Phase III randomized trial comparing LDR and HDR brachytherapy in treatment of cervical carcinoma. High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a randomized trial. High-dose rate and low-dose rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Final results of Osaka University Hospital. Phase III trial of high- vs. low-dose-rate interstitial radiotherapy for early mobile tongue cancer.
Intracavitary brachytherapy plays an important role in the treatment of cervical carcinoma. Previous results have shown controversy between the effect of dose rate on tumor control and the occurrence of complications. We performed a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare the clinical outcomes between low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy for treatment of invasive uterine cervical carcinoma.
                A total of 237 patients with previously untreated invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital were randomized between June 1995 and December 2001. Excluding ineligible, incomplete treatment, and incomplete data patients, 109 and 112 patients were in the LDR and HDR groups, respectively. All patients were treated with external beam radiotherapy and LDR or HDR intracavitary brachytherapy using the Chulalongkorn treatment schedule.
                The median follow-up for the LDR and HDR groups was 40.2 and 37.2 months, respectively. The actuarial 3-year overall and relapse-free survival rate for all patients was 69.6% and 70%, respectively. The 3-year overall survival rate in the LDR and HDR groups was 70.9% and 68.4% (p = 0.75) and the 3-year pelvic control rate was 89.1% and 86.4% (p = 0.51), respectively. The 3-year relapse-free survival rate in both groups was 69.9% (p = 0.35). Most recurrences were distant metastases, especially in Stage IIB and IIIB patients. Grade 3 and 4 complications were found in 2.8% and 7.1% of the LDR and HDR groups (p = 0.23).
                Comparable outcomes were demonstrated between LDR and HDR intracavitary brachytherapy. Concerning patient convenience, the lower number of medical personnel needed, and decreased radiation to health care workers, HDR intracavitary brachytherapy is an alternative to conventional LDR brachytherapy. The high number of distant failure suggests that other modalities such as systemic concurrent or adjuvant chemotherapy might lower this high recurrence, especially in Stage IIB and IIIB. This was a prospective randomized clinical trial undertaken at our institution to compare low-dose-rate (LDR) intracavitary radiation therapy versus high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary radiation therapy for the treatment of cervical carcinoma.
                From January 1984 to December 1997, a total of 132 patients with Stage II or IIIB of invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix were entered into this randomized study. Treatment arm by HDR or LDR was allocated according to the month of each patient's birth. External irradiation consisted of whole pelvis irradiation and pelvic irradiation. Doses of external irradiation for both groups were identical. The authors used 0.588 as the conversion factor of total intracavitary dose from LDR to HDR.
                The 5-year disease specific survival rates of Stage II and III patients treated with HDR were 69% and 51% whereas those with LDR were 87% and 60%, respectively. The 5-year pelvic recurrence free survival rates of Stage II and III patients treated with HDR were 89% and 73% whereas those with LDR were 100% and 70%, respectively. There was no significant difference in disease specific survival or pelvic recurrence free survival rates between HDR and LDR. The actuarial complication rate (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 3, 4, or 5) at 5 years was 10% in the HDR group and 13% in the LDR group, and the difference between the HDR and LDR groups was not statistically significant.
                The pelvic control or actuarial complication rates were comparable between HDR and LDR treatment. The difference between the disease specific survival rates for HDR and LDR was not statistically significant for Stage II or III, although in Stage II, patients treated with LDR appeared to have a better survival rate than those treated with HDR.
                Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society. High-dose rate (HDR) intracavitary radiation therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix has gradually found wider acceptance. In 1983, the authors first presented the results of prospective randomized comparative study of HDR versus low-dose rate (LDR) therapy. In the current study, the final results of this study with a longer follow-up are presented.
                From January 1975 through August 1983, 430 previously untreated patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Stages I-III were treated with either HDR 60Co therapy or LDR 137Cs therapy at our department. HDR was administered to a total of 259 patients: 32 patients in Stage I, 80 in Stage II, and 147 in Stage III. LDR was administered to a total of 171 patients: 28 patients in Stage I, 61 in Stage II, and 82 in Stage III.
                The 5-year cause-specific survival rates of Stage I-III patients treated with HDR were 85%, 73%, and 53%, respectively. The corresponding figures for LDR were 93%, 78%, and 47%, respectively. There was no significant difference between these survival rates. Moderate-to-severe complications developed in 10% of the patients treated with HDR and 4% of those with LDR. This difference in the incidence of complications was statistically significant (P = 0.023).
                Treatment results in terms of cause-specific survival were equivalent for HDR and LDR treatment. However, the incidence of complications was higher for the HDR group, although within acceptable levels, than for the LDR group. Early mobile tongue cancer can be controlled with interstitial radiotherapy (ISRT). We carried out a Phase III trial to compare the treatment results of low-dose-rate (LDR) ISRT and high-dose-rate (HDR) ISRT for early mobile tongue cancer.
                From April 1992 through October 1996, 59 patients with cancer of the early mobile tongue were registered in this Phase III study. Eight patients were excluded from the evaluation because of violations of the requirements for this study. Of 51 eligible patients, 26 patients were treated with LDR-ISRT (70 Gy/4-9 days) and 25 patients with HDR-ISRT (60 Gy/10 fractions/1 week). For the hyperfractionated HDR-ISRT, the time interval between 2 fractions was more than 6 h.
                Five-year local control rates of the LDR and HDR groups were 84% and 87% respectively. Nodal metastasis occurred in 6 patients in each group. Five-year nodal control rates of the LDR and HDR groups were 77% and 76%, respectively.
                Hyperfractionated HDR-ISRT for early mobile tongue cancer has the same local control compared with continuous LDR-ISRT. Hyperfractionated HDR-ISRT is an alternative treatment for continuous LDR-ISRT.
This review showed no significant differences between HDR- and LDR-ICBT when considering OS, DSS, RFS, local control rate, recurrence, metastasis and treatment related complications for women with cervical carcinoma. Due to some potential advantages of HDR-ICBT (rigid immobilization, outpatient treatment, patient convenience, accuracy of source and applicator positioning, individualized treatment) we recommend the use of HDR-ICBT for all clinical stages of cervix cancer.