Vaginal
brachytherapy versus external beam pelvic radiotherapy for
high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer: Results of the randomized
PORTEC-2 trial
Presenter: R.A. Nout
Presenter's Affiliation: Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden,
Netherlands
Type of Session: Scientific
Background
-
Endometrial carcinoma represents the most
common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, and the
second most common cause of gynecologic cancer death.
-
Tumor grade (1 -3), histology, and depth of
invasion are important prognostic factors for patients with
endometrial carcinoma, and depth of invasion is incorporated
into the staging system as follows:
-
Stage I disease: Tumor confined to corpus
uteri
-
IA: Tumor limited to endometrium
-
IB: Tumor invading less than 50% of
myometrium
-
IC: Tumor invading greater than 50%
of myometrium
-
Stage II: Tumor invades cervix, but does
not extend beyond uterus
-
Stage III: Tumor with local/ regional
spread
-
Stage IV: Tumor invasion to bowel/
bladder and/ or metastatic disease.
-
In the absence of co-morbidities that prevent
surgery, patients with endometrial carcinoma confined to the
uterus and cervix are generally treated surgically, with or
without adjuvant treatment.
-
Multiple groups have studied the role of
adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with localized, resectable
disease (Stage I and II):
-
The Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG)
randomized patients with stages IB, IC, and occult II
(intermediate-risk) endometiral cancer to observation versus
post-operative whole pelvis radiotherapy (RT) to a dose of
50.4 Gray (Gy) following total abdominal
hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/ BSO),
and lymph node dissection in the
GOG 99
trial. Radiotherapy was found to decrease risk of local
recurrence, but had no effect on overall survival
(Keys, 2004).
-
A similar trial, the
Post-Operative
Radiotherapy in Endometrial Cancer (PORTEC) trial,
randomized patients with stage IB grade 2-3 and stage IC
grade 1-2 disease to observation
versus whole pelvis RT to 46 Gy following TAH/ BSO. Lymph
node dissection was not performed. Radiotherapy
decreased local recurrence rates from 14% to 4% (p < 0.001),
with no difference in overall survival or development of
distant metastatic disease. The majority of failures (75%)
were in the vaginal vault (Creutzberg, 2000).
-
In the PORTEC trial,
several
high-risk features were identified, including grade 3
disease, involvement of the outer 50% of the myometrium,
and age greater than 60 years.
-
Patients with at least
two of these
factors were classified as having
"high-intermediate-risk" disease.
-
When a separate analysis of
high-intermediate patients was performed, local
recurrence risk was decreased from 19% to 5% with use of
radiotherapy, without significant impact on
overall survival.
-
The incidence of GI toxicity was
significantly increased in the group of patients
receiving radiotherapy, from <1% to 17% (p < 0.0001).
-
Phase II trials have suggested that vaginal
brachytherapy (VBT) may be as effective as external beam
radiotherapy (EBRT), although much of this work has been done in
patients with low-risk disease.
-
The results of the
second PORTEC trial, PORTEC-2, are presented here; this trial
was designed to compare the efficacy of VBT versus EBRT in
patients with high-intermediate risk localized endometrial
cancer following TAH/BSO in a randomized, controlled, fashion.
-
This trial was designed to assess not
only overall survival and local recurrence, but quality of
life with regards to treatment modality.
Materials and Methods
-
The PORTEC-2 trial was designed as a
multi-center, phase III, randomized controlled trial.
-
The trial was designed to assess patients
with high-intermediate risk disease based on the findings of the
PORTEC-1 trial. Eligible patients were as follows:
-
Age greater than 60 years, with stage IC,
grade 1-2, or stage IB, grade 3 disease.
-
Any age and stage 2A, grade 1-2.
-
All patients underwent TAH/ BSO without lymph
node dissection.
-
Patients were subsequently
randomized to EBRT (46
Gy delivered in 23 fractions), or VBT (21 Gy delivered via 3
high-dose rate fractions, or 30 Gy delivered via low-dose
rate brachytherapy).
-
The primary endpoint assessed was vaginal
recurrence rate (VRR), which was expected to be 2% at 3-years in
the EBRT group based on data from PORTEC-1. In order to estimate
differences in the VBT group with adequate precision (standard
error 2%), an accrual of 400 patients over 4 years was planned
to provide power of 80%.
-
Secondary endpoints included quality of life
(QOL), overall survival (OS), and local-regional recurrence (LRR)
-
Analysis was done by intention-to-treat,
using the competing risk method to assess VRR, LRR, and distant
relapse, and the Kaplan-Meier method to assess OS and
relapse-free survival (RFS).
Results
-
This study enrolled 427 patients during the
period from 2002 to 2006. Patients were randomized to EBRT (n =
214) versus VBT (n = 213).
-
A total of 12 patients from the EBRT
group and 10 from the VBT group were ineligible or withdrew
from the study.
-
No patient was lost to follow-up, and all
patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis.
-
No difference in baseline patient
characteristics was observed.
-
Median follow-up for the entire
population was 36 months.
-
Three-year actuarial vaginal recurrence rates were 1.9% in both
arms (p = 0.97).
-
Three-year local recurrence rates were 2.5%
in the EBRT arm, and 4.0% in the VBT arm (p = 0.15).
-
Three-year
pelvic nodal recurrence
rates were 0.6% in the EBRT arm, and 3.5% in the VBT arm (p
= 0.03).
-
Three-year rates of distant metastasis were
5.7% in the EBRT arm, and 6.3% in the VBT arm (p = 0.37).
-
Death rates were 9.7% in the EBRT arm and
9.2% in the VBT arm (p = 0.96). There were no significant
differences in 3-year OS (90.4% versus 90.8%, respectively, p =
0.55) or RFS (89.5%
versus 89.1%, p = 0.38).
-
Type of first failure was assessed between
the two arms:
-
Type of first failure was VRR in 1.4% of
patients receiving EBRT, and 0% of patients receiving VBT.
-
First failure was pelvic nodal recurrence
in 0.7% of EBRT patients, and 1.3% of VBT patients.
-
First failure was distant metastatic
disease in 6.0% of EBRT patients, and 6.4% of VBT patients.
-
On assessment of QOL, the incidence of
diarrhea limiting daily
activity was significantly increased in the EBRT group (p
< 0.001), and this difference persisted for at least 24 months.
-
This correlated with increased level of
social functioning in the VBT group.
-
Although grade 1-2 skin toxicity increased
within the EBRT group, no differences in genitourinary toxicity,
sexual function, or sexual activity were observed between the
two groups.
Author's Conclusions
-
The authors conclude that results with
regards to VRR, LRR, and OS in both arms of PORTEC-2 are
comparable to those observed in PORTEC-1 and GOG 99, as
expected.
-
Results with VBT versus EBRT are in keeping
with these prior results, with no difference in VRR, RFS, or OS
observed between the two groups.
-
They note that although risk of pelvic nodal
recurrence was greater in the VBT group when compared to EBRT,
this difference did not translate to a survival decrease, since
the rates of distant disease were similar between the two
groups.
-
The
authors describe VBT as a safe alternative to EBRT that offers
significant improvement in QOL; they conclude that VBT should
thus be the treatment of choice for high-intermediate risk
endometrial carcinoma after TAH/BSO.
Clinical/Scientific Implications
-
This trial represents an important comparison
of two techniques for delivery of adjuvant radiotherapy to
patients with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer after
TAH/BSO. It examines an important clinical question, with
regards to both clinical outcomes and QOL, and has been
performed in a well-designed and well-executed manner.
-
The value of EBRT after TAH/BSO was largely
in reduction of VRR in the PORTEC-1 trial. Recognizing this, the
investigators designing PORTEC-2 sought to determine whether VBT
could adequately replace EBRT, potentially improving QOL.
-
In the PORTEC-1 trial, the risk of vaginal
vault recurrence in patients randomized to observation alone was
approximately 10%. The majority of these patients were
subsequently salvaged, and no difference in overall survival
existed between the EBRT and observation alone arms.
-
PORTEC-1 considered a group of patients
that included intermediate risk disease as well as
high-intermediate; however, in a subsequent analysis that
did not consider stage IB patients, EBRT continued to reduce
LRR without altering OS significantly (Scholten, 2005).
-
Based on this data, the risk of VRR following
TAH/BSO appears to be relatively low, and radiotherapy is given
with the intention of reducing it further, not improving
survival.
-
In this situation, QOL issues are
particularly important, as a significant portion of patients may
be undergoing radiotherapy “unnecessarily.”
-
Although most patients experiencing VRR
in the setting of observation will likely be salvaged based
on PORTEC-1, the psychological ramifications of such a
recurrence are difficult to assess.
-
Still, the goal of maintaining excellent
QOL during and after treatment is extremely important in the
setting of giving radiotherapy that is expected to reduce
risk of VRR, but not expected to affect OS.
-
Based on the data from PORTEC-2 presented
here, VBT appears to be a safe and reasonable alternative to
EBRT, and appears to affect QOL significantly less than EBRT. The
authors’ conclusions that VBT should replace EBRT in this
setting seem reasonable.
-
Further consideration of risk-based
management could potentially be considered in the future, as
radiotherapy could possibly be avoided in certain patients with
a minimally increased risk to survival. In the future, patient
autonomy and choice, as well as other objective factors, could
also potentially and safely contribute to decisions regarding
adjuvant radiotherapy.
|