title: Impact of age on morbidity and outcome of concurrent radiochemotherapy in high-risk FIGO stage I to IVA carcinoma of the uterine cervix following laparoscopic surgery.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the impact of age on treatment-related acute morbidity, on modifications of drug doses and radiotherapy and on disease-free and overall survival in non-elderly and elderly with high-risk cervical cancer treated with concurrent radiochemotherapy following laparoscopic surgery.
  
  
  METHODS
  One hundred and two patients with high-risk FIGO I - IVA cervical cancer (77 non-elderly [< 60 years] and 25 elderly [≥ 60 years]) were treated by radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (n = 91) and postoperative radiochemotherapy or radical radiochemotherapy alone after laparoscopic lymph node dissection (n = 11) patients received five to six cycles of cis-platin, 40 mg/sqm weekly, given concurrently to pelvic radiotherapy of 45-50.4 Gy in 5-6 weeks. Paraaortic radiotherapy with 45 Gy was performed when laparoscopic staging revealed paraaortic node metastases. Acute morbidity was prospectively scored weekly. Toxicity-related protocol violations (treatment breaks or dose reduction) were related with age, 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Clinical stages and histologic subtypes were equally distributed. Grade 3/4 leukopenia, anemia, diarrhea and nausea occurred more frequently in the elderly. 16 (22%) non-elderly and 6 (25%) elderly needed a modification of drug dose. 10/77 (13%) non-elderly patients and 11/25 (44%) of the elderly needed an unscheduled treatment break (p = 0.002). OS and PFS were not different between age groups. The 5-year OS rate was 47 ± 6% for non-elderly patients and 45 ± 10% for the elderly. Patients with/without treatment breaks had a 5-year OS rate of 39 ± 11%/48 ± 6%. The 5-year PFS rate is 49 ± 6% for non-elderly patients and 47 ± 11% for the elderly. Patients with/without treatment breaks had a 5-year PFS probability of 50 ± 12%/48 ± 6%. FIGO stage retains its prognostic significance irrespective of age.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Concurrent radiochemotherapy caused slightly higher acute toxicity with increasing age. Adjustment of treatment intensity was more frequent in the elderly but did not result in detrimental outcome figures.
authors.affiliation: Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.
authors.forename: Thea
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Laurentius
authors.forename: Annelore
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Altendorf-Hofmann
authors.forename: Oumar
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Camara
authors.forename: Ingo B
authors.initials: IB
authors.lastname: Runnebaum
authors.forename: Thomas G
authors.initials: TG
authors.lastname: Wendt
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000971:Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D002945:Cisplatin / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D003131:Combined Modality Therapy / Q000009:adverse effects; D018572:Disease-Free Survival; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007044:Hysterectomy; D008197:Lymph Node Excision; D008875:Middle Aged; D009017:Morbidity; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology / Q000628:therapy*; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D002945:Cisplatin
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1999 Apr 15;340(15):1144-53
references.pmid: 10202165
references.citation: Lancet. 2001 Sep 8;358(9284):781-6
references.pmid: 11564482
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 10;26(35):5802-12
references.pmid: 19001332
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Oct;95(1):52-61
references.pmid: 15385110
references.citation: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008 Jan-Feb;18(1):95-103
references.pmid: 17466049
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2000 Jul;56(1):9-15
references.pmid: 10869749
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1998 Nov;71(2):291-8
references.pmid: 9826474
references.citation: Strahlenther Onkol. 2008 Apr;184(4):206-11
references.pmid: 18398585
references.citation: Strahlenther Onkol. 2009 May;185(5):282-7
references.pmid: 19440666
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jul 15;62(4):1117-24
references.pmid: 15990017
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1999 Apr 15;340(15):1137-43
references.pmid: 10202164
references.citation: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Mar 17;91(6):500-1
references.pmid: 10088618
references.citation: Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):85-91
references.pmid: 15540239
references.citation: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Jan;19(1):13-20
references.pmid: 19258935
references.citation: Strahlenther Onkol. 2009 Dec;185(12):799-807
references.pmid: 20013089
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Nov;91(2):395-401
references.pmid: 14599872
references.citation: Anticancer Res. 2009 Nov;29(11):4821-6
references.pmid: 20032441
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2004 Mar 1;22(5):872-80
references.pmid: 14990643
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1997 Sep;58(3):305-9
references.pmid: 9286865
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2000 Apr;18(8):1606-13
references.pmid: 10764420
references.citation: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Oct;19(7):1258-63
references.pmid: 19823064
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2003 Sep;68(3):217-26
references.pmid: 13129628
references.citation: Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28(1):28-32
references.pmid: 17375702
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Mar;95(3):348-52
references.pmid: 10711542
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 1997 Feb;42(2):107-20
references.pmid: 9106920
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2000 Apr;77(1):116-20
references.pmid: 10739700