IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i12p4510-d375270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in Treatment Outcomes and Prognosis between Elderly and Younger Patients Receiving Definitive Radiotherapy for Cervical Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • PeiYu Hou

    (Department of Radiation Oncology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City 220, Taiwan)

  • ChenHsi Hsieh

    (Department of Radiation Oncology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City 220, Taiwan
    Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei 112, Taiwan
    Institute of Traditional Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei 112, Taiwan)

  • MingChow Wei

    (Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City 220, Taiwan)

  • ShengMou Hsiao

    (Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City 220, Taiwan)

  • PeiWei Shueng

    (Department of Radiation Oncology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City 220, Taiwan
    Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei 112, Taiwan)

Abstract

The aim was to compare the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of cervical cancer between elderly and younger women, and to explore which treatment strategy is more appropriate for elderly patients. We retrospectively reviewed patients with cervical cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy (RT) between 2007 and 2016, and divided them into two age groups: age < 70 vs. age ≥ 70. The clinical outcomes were compared between the two age groups. The median follow-up was 32.2 months. A total of 123 patients were eligible, 83 patients in group 1 (age < 70), and 40 patients in group 2 (age ≥ 70). Patients in group 2 received less intracavitary brachytherapy (ICRT) application, less total RT dose, and less concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), and tended to have more limited external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) volume. The treatment outcomes between the age groups revealed significant differences in 5-year overall survival (OS), but no differences in 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS), 66.2% vs. 64.5%, and other loco-regional control. In multivariate analyses for all patients, the performance status, pathology with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, and ICRT application were prognostic factors of CSS. The elderly patients with cervical cancer had comparable CSS and loco-regional control rates, despite receiving less comprehensive treatment. Conservative treatment strategies with RT alone could be appropriate for patients aged ≥ 70 y/o, especially for those with favorable stages or histopathology.

Suggested Citation

  • PeiYu Hou & ChenHsi Hsieh & MingChow Wei & ShengMou Hsiao & PeiWei Shueng, 2020. "Differences in Treatment Outcomes and Prognosis between Elderly and Younger Patients Receiving Definitive Radiotherapy for Cervical Cancer," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-11, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4510-:d:375270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4510/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4510/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4510-:d:375270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.