB, Bundy BN, Keys H, et al: A randomized trial of
hydroxyurea vs misonidazole adjunct to radiation therapy in carcinoma
of the cervix. A preliminary report of a Gynecologic Oncology Group
study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 159:87-94, 1988.
42. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, et al: Randomized comparison of
Fluororacil 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 Gynecological Oncology Group study. J Clin
Oncol 17:1339-1348, 1999.
43. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al: Concurrent cisplatin-based
radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N
Engl J Med 340:1144-1153, 1999.
44. Rotman M, Pajak M, Choi K, et al: Prophylactic extended-field
irradiation of para-aortic lymph nodes in stages IIB and bulky IB and
IIA cervical carcinoma: Ten-year treatment results RTOG 79-20. JAMA
45. Grigsby PW, Lu JD, Mutch DG, et al: Twice-daily fractionation of
extended irradiation with brachytherapy and chemotherapy in carcinoma
of the cervix with positive para-aortic lymph nodes: Phase II study
of the Radiotherapy Oncology Group 92-10. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 41:817-822, 1998.
46. Varia MA, Bundy BN, Deppe G, et al: Cervical carcinoma metastatic
to para-aortic nodes: Extended field radiation with concomitant
5-fluorouacil and cisplatin chemotherapy: A Gynecologic Oncology
Group Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 42:1015-1023, 1998.