Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  1070 / 1726 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 1070 / 1726 Next Page
Page Background

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