1004 / 1778
Randomized trials ”radiographic-era”
•
Different dose/fractionation & prescription
•
Treated lengths range proximal 1/3 – 1/2 (3-5cm)
•
All seem effective
Author (ref)
acrual period
No. patients, eligibility
Treatment
Vaginal
recurrence
Locoregional
recurrence
Survival
Severe complications
Sorbe et al.
47
645; Stage 1A grade 1-23 to 6 x 3 to 8 Gy
1,2% 2,6% 96% OS at 5-years no grade 3/4
1995-2004
at 0.5 cm vs. NAT
3,1%
Norwegian
1
540; Stage I
1 x 60 Gy LDR at surf
6,9% 91% OS at 5-years 1% grade 4
1968–1974
vs. EBRT + same VBT
1,9% 89% OS at 5-years 1.1% grade 4/5
PORTEC-2
427, age >60 IA grade 3x 7Gy at 0.5 cm vs.
1,8% 5,1% 85% OS at 5-years
GI: VBT 0.5% vs 1.9%
2002–2006 IB grade 1–2 (HIR) EBRT
1,6% 2,1% 80% OS at 5-years Vagina: 1.9% vs 0.5%
Swedish
7
527; Stage I and 6 x 3 Gy at 0.5 cm 2.7%
*
5,0% 90% OS at 5-years grd 3 VBT vs EBRT + VBT
1997-2008 (grade 3 or deep invasion3 x 5.9 Gy at 0.5 cm
GI: 0% vs 2%
or DNA aneuploidy) and1 x 20 Gy LDR at 0.5 cm
Vagina: 0.8% vs 0%
nuclear grade 1-2 vs. EBRT + same VBT 1.9%
*
1,5% 89% OS at 5-years
Randomized trial VBT versus NAT in low risk endometrial cancer
Randomized trials VBT versus EBRT +/- VBT in (high) intermediate risk endometrial cancer