This review analyzes the experience and trends in external beam radiotherapy for delivering a boost in locally advanced cervical cancer, identifying whether radiation therapy modalities impact clinical outcomes with the ultimate aim of evaluating alternatives to brachytherapy. Three independent Italian radiation oncologists conducted a literature search on different external beam radiotherapy boost modalities in locally advanced cervical cancer. The search yielded 30 studies. Eight dosimetric studies, evaluating target coverage and dose to organs at risk, and nine clinical investigations, reporting clinical outcomes, were analyzed. Dosimetric studies comparing external beam radiotherapy boost with brachytherapy produced divergent results, while clinical studies were limited by their retrospective nature, heterogeneous doses, radiation schedules, volumes and techniques, diverse follow-up times, and small cohorts of patients. Evidence emerged that high-tech external beam radiotherapy seemed no better than image-guided brachytherapy for delivering a boost in locally advanced cervical cancer. Prospective clinical studies comparing high-tech external beam radiotherapy and image-guided brachytherapy should be encouraged.
- cervical cancer
- radiation oncology
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors MC, RL, CA, FP, PF, ARM, and GM provided substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, and for the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. MC and CA drafted the work and revised it critically for important intellectual content. MC and CA provided final approval of the version published. AF, RS, LT, and AC gave their agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.