J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jul;30(4):e97. English.
Published online May 22, 2019.
Copyright © 2019. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology
Editorial

Adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: the ceiling remains unbroken

Sudeep Gupta
    • Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Received May 17, 2019; Accepted May 17, 2019.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The treatment of cervical cancer underwent a major change about two decades ago when a number of phase III clinical trials reported, almost together, significant improvements in survival outcomes with addition of concomitant chemotherapy to definitive radiotherapy [1]. Concomitant chemoradiation, using cisplatin-based regimens, mostly single agent weekly cisplatin, has been the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer since then. However, a substantial minority of patients continue to relapse and die of their disease despite receiving optimal chemoradiation treatment. There have been numerous attempts, some ongoing, to improve the outcomes with various therapeutic strategies, including neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery [2, 3], neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concomitant chemoradiation (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01566240), adjuvant chemotherapy after chemoradiation [4, 5, 6], and, more recently, use of immunotherapeutic approaches [7]. However, no therapeutic strategy has clearly and unequivocally improved the outcomes in locally advanced cervical cancer beyond those achieved with concomitant chemoradiation. The report in this issue of the Journal by Tangjitgamol et al. [8], is one more laudable, but failed attempt.

Tangjitgamol et al. [8] have reported a randomized controlled trial which compared the outcomes achieved with standard concomitant chemoradiation versus those achieved with addition of 3 cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin to concomitant chemoradiation, in patients with stages IIB to IVA cervical cancer. Notable features of the study population include exclusion of patients with paraaortic lymph nodes, approximately three-fourths of patients having squamous cell carcinoma, more than 95% patients having stage IIB or IIIB cancer and an imbalance between concomitant chemoradiation arm (20.9%) and adjuvant chemotherapy arm (26.9%) with respect to radiologically detected pelvic lymph nodes. Also of note, only approximately two-thirds of patients in the adjuvant chemotherapy arm actually completed the planned 3 cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin. From the design and conduct perspective, an interim analysis was planned with predefined futility and overwhelming efficacy limits, but undefined alpha spending plan. As it turned out, the trial was stopped early because of futility when it had accrued 54.2% of its planned sample size (500). The latter itself was based on a somewhat optimistic assumption of improvement in 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) by 15 percentage points in the experimental arm over a control arm PFS of 55%. The main result of the study was lack of significant improvement in PFS and overall survival (OS) with the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to concomitant chemoradiation, at a relatively short median follow-up of 27.4 months. Severe grades (3–4) of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and several non-hematological toxicities (gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and neurological) were numerically higher in the adjuvant chemotherapy arm.

Several important points need to be considered while appraising the results of this study. First, there is always an element of uncertainty when a study is terminated earlier than planned, affecting both its power and precision of the results. This is especially relevant to this study wherein only a little more than half the planned sample size and an unreported fraction of planned events were actually accrued. The OS in concomitant chemoradiation arm of this study has been reported to be 80.1%, a figure which is higher than most other studies in patients with stage IIB or IIIB disease. This additionally indicates premature analysis of data at a relatively short follow-up before sufficient events have occurred. Second, cervical cancer literature is replete with studies that report and compare time-to-event outcomes, like loco-regional and distant recurrences, as simple proportions. It is also worth noting that these outcomes are captured only as ‘first events’ in most study protocols and more than 1 outcome (in this example local and distant recurrence) ‘compete’ to be the first event, often resulting in imbalanced censoring between the study groups. Thus, it may not be appropriate to draw conclusions about the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on the pattern of recurrence from this study. Third, it is unlikely that choice of carboplatin instead of cisplatin as part of the adjuvant chemotherapy regimen impacted the outcome. The primary result of a Japanese randomized study in recurrent or metastatic setting showed that paclitaxel and carboplatin was non-inferior to paclitaxel and cisplatin [9]. In the neoadjuvant setting, the results of 2 large and similarly designed trials suggest that both paclitaxel plus carboplatin [2] and cisplatin-based regimens [3], prior to surgery, produce similar results, and fail to improve outcomes compared to standard chemoradiation. Biologically, it is likely that tumor clones that are resistant to cisplatin plus radiotherapy, and survive this treatment, are also resistant to further adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. Thus, it is also unlikely that extending the adjuvant regimen for a few more cycles or modifying the cycle duration (4 weeks in this study) would have altered the efficacy outcomes. The results of OUTBACK (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01414608) and INTERLACE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01566240) trials that are testing, respectively, adjuvant and neoadjuvant taxane-platinum chemotherapy added to concomitant chemoradiation, will provide further evidence for the chemotherapy question.

The strength of this study is the multicenter participation with reasonably quick patient accrual. This is likely to have created and enabled a framework that could be used to conduct other locally relevant clinical trials in this population.

Where do we go from here? In the larger context, the incidence of cervical cancer is declining in many hitherto high incidence regions and it is likely that locally advanced disease will also decline. The importance of feasible and implementable screening strategies [10] cannot be overemphasised. From a public health perspective, enabling the delivery of high-quality radiotherapy, including brachytherapy, in underserved regions of the world, which also have the highest incidence of advanced cervical cancer, is of paramount importance. We also hope that new, potentially non-cross resistant treatments, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, will improve the outcomes in locally advanced disease. However, even if successful, it is unclear whether such expensive treatments will be feasible in populations where they are most required.

In summary, cisplatin based concomitant chemoradiation continues to remain the standard of care in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.

Notes

Conflict of Interest:No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

    1. Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-Analysis Collaboration. Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5802–5812.
    1. Gupta S, Maheshwari A, Parab P, Mahantshetty U, Hawaldar R, Sastri Chopra S, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery versus concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with stage IB2, IIA, or IIB squamous cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1548–1555.
    1. Kenter G, Greggi S, Vergote I, Katsaros D, Kobierski J, Massuger L, et al. Results from neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery compared to chemoradiation for stage Ib2-IIb cervical cancer, EORTC 55994; 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting; 2019 May 31-June 4; Chicago, IL. American Society of Clinical Oncology: 2019. pp. Abstract 5503.
    1. Lorvidhaya V, Chitapanarux I, Sangruchi S, Lertsanguansinchai P, Kongthanarat Y, Tangkaratt S, et al. Concurrent mitomycin C, 5-fluorouracil, and radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix: a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:1226–1232.
    1. Dueñas-González A, Zarbá JJ, Patel F, Alcedo JC, Beslija S, Casanova L, et al. Phase III, open-label, randomized study comparing concurrent gemcitabine plus cisplatin and radiation followed by adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin versus concurrent cisplatin and radiation in patients with stage IIB to IVA carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1678–1685.
    1. Tang J, Tang Y, Yang J, Huang S. Chemoradiation and adjuvant chemotherapy in advanced cervical adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:297–302.
    1. Vora C, Gupta S. Targeted therapy in cervical cancer. ESMO Open 2019;3:e000462
    1. Tangjitgamol S, Tharavichitkul E, Tovanabutra C, Rongsriyam K, Asakij T, Paengchit K, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing concurrent chemoradiation versus concurrent chemoradiation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer patients: ACTLACC trial. J Gynecol Oncol 2019;30:e82
    1. Kitagawa R, Katsumata N, Shibata T, Kamura T, Kasamatsu T, Nakanishi T, et al. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus cisplatin in metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer: the open-label randomized phase III trial JCOG0505. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2129–2135.
    1. Shastri SS, Mittra I, Mishra GA, Gupta S, Dikshit R, Singh S, et al. Effect of VIA screening by primary health workers: randomized controlled study in Mumbai, India. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju009

Metrics
Share
PERMALINK