Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Radiotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer: updated results of involved-field radiation therapy
  1. Byung Min Lee1,2,
  2. Seo Jin Lee2,
  3. Nalee Kim3,
  4. Hwa Kyung Byun2 and
  5. Yong Bae Kim2
  1. 1Radiation Oncology, Uijeongbu St Mary's Hospital, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  2. 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seodaemun-gu, Korea (the Republic of)
  3. 3Radiation Oncology, Samsung Seoul Hospital, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  1. Correspondence to Dr Yong Bae Kim, Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seodaemun-gu, Korea (the Republic of); ybkim3{at}yuhs.ac

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to update the possible clinical benefits of radiation therapy in recurrent ovarian cancer.

Methods The medical records of 495 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer after initially undergoing maximal cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy based on the pathologic stage between January 2010 and December 2020 were analyzed: 309 and 186 patients were treated without and with involved-field radiation therapy, respectively. Involved-field radiation therapy is defined as radiation therapy only to the areas of the body involved by tumor. The prescribed doses were ≥45 Gy (equivalent dose in 2 Gy/fraction). Overall survival was compared between patients treated with and without involved-field radiation therapy. The favorable group was defined as patients who satisfied at least four of the following factors: good performance, no ascites, normal CA-125, platinum-sensitive tumor, and nodal recurrence.

Results The median age of the patients was 56 years (range 49–63) and median time to recurrence was 11.1 months (range 6.1–15.5). 217 patients (43.8%) were treated at a single site. Radiation therapy, performance status, CA-125, platinum sensitivity, residual disease, and ascites were all significant prognostic factors. The 3-year overall survival of all patients, patients treated without radiation therapy, and patients treated with radiation therapy was 54.0%, 44.8%, and 69.3%, respectively. Radiation therapy was associated with higher overall survival rates in the unfavorable and favorable patient groups. Patient characteristics showed higher rates of normal CA-125, lymph node metastasis only, lower platinum sensitivity, and higher rates of ascites in the radiation therapy group. After propensity score matching, the radiation therapy group showed superior overall survival to the non-radiation therapy group. Normal CA-125, good performance status, and platinum sensitivity were associated with a good prognosis in patients treated with radiation therapy.

Conclusion Our study showed that higher overall survival was observed in patients treated with radiation therapy in recurrent ovarian cancer.

  • Ovarian Cancer
  • Radiotherapy

Data availability statement

In accordance with the journal’s guidelines, we will provide our data for independent analysis by a selected team by the Editorial Team for the purposes of additional data analysis or for the reproducibility of this study in other centers if such is requested.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

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.

Data availability statement

In accordance with the journal’s guidelines, we will provide our data for independent analysis by a selected team by the Editorial Team for the purposes of additional data analysis or for the reproducibility of this study in other centers if such is requested.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors Conceptualization: BML, YBK. Methodology: BML, SJL, NK. Formal analysis: BML, NK, HKB. Investigation: HKB, YBK. Writing - original draft preparation: BML, YBK. Writing - review and editing: YBK, Guarantor: YBK

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.