Skip to main content
Journal of Radiation Research logoLink to Journal of Radiation Research
. 2022 Jan 18;63(2):312–313. doi: 10.1093/jrr/rrab130

How should we appropriately classify low-risk uterine cervical cancer patients suitable for de-intensified treatment?

Naoya Murakami 1,, Ikumi Kuno 2,3, Hiroshi Yoshida 4, Kouya Shiraishi 5, Tomoyasu Kato 6, Hiroshi Igaki 7
PMCID: PMC8944302  PMID: 35039847

Abstract

We suggested de-escalation would be possible for cervical cancer like human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal cancer. However, the classification was based on tumor shrinkage that can be obtained after half of the treatment was finished. Our other article found adverse factors which can be obtained prior to treatment, and they might classify patients earlier.

Keywords: low-risk, human papillomavirus (HPV), de-intensification, de-escalation, uterine cervical cancer


It is reported that about 70% of oropharyngeal cancers are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and are radiosensitive. Therefore, recently de-escalation of treatment intensity has been attempted [1, 2].

It is known that the proportion of HPV-related tumors is much higher in uterine cervical cancer [3]. However, such de-intensification has not been attempted in cervical cancer management. There is a review article against the idea of de-escalation for cervical cancer [4]. Meanwhile, our group recently published an article in which low-risk patients can be controlled by lower doses, suggesting the possibility of de-intensification in cervical cancer patients [5]. In this article, the definition of low-risk was defined as follows: (i) squamous cell carcinoma, (ii) tumor shrinkage calculated by initial and before the first brachytherapy tumor size <26%, (iii) tumor size before the first brachytherapy <4 cm, and (iv) total treatment time < 9 weeks. However, the tumor shrinkage and size before the first brachytherapy are obtained only after half of the treatment is finished. If risk classification can be performed prior to treatment, it would be more helpful since brachytherapy sessions can be scheduled beforehand, especially for high-volume centers in which it is necessary to schedule multi-fractions for many patients.

Recently, our group published another article in which TP53 mutations and non-HPV16/18 genotypes were adverse prognostic clinical factors [6]. Additionally, Miyasaka et al. reported that cervical adenocarcinoma patients who had CD8-positive tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in the tumor nests had significantly better overall survival [7]. The authors now hypothesize that using such pathological factors that can be obtained before treatment, we can identify low-risk patients much earlier and can efficiently make treatment schedules prior to treatment.

Recently, results of IntErnational study on MRI-guided BRAchytherpay in CErvical cancer (EMBRACE-I) involving over 1300 patients has been reported that can be used as a benchmark for clinical practice in image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) for cervical cancer [8]. In the protocol, it was recommended to deliver high-risk CTV (CTVHR) D90 ≥ 85 Gy EQD2. Although 25% of the patients received CTVHR D90 < 85 Gy EQD2, 183 patients (14.6%) developed grade 3–5 late toxicities, which is somewhat higher than the level of rate of late toxicities in Japanese daily practice [9–11]. It is often the case that clinical outcomes of IGABT from Japan are underrecognized since the prescription goal of the Japanese guidelines is lower than 85 Gy EQD2 due to adopting central shielding (CS) after 30 Gy–40 Gy of pelvic external beam irradiation to protect the rectum and bladder from higher radiation exposure. However, obtained clinical outcomes themselves are not so worse or comparable than that of Europa or the United States. Although the central 3 cm–4 cm of the pelvis does not receive direct radiation, CS delivers a non-negligible dose to the tumor [12], and total treatment time is reduced because brachytherapy begins during external beam radiation therapy when CS is used. These points may play a supportive role in the positive clinical outcomes of the Japanese clinical series. Furthermore, it is supposed that the existence of the low-risk group is the reason why a lower dose works in the management of cervical cancer. Despite lower median CTVHR D90 of 69 Gy (range 63 Gy–74 Gy), Kusada et al. recently reported favorable 2-year local control of > 90% for patients with CTVHR D90 ≥ 70 Gy EQD2 or overall treatment time < 57 days in definitive radiotherapy involving IGABT and whole pelvic radiotherapy without CS [13]. This finding also confirms the existence of low-risk cervical cancer patients.

While it is true that some patients require a higher dose as to >85 Gy EQD2, the authors think that now it is high time for uterine cervical cancer management to change from a one-size-fits-all strategy to a more personalized and sophisticated treatment strategy.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Dr. Igaki reports grants and personal fees from HekaBio, grants from CICS, grants from Elekta KK, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Itochu, personal fees from HIMEDIC, personal fees from Varian, outside the submitted work. The others receive no financial support from any third party.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We gratefully acknowledge the work of past and present members of our department.

Contributor Information

Naoya Murakami, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.

Ikumi Kuno, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan; Division of Genome Biology, National Cancer Center Research Institute, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.

Hiroshi Yoshida, Department of Diagnostic Pathology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.

Kouya Shiraishi, Division of Genome Biology, National Cancer Center Research Institute, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.

Tomoyasu Kato, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.

Hiroshi Igaki, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.

References

  • 1. Chen  AM, Felix  C, Wang  PC  et al.  Reduced-dose radiotherapy for human papillomavirus-associated squamous-cell carcinoma of the oropharynx: a single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol  2017;18:803–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Yom  SS, Torres-Saavedra  P, Caudell  JJ  et al.  Reduced-dose radiation therapy for HPV-associated oropharyngeal carcinoma (NRG oncology HN002). J Clin Oncol  2021;39:956–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Crosbie  EJ, Einstein  MH, Franceschi  S  et al.  Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet  2013;382:889–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Beaty  BT, Cosper  PF, Beriwal  S  et al.  Why de-intensification is not possible in HPV-associated cervical cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol  2021;31:339–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Murakami  N, Ando  K, Murata  M  et al.  Why not de-intensification for uterine cervical cancer?  Gynecol Oncol  2021;163:105–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Kuno  I, Takayanagi  D, Asami  Y  et al.  TP53 mutants and non-HPV16/18 genotypes are poor prognostic factors for concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Sci Rep  2021;11:19261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Miyasaka  Y, Yoshimoto  Y, Murata  K  et al.  Treatment outcomes of patients with adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix after definitive radiotherapy and the prognostic impact of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes in pre-treatment biopsy specimens: a multi-institutional retrospective study. J Radiat Res  2020;61:275–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Potter  R, Tanderup  K, Schmid  MP  et al.  MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer (EMBRACE-I): a multicentre prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol  2021;22:538–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Murakami  N, Kobayashi  K, Shima  S  et al.  A hybrid technique of intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: initial outcomes of a single-institute experience. BMC Cancer  2019;19:221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Ohno  T, Noda  SE, Okonogi  N  et al.  In-room computed tomography-based brachytherapy for uterine cervical cancer: results of a 5-year retrospective study. J Radiat Res  2017;58:543–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Nakano  T, Kato  S, Ohno  T  et al.  Long-term results of high-dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cancer  2005;103:92–101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Tamaki  T, Noda  SE, Ohno  T  et al.  Dose-volume histogram analysis of composite EQD2 dose distributions using the central shielding technique in cervical cancer radiotherapy. Brachytherapy  2016;15:598–606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kusada  T, Toita  T, Ariga  T  et al.  Definitive radiotherapy consisting of whole pelvic radiotherapy with no central shielding and CT-based intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer: feasibility, toxicity, and oncologic outcomes in Japanese patients. Int J Clin Oncol  2020;25:1977–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Radiation Research are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES