Quasi-experimental analysis shows treatment outcomes in locally advanced cervical carcinoma, revealing comparable efficacy between five and six fractions of chemoradiation.
Background: Cervical cancer remains a leading cause of female mortality worldwide. Optimizing chemoradiation fractionation schedules may improve tumor control while minimizing toxicities and reducing treatment duration. Objective: This study aimed to compare treatment efficacy, overall response rate, and acute toxicities between five-fractions-per-week conventional concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) and six-fractions-per-week accelerated CCRT in locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted at Rajshahi Medical College Hospital (January 2021–July 2022) with 68 biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma patients, randomized into two arms (Arm A: 5 fractions/week, Arm B: 6 fractions/week). Both groups received concurrent weekly cisplatin and HDR brachytherapy. Patients were evaluated pre-, during, and post-treatment at 4, 8, and 12 weeks for response and toxicities. Results: A total number of 68 patients, 64 completed treatments (Arm A: n=32, Arm B: n=32). Mean age was 49.11 ± 10.9 years (range 28–69). Median EBRT duration was significantly shorter in Arm B (29.7 ± 1.9 days) compared to Arm A (36.1 ± 2.3 days; p<0.0001). Complete response was 65.6% in Arm A and 59.4% in Arm B, with partial response 25% vs. 18.8% respectively; overall response rates were 90.6% vs. 78.1% (p=0.168). Grade 1–2 hematological toxicities occurred in 53.1% (Arm A) vs. 46.9% (Arm B; p=0.472). Gastrointestinal toxicity (Grade ≥2) was slightly higher in Arm B (31.2% vs. 28.1%, p=0.623). No progressive disease was observed. Kaplan–Meier estimates showed improved treatment completion probability in Arm B due to shorter schedules. Conclusion: Accelerated CCRT significantly reduced treatment time with comparable response and toxicity outcomes to conventional CCRT. Although overall response favored conventional CCRT, statistical superiority was not established. Larger trials are recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tania et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: