January, 1977, to December, 1990, 311 patients with stage IB-IIA cervix carcinoma were treated at the Radiotherapy Department of the University of Turin. The distribution by stage was: 232 T1b (74.6%) and 79 T2a (25.4%). One hundred and eighty-nine patients (77% T1b-23% T2a) underwent preoperative radiotherapy, 63 patients (58% T1b-42% T2a) radiotherapy alone and 59 (85% T1b-15% T2a) postoperative radiotherapy. The first group of patients was treated according to three treatment protocols, based on different surgical procedures. During the median follow-up period of 86 months (82.6% of the patients underwent a minimum 3-year follow-up), 55 locoregional relapses (17%) and 21 extrapelvic metastases (7%) were observed. The 5-year NED survival rate and local control was 80%. The prognostic factors which significantly influenced survival in the univariate analysis, were: disease stage (p < .01), age (p < .05), the period between first symptom and therapy (p = .01), treatment protocols (radiotherapy combined with surgery versus radiation therapy alone: p < .05), residual disease after brachytherapy (p < .01), nodal status (p < .00001). In the radiotherapy alone group, the total dose influence on survival was not statistically significant (p = .12). In our series, histology and surgical procedures did not seem to influence prognosis. In the multivariate analysis, treatment protocol, age and residual disease after brachytherapy did not influence the prognosis, whereas the total dose of radiotherapy, pain (as first symptom) and Wertheim-Meigs surgery approach are prognostic factors. Severe late-effects were 17: 13 in the radiotherapy plus surgery protocol and 4 in the radiotherapy alone protocol. The incidence of major complications seems to correlate with surgical impact.

[Prognostic factors in the treatment of carcinoma of the cervix uteri in IB-IIA stage. Retrospective study]

RAGONA, Riccardo;
1997-01-01

Abstract

January, 1977, to December, 1990, 311 patients with stage IB-IIA cervix carcinoma were treated at the Radiotherapy Department of the University of Turin. The distribution by stage was: 232 T1b (74.6%) and 79 T2a (25.4%). One hundred and eighty-nine patients (77% T1b-23% T2a) underwent preoperative radiotherapy, 63 patients (58% T1b-42% T2a) radiotherapy alone and 59 (85% T1b-15% T2a) postoperative radiotherapy. The first group of patients was treated according to three treatment protocols, based on different surgical procedures. During the median follow-up period of 86 months (82.6% of the patients underwent a minimum 3-year follow-up), 55 locoregional relapses (17%) and 21 extrapelvic metastases (7%) were observed. The 5-year NED survival rate and local control was 80%. The prognostic factors which significantly influenced survival in the univariate analysis, were: disease stage (p < .01), age (p < .05), the period between first symptom and therapy (p = .01), treatment protocols (radiotherapy combined with surgery versus radiation therapy alone: p < .05), residual disease after brachytherapy (p < .01), nodal status (p < .00001). In the radiotherapy alone group, the total dose influence on survival was not statistically significant (p = .12). In our series, histology and surgical procedures did not seem to influence prognosis. In the multivariate analysis, treatment protocol, age and residual disease after brachytherapy did not influence the prognosis, whereas the total dose of radiotherapy, pain (as first symptom) and Wertheim-Meigs surgery approach are prognostic factors. Severe late-effects were 17: 13 in the radiotherapy plus surgery protocol and 4 in the radiotherapy alone protocol. The incidence of major complications seems to correlate with surgical impact.
1997
93
764
773
SACCO M ;TESSA M ;RAMPINO M ;RAGONA R ;ORIGLIA C ;DEL MASTRO E ;ROTTA P
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/33838
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact