Early Clinical Outcomes and Toxicity of Intensity Modulated Versus Conventional Pelvic Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Cervix Carcinoma: A Prospective Randomized Study

Purpose: To evaluate the toxicity and clinical outcome in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) treated with whole pelvic conventional radiation therapy (WP-CRT) versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (WP-IMRT). Methods and Materials: Between January 2010 and January 2012, 44 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO 2009) stage IIB-IIIB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix were randomized to receive 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions delivered via either WP-CRT or WP-IMRT with concurrent weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m(2). Acute toxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, and late toxicity was graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group system. The primary and secondary endpoints were acute gastrointestinal toxicity and disease-free survival, respectively. Results: Of 44 patients, 22 patients received WP-CRT and 22 received WP-IMRT. In the WP-CRT arm, 13 patients had stage IIB disease and 9 had stage IIIB disease; in the IMRT arm, 12 patients had stage IIB disease and 10 had stage IIIB disease. The median follow-up time in the WP-CRT arm was 21.7 months (range, 10.7-37.4 months), and in the WP-IMRT arm it was 21.6 months (range, 7.7-34.4 months). At 27 months, disease-free survival was 79.4% in the WP-CRT group versus 60% in the WP-IMRT group (P = .651), and overall survival was 76% in the WP-CRT group versus 85.7% in the WP-IMRT group (P = .645). Patients in the WP-IMRT arm experienced significantly fewer grade >= 2 acute gastrointestinal toxicities (31.8% vs 63.6%, P = .034) and grade >= 3 gastrointestinal toxicities (4.5% vs 27.3%, P = .047) than did patients receiving WP-CRT and had less chronic gastrointestinal toxicity (13.6% vs 50%, P = .011). Conclusion: WP-IMRT is associated with significantly less toxicity compared with WP-CRT and has a comparable clinical outcome. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up times are warranted to justify its use in routine clinical practice. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc.