Next Article in Journal
Therapeutical Management and Drug Safety in Mitochondrial Diseases—Update 2020
Next Article in Special Issue
Recent Advances in Laparoscopy
Previous Article in Journal
Triglyceride Glucose-Waist Circumference Better Predicts Coronary Calcium Progression Compared with Other Indices of Insulin Resistance: A Longitudinal Observational Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Initial Experience with the Safe Implementation of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) as a Standardized Procedure for Low Rectal Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 10
Issue 1
10.3390/jcm10010093
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Radiotherapy and Its Intersections with Surgery in the Management of Localized Gynecological Malignancies: A Comprehensive Overview for Clinicians

by
Alexander Fabian
1,*,
David Krug
1 and
Ibrahim Alkatout
2,*
1
Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, 24105 Kiel, Germany
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, 24105 Kiel, Germany
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(1), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010093
Submission received: 22 November 2020 / Revised: 22 December 2020 / Accepted: 24 December 2020 / Published: 29 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Minimally Invasive Surgery)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Surgery, including minimally invasive surgery, and radiotherapy are key modalities in the treatment of gynecological malignancies. The aim of this review is to offer the multidisciplinary care team a comprehensive summary of the intersections of surgery and radiotherapy in the local treatment of gynecological malignancies. Recent advances in radiotherapy are highlighted. Relevant publications were identified through a review of the published literature. Ovarian, endometrial, cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancer were included in the search. Current guidelines are summarized. The role of radiotherapy in adjuvant as well as definitive treatment of these entities is synthesized and put into context with surgery, focusing on survival and quality of life. Although these outcomes have improved recently, further research must be focused on the number of life years lost, and the potential morbidity encountered by patients.

1. Introduction

The last decades have witnessed significant advancements in surgical techniques for the treatment of gynecological cancers. The results are shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, and lower morbidity levels due to the minimally invasive approach [1,2,3,4]. Simultaneously, major innovations have transformed the field of radiation oncology (Figure 1) [5]. These innovations have led to more precise and more effective treatment by radiation therapy.
The precision of treatment delivery was greatly enhanced by the introduction of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy based on CT scans. This permitted computer-based delineation and the definition of target volumes as well as organs to be spared from external beam radiation (“organs at risk”). The next step in technical innovation was the introduction of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the late 1990s, and volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy by the 2000s. Both techniques employ multiple precise collimators (“multi-leaf collimator”) of linear accelerators to shape the radiation beam to the target volume and limit the dose to surrounding tissue. Using advanced treatment planning algorithms, the intensity of the dose is modulated to the treatment volume. This enhances the conformality of the prescription dose to the target volume. Organs at risk in close proximity to the target volume can be spared more effectively (Figure 2). Randomized controlled trials have shown that these techniques result in significantly lower toxicity levels and better health-related quality of life compared to older radiation therapy techniques for several anatomic sites. This is also true of gynecological cancers, as evidenced by lower gastrointestinal and urinary toxicity levels [6]. More precisely, grade 3 or higher acute gastrointestinal toxicity in cervical cancer patients was significantly reduced from 20–27.3% to 4.5–5% by intensity-modulated radiotherapy [7,8]. Similarly, grade 3 or higher acute genitourinary toxicity was significantly reduced from 15% to 5% [8]. Late toxicity is also significantly lower after intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared to older radiotherapy techniques [9]. However, as many as 11% of patients with cervical cancer may experience grade 3 or higher late gastrointestinal/urinary toxicity [9].
Modern radiotherapy techniques have been suspected to increase the incidence of radiation-induced secondary malignancies because of larger quantities of tissue receiving relatively low doses. Although this concern does not appear to hold true, the 15-year probability of a radiation-induced malignancy is estimated to be approximately 2% across treatment sites and entities [10,11]. In irradiated cervical cancer survivors, a large database study reported a standardized incidence ratio (observed vs. expected incidence) of 1.3 (95% CI, 1.28–1.33) for secondary malignancies [12]. This moderate risk of radiation-induced malignancies must be addressed when counseling patients before treatment.
In parallel with the advent of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy was introduced in the clinical setting [13]. Patients used to be positioned exclusively with skin marks, but modern linear accelerators have a built-in capacity to produce three-dimensional images with the treatment beam (megavoltage CT) or separate X-ray tubes and detectors (kilovoltage CT). Recently, two hybrid machines integrating a linear accelerator and magnetic resonance imaging were approved for clinical use [14]. While the results of magnetic resonance-guided external beam radiotherapy for gynecological malignancies are not available yet, the technique offers exciting prospects for daily adaptive radiotherapy and live imaging during treatment delivery without additional exposure to ionizing radiation.
Not only external beam radiotherapy but also brachytherapy has evolved and is now a field of active research. Brachytherapy is a key element in the treatment of gynecological cancers. Image-guided or magnetic resonance imaging-guided three-dimensional brachytherapy effectively reduces radiation doses to organs at risk and may also reduce toxicity [15,16,17].
The addition of chemotherapy enhanced the effectiveness in terms of overall survival and local control of radiotherapy-based approaches in multiple entities [18]. Typically, chemotherapeutic agents such as cisplatin are administered concomitantly during the course of radiotherapy. In fact, gynecological entities such as cervical cancer rank among those entities that benefit most from the addition of chemotherapy in terms of overall survival [18]. The purpose of combining radiotherapy and chemotherapy is to achieve “supra-additive” efficacy [19]. In other words, the combination is more effective in terms of tumor control than one would expect by the mere addition of each individual modality. Mechanistically speaking, tumor cells are more prone to radiation-induced DNA damage when exposed to chemotherapeutic agents that also interfere with DNA or its repair. Although normal tissue also experiences a higher level of acute toxicity, late toxicity is usually not, or just mildly increased after chemoradiotherapy compared to radiotherapy alone [20].
More recently, the combination of radiotherapy and immunotherapy has emerged as an attempt to further improve survival [21]. As radiotherapy harbors immunomodulatory effects that could enhance the effectiveness of immunotherapy, clinical trials have investigated their combination in multiple entities [22]. As shown in a phase-III trial, the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab is associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who have undergone definitive chemoradiotherapy [23]. Several phase-I/II trials are currently investigating a similar approach in gynecological malignancies such as cervical cancer [24].
Taken together, innovations in the planning and delivery of radiotherapy as well as the delivery of concomitant chemotherapy have improved the therapeutic index of radiotherapy-based approaches by increasing efficacy and reducing toxicity. Radiotherapy continues therefore to be indicated as an adjuvant or alternative treatment to surgery in some gynecological cancers and clinical scenarios, whereas it may be obsolete in others. However, the various indications for radiotherapy and their relation to surgery may not be well known to all members of the multidisciplinary care team. Furthermore, a specialist in one field may find it difficult to consider all aspects that require attention in the interdisciplinary setting. Therefore, interdisciplinary tumor boards and the sharing of knowledge play an increasing role in the treatment of gynecological cancers. This comprehensive review summarizes the role of radiotherapy and its intersections with surgery for gynecological cancers. The review is intended to provide an overview for physicians outside the field of radiation oncology.

2. Methods

A narrative literature review was performed. This review focusses on newly diagnosed gynecological malignancies without distant metastases. The primary aim was to assess the current evidence and developments concerning radiotherapy and to put them into context with surgery in order to offer an overview for clinicians. The context of surgery was chosen, as both are local modalities that may complement each other. The most recent US-American National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and European guidelines (ESMO, ESTRO, ESGO) were reviewed. In addition, PubMed/MEDLINE was searched for relevant studies in the English language with no time restriction (see Table S1). The search strategy included ovarian, endometrial, cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancer. The intervention was radiotherapy, and outcomes were survival and quality of life. Studies were chosen by judgment of the authors and relevance to the multidisciplinary care team without preset eligibility criteria. Additional relevant studies were included from the personal reference databases of the authors. The search was conducted in July 2020.

3. The Role of Radiotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Localized Disease

3.1. Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common type of cancer in women; the global 5-year survival rate for this entity is low at 30–40%. The highest incidence rates are 11.6/100,000 women in Central and Eastern Europe [25]. Most cases are of epithelial histology, and various subtypes exist [26]. Cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant systemic therapy are the mainstays of treatment for newly diagnosed cases, and have led to better survival rates [27]. Notwithstanding diverse opinions on the subject, the primary and most widely used surgical access is laparotomy. As shown in a meta-analysis of retrospective studies, minimally invasive surgery might yield similar survival outcomes compared to laparotomy. However, this thesis will have to be confirmed in prospective studies [28].
Neither US-American nor European guidelines recommend radiotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer in the primary or adjuvant setting [29,30]. Historically, adjuvant whole abdominal radiotherapy has been used with the intention of reducing relapse rates and prolonging survival. Retrospective data suggest an absolute increase of 20% in 5-year disease-free survival for patients with FIGO stage IC and II by the addition of radiotherapy to surgery and chemotherapy [31]. However, the large majority of randomized controlled trials performed in the 1990s yielded no robust benefit from radiotherapy when compared to chemotherapy [32,33]. Although one randomized controlled study reported a significantly improved 5-year progression-free survival after adjuvant radiotherapy (56%) compared to chemotherapy (36%) in FIGO stage III patients, it also reported higher toxicity in the radiotherapy arm [34]. In these earlier trials, the authors employed radiotherapy techniques considered outdated in current times, because the procedures hardly permitted sparing of organs at risk. Recently, a prospective phase-II-trial reported favorable toxicity results for adjuvant whole abdominal radiotherapy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy in FIGO stage III ovarian cancer [35]. Yet, we still lack robust efficacy data for this approach. Therefore, adjuvant whole abdominal radiotherapy should not be used for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.

3.2. Endometrial Cancer

Endometrial cancer of the uterine body is the fifth most common cancer in women and the most common gynecological cancer in high-income countries. Its incidence is highest in the USA at 19.1/100,000 women. Endometrial cancer usually occurs in postmenopausal women; obesity is a major risk factor [36]. As most patients are diagnosed in early stages by the presence of atypical vaginal bleeding, 5-year overall survival rates exceed 80% in high-income countries [37]. However, in patients with FIGO stage III or IV disease, the 5-year overall survival rate drops to approximately 57% or 20%, respectively [36]. Traditionally, endometrial cancer was classified as type I (endometrioid carcinoma) or type II disease (serous or clear-cell carcinoma) with distinct clinical and molecular features, although this may be regarded as a simplistic distinction [38]. Using advanced methods with genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic characterization, molecular classification of endometrial cancer yielded four distinct molecular subtypes [39]. Recent data from the PORTEC-3 trial (see below) suggest that molecular subtypes may influence the choice of adjuvant therapy. This aspect will be addressed prospectively in the PORTEC 4a-trial for adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy [40,41,42].
Laparoscopic surgical staging is generally recommended, and includes hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with or without bilateral pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection [43,44]. The resulting tumor stage may be confined to the uterus (FIGO I), extend to the cervix (FIGO II), beyond the uterus (FIGO III), or invade adjacent organs with or without distant metastases (FIGO IV) [45]. Early-stage disease (FIGO stage I) is further subdivided into a low, intermediate, or high-risk subgroup based on the depth of invasion, histology, and grading [46]. Brachytherapy as well as external beam radiotherapy, each with or without chemotherapy, have been investigated extensively in different clinical scenarios of endometrial cancer.
In the adjuvant setting, vaginal brachytherapy is not indicated for FIGO stage I low-risk disease, but is usually recommended for intermediate-risk cases, especially in the presence of further risk factors (“high-intermediate risk”) [43,44]. This rationale was elaborated among others by the PORTEC-1 and PORTEC-2 trials. The PORTEC-1 trial studied adjuvant external beam radiotherapy versus observation in intermediate-risk cases [47]. No benefit was registered in overall survival, but intermediate-risk cases with additional risk factors had fewer local vaginal recurrences after external beam radiotherapy at the expense of higher toxicity. These results were confirmed by two other randomized controlled trials on external beam radiotherapy vs. observation [48,49]. Therefore, the PORTEC-2 trial studied external beam radiotherapy versus vaginal brachytherapy in high-intermediate risk patients. Although more pelvic recurrences were noted in the brachytherapy group, the vaginal control rate and overall survival rate were comparable [50]. However, brachytherapy was associated with significantly less toxicity and better health-related quality of life [51,52]. Concerning “real-world” data, vaginal brachytherapy was also associated with fewer recurrences as well as reduced mortality rates in a large US-American population-based analysis of FIGO stage I disease [53]. Brachytherapy was potentially underused compared to guideline recommendations.
Concerning high-risk patients, which include those with FIGO stage I (high risk subgroup) and FIGO II-IV disease, most guidelines recommend adjuvant external beam radiotherapy to the pelvis [43,44]. Important evidence has recently been added to the adjuvant management of these high-risk cases, as the role of systemic therapy with or without radiotherapy was unclear until then. The randomized phase-III-trial PORTEC-3 reported the results of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy [54]. The study included FIGO stage I (high risk), stage II, and stage III cases. Overall 5-year survival rates were significantly improved with chemoradiotherapy (81.4% vs. 76.1%, p = 0.034), after two cycles of cisplatin during radiotherapy and four cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel after radiotherapy compared to radiotherapy alone. Although grade 3 toxicity was similar, grade 2 toxicity was higher after chemoradiotherapy mainly due to peripheral neuropathy. This is reflected in health-related quality of life data at 12 and 24 months after treatment; most scales were similar between groups except for neurological symptoms [55].
The role of external beam radiotherapy was further refined by the randomized phase-III-trial GOG 258, in which adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was compared with adjuvant chemotherapy alone [56]. The large majority of patients included in the investigation had locally advanced FIGO stage III disease. The primary endpoint of the study, namely relapse-free survival, did not differ significantly between the two arms. Overall survival data were not available in the primary publication. At 5 years, vaginal recurrences (2% vs. 7%; HR 0.36) and pelvic or para-aortic nodal recurrences (11% vs. 20%; HR 0.43) were lower in the chemoradiotherapy group. However, distant recurrences (27% vs. 21%; HR 1.36) were more common after chemoradiotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. Overall toxicity rates were comparable, but toxicity profiles differed. Health-related quality of life parameters were worse after chemoradiotherapy, but did not achieve the preset clinically meaningful difference. The essence of these data is that both modalities, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, are important for local and distant control, respectively. Their combination may prolong overall survival in high-risk patients. In fact, a registry-based study on FIGO stage III patients reported the increased use of chemoradiotherapy over time, which was accompanied by higher overall survival rates [57]. Further trials could elucidate whether a sequential or “sandwich” combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy would reduce toxicity without compromising the prognosis [58]. Until then, shared decision-making remains the key factor in determining the appropriate adjuvant treatment modality for the individual patient.
The extent of external beam radiotherapy is strongly dependent on prior surgical evaluation of lymph nodes. Extension of the field of treatment to the para-aortic lymph nodes is associated with greater toxicity. The approach towards lymph node assessment varies considerably among institutions. There is a paucity of randomized trials comparing different approaches such as pelvic lymph node dissection with or without para-aortic lymph node dissection, sentinel lymph node biopsy, or no surgical nodal staging in different clinical scenarios. Each of these approaches may be associated with benefits, depending on the clinical scenario and the patient’s preference [59,60]. In accordance with recent clinical trials, para-aortic lymph nodes should be included in the radiation field only in patients with evidence of nodal spread to this site on imaging studies or pathological investigation [56].
Upfront primary radiotherapy is not recommended as a substitute for surgery because of the absence of appropriate evidence and the potentiality of a compromised prognosis. Radiotherapy, however, is used and recommended as primary treatment in patients who are medically unfit for surgery or when primary surgery is technically not feasible [43,44]. The treatment is usually based on brachytherapy with or without external beam radiotherapy, depending on the extent of the tumor. Although the majority of published reports in this regard are either retrospective or small prospective single-center studies, a systematic review of 2694 patients yielded promising results [61]. Grade 3 or poorer late toxicity rates were below 4%, and the disease-specific 5-year survival rate approached 80%, though highly dependent on the extent of disease. The rather favorable disease-specific survival is reflected in studies reporting as much as a 3.4-fold higher risk of dying due to intercurrent disease than due to endometrial cancer after primary radiotherapy [62,63].
The efficacy of a primary radiotherapy-based approach may be enhanced by the addition of chemotherapy, although the patient’s tolerance of an intensified treatment regimen could be limited in this medically unfit population. Larger prospective multicenter trials will be needed to validate the efficacy and elucidate the impact of this approach on health-related quality of life in patients who receive primary radiotherapy for endometrial cancer.
To sum up, adjuvant brachytherapy should be considered in intermediate risk FIGO stage I disease with additional risk factors to reduce vaginal recurrences (Table 1). External beam radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy is indicated in many high-risk patients in order to improve local control and overall survival. Primary radiotherapy is an option in patients who are not eligible for surgery (Table 2).

3.3. Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women. While the global incidence is 13.1/100,000 women, low- and middle-income countries have markedly higher rates of 75/100,000 women [71]. As the incidence has already dropped in countries with effective screening programs, a further decrease is expected with the implementation of HPV vaccination [72,73]. The most common histological subtype is squamous cell carcinoma. Adenocarcinoma may be associated with a poorer prognosis [74]. The FIGO staging system was revised in 2018 [75]. The tumor may be confined to the uterine cervix (FIGO I), extend beyond the uterus (FIGO II), extend further into the true pelvis and/or with lymph node involvement (FIGO III), or invade the bladder or rectum with or without distant metastases (FIGO IV). Depending on the presence of risk factors, each of these stages is divided into further subgroups.
Generally, most patients with FIGO stage I disease are treated with surgery [76,77,78]. Surgical approaches include conization, trachelectomy, and (radical) hysterectomy with or without lymph node dissection. The surgical approach in the individual patient depends on risk factors and the resulting substage, the patient’s desire to preserve her fertility, and local expertise. Guidelines suggested minimally invasive surgery or laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in early stages [78]. Minimally invasive surgery was routinely used before the availability of randomized data compared to open surgery [79]. Surprisingly, however, minimally invasive surgery is associated with significantly poorer survival outcomes, as reported recently in a randomized trial and a large cohort study [80,81]. The former trial randomized 613 women with cervical cancer of FIGO IA1 (and lymphovascular invasion) to FIGO IB1 either to minimally invasive surgery or open surgery. At a median follow up of 2.5 years, the 3-year overall survival was worse after minimally invasive surgery compared to open surgery (93.8% vs. 99%; HR 6.00; CI, 1.77–20.30). Of 34 recurrences, all women except one had stage IB1 disease of grade 2 or higher. Therefore, the role of minimally invasive surgery for early stages may be debated. However, only about 8% of the patients in both groups had early stages of IA1 or IA2. In addition, the survival benefit after open surgery was still present even after adjusting for stage of disease [80]. Therefore, the minimally invasive access was more or less abandoned in the surgical treatment of cervical cancer. One of its disadvantages is that, despite its widespread popularity, many surgeons may lack the experience to perform these challenging and financially attractive operations. Recently, retrospective data on the influence of surgeon volume and experience was reported. A study that focused on robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery reported less local recurrences for tumors smaller than 2 cm in the absence of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in more experienced centers [82]. Cusimano and colleagues, however, still observed inferior survival after minimally invasive surgery for stage IB1 cases compared to open surgery, even after adjusting for surgeon volume [83]. Despite the large number of suggested explanations, we do hence not know the exact reasons for different survival outcomes after open or minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer patients [84]. Until the problem is resolved, we will have to accept the retrograde step in oncological surgery and may even be compelled to review the surgical access for endometrial cancer.
The higher the substage of the cervical cancer, the more primary radiotherapy is an alternative for example in stage IB2 or even preferred to surgery as in stage IB3 (Table 2) [76]. The combination of surgery and radiotherapy causes excessive morbidity [85]. As higher stages may require adjuvant radiotherapy after initial surgery, and as primary radiotherapy results in at least equivalent survival rates, primary radiotherapy is usually preferred from stage II on [76,85,86,87,88]. Primary radiotherapy includes external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, and concomitant chemotherapy with cisplatin.
Whether a primary surgical or a primary radiotherapy-based approach should be given preference for stage IB2-IIB disease is a matter of active research and discussion. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to surgery was superior to radiotherapy alone [89]. Radiotherapy alone, however, is outdated in most cases because the addition of concomitant chemotherapy significantly improves overall survival [67]. Two randomized phase-III-trials recently reported outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy in stage IB2-IIB disease [68,90]. The multicenter European study showed similar overall survival outcomes, but the surgical arm had significantly more acute toxicity levels of grade 3 or higher (35% vs. 21%; p < 0.001). In addition, 36% of patients in the surgical arm needed adjuvant radiotherapy, whereas only 3 % had additional surgery in the radiotherapy arm [68]. The single-center Indian trial also reported similar overall survival rates. The 5-year disease-free survival, however, was significantly better in the radiotherapy arm (69.3% vs. 76.7%; p = 0.038). At 24 months after treatment, there was no difference in toxicity except for vaginal toxicity, which was higher after radiotherapy (12% vs. 26%; p > 0.001) [90]. Viewed together, the results of these studies appear to favor a primary radiotherapy-based approach in stage IB2-IIB disease. Furthermore, it would be reasonable to state that current toxicity rates are lower than those observed in these trials, because intensity-modulated external beam radiotherapy and image-guided brachytherapy were either omitted altogether or not used on a routine basis [9].
The question as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy before primary chemoradiotherapy could improve outcomes was tested in a recent phase-III-trial. Surprisingly, overall survival was significantly poorer in the group that received neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to chemoradiotherapy alone [91]. Therefore, concurrent chemoradiotherapy remains the standard of care for locally advanced disease.
Although the combination of surgery and radiotherapy is generally avoided in the treatment setting as mentioned above, it may be used for staging in the management of para-aortic lymph nodes. When clinical staging reveals the involvement of pelvic lymph nodes, the risk of para-aortic lymph node dissemination is high and is associated with a poorer prognosis [92,93]. Extension of the field of radiotherapy to the para-aortic lymph nodes up to the level of the renal vessels increases toxicity, albeit less so with intensity modulated radiotherapy [94]. Hence, if pelvic lymph nodes are affected but para-aortic spread is unclear or even negative per clinical staging, laparoscopic para-aortic lymph node staging may be performed prior to primary chemoradiotherapy, as stated in current guidelines [76,77,95]. The field of radiotherapy is usually only extended in cases of evident para-aortic lymph node disease; prophylactic extension of the field remains controversial [96,97,98]. This approach is supported by a study reporting favorable survival rates in locally advanced cases with a negative PET-CT for para-aortic involvement; the patients underwent laparoscopic staging and the field of radiotherapy was defined subsequently [99]. The laparoscopic approach was either extra- or transperitoneal and included lymphadenectomy from the aortic bifurcation to the left renal vein. The field of radiotherapy was extended to the para-aortic region if para-aortic involvement of any size was present per histology. This was the case in 12% (29/237) of the patients. Routine clinical staging versus laparoscopic lymph node dissection for FIGO (2009) IIB-IVA cases was investigated in just one randomized study [100]. In the arm of clinical staging, suspicious para-aortic lymph nodes were biopsied via CT-guidance. Biopsies revealed para-aortic lymph node metastases in 8% of the cases (9/114). In the arm of surgical staging, the surgical approach was mostly laparoscopic and extra- or transperitoneal. Of note, the field of lymphadenectomy encompassed pelvic lymph nodes as well as para-aortic lymph nodes up to the renal vessels. Lymphadenectomy resulted in an upstaging in 33% (39/120) and in the detection of positive para-aortic lymph nodes in 24% (29/120) of the cases. In histologically proven para-aortic involvement of any size, the field of radiation was extended to the para-aortic region in both arms. Patients did not undergo routine PET-CT imaging in this study. Although the acute toxicity profile was low after surgical staging, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival per randomized arm [100,101]. Similarly, a recent retrospective cohort analysis suggested no survival benefit after surgical staging compared to clinical staging [102]. Depending on its availability, PET-CT is now the standard of care for staging in some countries. Therefore, we need randomized studies comparing surgical staging versus clinical PET-CT-based staging. Until then, surgical staging remains an option for individualized treatment, especially if PET-CT imaging is not routinely available.
Local dose escalation to the cervix is an essential component of the primary radiotherapy-based approach. This is usually accomplished by intracavitary brachytherapy. Paralleling the premature adoption of minimally invasive surgery and in the absence of randomized data, advanced external beam radiotherapy techniques were used to an increasing extent as a substitute for brachytherapy [103]. Stereotactic external beam radiotherapy delivers high ablative doses to the tumor at steep dose gradients to surrounding normal tissue. Diverse data have been reported on dose escalation by stereotactic radiotherapy. While one population-based study reported equivalent survival rates, another showed poorer survival compared to brachytherapy [103,104]. In addition, a single-arm phase-II-trial of stereotactic radiotherapy for dose escalation was terminated early due to excessive toxicity [105]. Particle radiotherapy, including protons or carbon ions, is a further possible technology for radiation dose escalation and its outcomes continue to be investigated [106,107].
Another strategy for the local intensification of treatment was tested in a phase-III-trial in which brachytherapy was compared with radical hysterectomy after external beam radiotherapy. Additional surgery yielded no benefit in terms of local control or survival [108]. Taken together, brachytherapy remains the standard of care for dose escalation; its outcomes continue to improve with the implementation of image guidance for planning treatment [109].
In the postoperative adjuvant setting of early-stage cervical cancer, guidelines recommend observation alone or adjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in the presence of risk factors (Table 1) [76,77]. Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy in FIGO IB2 patients with two additional risk factors (e.g., tumor size > 4 cm, deep stromal invasion) is associated with significantly fewer local relapses and significantly better progression-free survival, as shown in a randomized phase-III-trial [64]. However, when pathological staging after radical hysterectomy yields nodal involvement, positive resection margins or parametrial invasion, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy should be given preference because the risk of recurrent disease is high in these patients [76,77]. Moderate evidence suggests a survival benefit from the addition of concomitant chemotherapy to external beam radiotherapy in the adjuvant setting as well [110]. Additional vaginal brachytherapy is an option in patients with a high risk of vaginal recurrence [77]. Indeed, brachytherapy is associated with a significantly better overall survival, especially in the presence of positive resection margins [111]. However, when the initial work-up shows that the patient would probably need adjuvant radiotherapy, the guidelines recommend a primary radiotherapy-based approach rather than primary surgery [77].
In conclusion, primary surgery is the treatment of choice for early stages of cervical cancer, whereas primary chemoradiotherapy is recommended at least from FIGO stage II on. Brachytherapy is essential in a primary radiotherapy-based approach. Although the role of laparoscopic para-aortic nodal staging is unclear, it may be used to define the extent of the field of radiation.

3.4. Vaginal Cancer

With an incidence of 1/100,000 women, primary vaginal cancer is a rare entity [112,113]. Most cases are squamous cell carcinomas and 65% are associated with human papillomavirus infection [114]. According to the FIGO stages revised in 2009, the tumor may be confined to the vagina (FIGO I), invade the pelvis to a limited degree (FIGO II), invade the pelvis to a greater extent such as reach the pelvic wall and/or spread to lymph nodes (FIGO III), or invade adjacent organs and/or spread to distant organs (FIGO IV) [115]. Due to the rarity of primary vaginal cancer and the consequent lack of randomized data, the treatment approach is highly individualized and similar to that for cervical cancer. We have a small number of guidelines on the subject, mainly based on “expert consensus” [116,117].
Stage I vaginal cancer can be treated surgically by wide excision [118]. A radiotherapy-based approach is an alternative. In fact, from stage II on most cases are treated with primary radiotherapy in order to achieve organ preservation [115]. A primary radiotherapy-based approach usually includes external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, and concurrent chemotherapy as in cervical cancer. The radiation field encompasses the pelvic lymph nodes and should be extended to the inguinal lymph nodes if the primary is located in the lower third of the vagina [115]. As in cervical cancer, brachytherapy is also an integral part of the primary radiotherapy-based approach for vaginal cancer. According to US-American guidelines, it should be used if the tumor exceeds 0.5 cm in thickness [117]. A large registry-based study confirmed the overall survival benefit of adding brachytherapy to external beam radiotherapy, regardless of tumor stage [119]. Furthermore, image-guidance is increasingly used for brachytherapy in vaginal cancer because it may be associated with better local control [120,121]. Retrospective data revealed that the concurrent administration of chemotherapy is associated with a survival benefit [122]. Therefore, cisplatin should be considered in a primary radiotherapy-based approach.
Data on toxicity and quality of life are scarce because of the retrospective nature of most studies. However, one retrospective single-center study reported overall grade 3 or 4 toxicity rates of 23% after primary radiotherapy [123]. This must be taken into account when planning treatment for the individual patient. Analogous to cervical cancer, minimally invasive surgical nodal staging may be performed prior to primary radiotherapy [115]. Minimally invasive surgery may also be offered for ovarian transposition in order to prevent radiation-induced dysfunction [115].
Taken together, the treatment approach for primary vaginal cancer is similar to that for cervical cancer because of the paucity of prospective data for this rare entity. Early stages can be treated by surgery. Primary chemoradiotherapy should be offered as an alternative or in more advanced stages in order to achieve organ preservation.

3.5. Vulvar Cancer

Vulvar cancer is uncommon and affects less than 2/100,000 women [124]. Two subgroups have been described. Vulvar cancer at a younger age is associated with human papillomavirus infection, whereas this association is less frequent in older women [125]. The 2000’s witnessed an increase in the incidence of the disease in younger patients [124]. Most cases are of squamous cell histology [125]. The most prominent prognostic factor is nodal status because the 5-year overall survival is 84% in node-negative cases, compared to 30% in cases with three or more positive lymph nodes [126].
Early stages are usually treated surgically with superficial or radical (partial) vulvectomy, depending on tumor size and location, as stated in the guidelines [127,128]. In cases of positive resection margins of the primary tumor, re-excision is recommended if feasible. If this is not feasible due to imminent exenteration or if the resection margins remain positive, adjuvant radiotherapy to the primary tumor is recommended [127]. A large registry-based analysis supports this approach: a significant 3-year overall survival benefit was registered after adjuvant radiotherapy to the primary site compared to no radiotherapy (67.4% vs. 58.5%, p < 0.001) [65].
Due to its impact on prognosis, the assessment and management of regional lymph nodes is also important in early-stage disease with a clinically negative nodal status. Nodes should be assessed by surgery; either an inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy or a sentinel lymph node biopsy should be performed [127,128]. The latter should be restricted to smaller (<4 cm) and unifocal primary tumors without clinical evidence of nodal spread [128]. Surgical lymph node evaluation may be ipsilateral or bilateral, depending on the size and location of the primary tumor. The optimal adjuvant treatment approach concerning radiotherapy in cases of positive lymph nodes is a debated issue because the data on the subject is largely retrospective in nature (Table 1) [129].
When the sentinel lymph node biopsy reveals a singular micrometastasis (<2 mm), a US-American guideline recommends radiotherapy as an alternative to inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy [127]. Conversely, a less recent European guideline solely suggests inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy in this scenario [128]. However, a multicenter phase-II trial recently reported only two inguinal recurrences in 129 patients treated with radiotherapy alone after the detection of a micrometastasis by sentinel lymph node biopsy [69]. Given the favorable toxicity profile of only 4.2% grade 3 toxicity, radiotherapy appears to be an appropriate alternative in the presence of a singular micrometastasis after sentinel lymph node biopsy, although randomized data on the subject are lacking. When a singular metastasis larger than 2 mm is detected per sentinel lymph node biopsy, guidelines recommend complete inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy [127,128].
In cases of two or more positive lymph nodes per lymphadenectomy or extracapsular extension, US-American and European guidelines suggest adjuvant radiotherapy to inguinal and pelvic lymph nodes in order to reduce local recurrences and improve survival [127,128]. The role of adjuvant radiotherapy was confirmed in a prospective trial in which patients with inguinal lymph node involvement were randomized either to adjuvant radiotherapy encompassing the groin and pelvis, or to pelvic lymphadenectomy [66]. The radiotherapy group had a significant survival benefit in cases of upfront clinically suspected and/or more than two affected lymph nodes. Similarly, a large multicenter cohort study showed an overall survival benefit after adjuvant radiotherapy when two or more nodes were positive [130]. Concurrent chemotherapy may be added when the risk of recurrence is rated very high due to bulky disease, extracapsular extension, or residual tumor [127]. Conversely, retrospective data revealed that adjuvant radiotherapy was not associated with better overall survival in cases of a single lymph node metastasis without extracapsular extension [130,131]. Therefore, adjuvant radiotherapy is usually not recommended in the latter scenario, although used quite often [127,128,130].
In locally advanced cases, neoadjuvant or definitive chemoradiotherapy are appropriate alternatives when complete resection is not feasible (Table 2) [127]. The field of radiotherapy should include the primary tumor as well as pelvic lymph nodes. If surgical lymph node staging was performed in the groin and yielded no evidence of nodal spread, this site may be omitted from the radiotherapy field; otherwise the treating physician should include inguinal lymph nodes in the field of radiotherapy [127]. Cisplatin is given preference in concurrent chemotherapy [127]. Prospective and retrospective data support the use of primary chemoradiotherapy in this setting. A prospective phase-II trial assessed the rate of complete clinical and pathological response after primary chemoradiotherapy in unresectable T3/T4 cases [70]. Sixty-four percent (37/58) of patients achieved a complete clinical response and, of those who had a confirmatory biopsy, 78% (29/34) experienced a complete pathological response. A retrospective study of 26 women treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and concomitant cisplatin reported a high complete response rate of 80.7% [132]. Complete response after chemoradiotherapy is associated with fewer recurrences and longer overall survival [132,133]. A large registry-based study of locally advanced cases reported similar survival rates in women treated with primary chemoradiotherapy compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery [134]. Although primary chemoradiotherapy appears to be effective, the associated toxicity must be taken into account. In the afore-mentioned phase-II-study, 15.5% (9/58) of the patients discontinued the treatment early due to toxicity [70]. In a retrospective study, 19% of patients had grade 3 or 4 toxicity after primary chemoradiotherapy [132]. We lack patient-reported quality of life data in this setting.
In vulvar cancer, radiotherapy is an alternative to inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy in the presence of a singular lymph node micrometastasis. Furthermore, adjuvant radiotherapy improves overall survival in cases of positive resection margins of the primary or extensive nodal spread. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery or definitive chemoradiotherapy are effective in advanced disease.

4. Conclusions

Women with newly diagnosed gynecological malignancies require a multidisciplinary care team to ensure optimal treatment. This comprehensive review aimed to explore the manifold intersections between surgery, including minimally invasive surgery, and radiotherapy in the light of recent advances and challenges. As radiotherapy and surgery are both local treatments, they do complement one another in some clinical scenarios, but also compete in others.
Adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery is generally indicated for many gynecological malignancies in the presence of risk factors for adverse oncological outcomes. Adjuvant radiotherapy reduces local relapses and ideally improves overall survival. Primary radiotherapy instead of surgery is a well-accepted and extensively investigated alternative for many patients with cervical or vaginal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery can complement this treatment approach for example by protective ovarian transposition or by determining the field size of radiotherapy after para-aortic nodal staging. Concerning endometrial and vulvar cancer, primary radiotherapy is the preferred option in localized but unresectable disease. Furthermore, modern radiotherapy techniques have reduced treatment-related toxicity, whereas concomitant chemotherapy improves overall survival in many scenarios. Any attempt to further improve the therapeutic ratio of a modality should be approached with caution, as proven by the premature adoption of minimally invasive surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy for cervical cancer prior to the attainment of high-quality data on the subject [79,80,103]. Our review highlighted the absence of patient-reported quality of life data, especially in the treatment of rare entities that require further comparative study. The latter holds true for surgery, including minimally invasive surgery, as well as radiotherapy.
To conclude, advances in surgery as well as radiotherapy contribute to improved outcomes in the treatment of gynecological malignancies if implemented carefully. The number of life years lost, however, is still significant and justifies ongoing efforts from all members of the scientific and clinical team in the field of gynecologic oncology.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/1/93/s1. Table S1: Search strategy—PubMed/MEDLINE.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.F. and I.A.; methodology, A.F., I.A., and D.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.F., I.A., and D.K.; writing—review and editing, A.F. and I.A.; visualization. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

We thank Marc Delaperriere, medical physicist, for preparing the 3D-conformal radiotherapy plan for comparison, as shown in Figure 2. We acknowledge financial support by Land Schleswig-Holstein within the funding programme Open Access Publikationsfonds.

Conflicts of Interest

A.F. and I.A. declare that they have no conflict of interest. D.K. has received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dome.

References

  1. Chittawar, P.B.; Franik, S.; Pouwer, A.W.; Farquhar, C. Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 10, CD004638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Galaal, K.; Donkers, H.; Bryant, A.; Lopes, A.D. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 10, CD006655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Park, D.A.; Yun, J.E.; Kim, S.W.; Lee, S.H. Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017, 43, 994–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alkatout, İ.; Mettler, L. Hysterectomy A Comprehensive Surgical Approach. J. Turk. Ger. Gynecol. Assoc. 2017, 18, 221–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Thompson, M.K.; Poortmans, P.; Chalmers, A.J.; Faivre-Finn, C.; Hall, E.; Huddart, R.A.; Lievens, Y.; Sebag-Montefiore, D.; Coles, C.E. Practice-changing radiation therapy trials for the treatment of cancer: Where are we 150 years after the birth of Marie Curie? Br. J. Cancer 2018, 119, 389–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Klopp, A.H.; Yeung, A.R.; Deshmukh, S.; Gil, K.M.; Wenzel, L.; Westin, S.N.; Gifford, K.; Gaffney, D.K.; Small, W.; Thompson, S.; et al. Patient-Reported Toxicity during Pelvic Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: NRG Oncology-RTOG 1203. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 2538–2544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gandhi, A.K.; Sharma, D.N.; Rath, G.K.; Julka, P.K.; Subramani, V.; Sharma, S.; Manigandan, D.; Laviraj, M.A.; Kumar, S.; Thulkar, S. Early Clinical Outcomes and Toxicity of Intensity Modulated Versus Conventional Pelvic Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Cervix Carcinoma: A Prospective Randomized Study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2013, 87, 542–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Naik, A.; Gurjar, O.P.; Gupta, K.L.; Singh, K.; Nag, P.; Bhandari, V. Comparison of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity of intensity-modulated and three-dimensional radiotherapy in patients with cervix carcinoma: A randomized prospective study. Cancer Radiother. 2016, 20, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lin, A.J.; Kidd, E.; Dehdashti, F.; Siegel, B.A.; Mutic, S.; Thaker, P.H.; Massad, L.S.; Powell, M.A.; Mutch, D.G.; Markovina, S.; et al. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and Image-Guided Adapted Brachytherapy for Cervix Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2019, 103, 1088–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ruben, J.D.; Davis, S.; Evans, C.; Jones, P.; Gagliardi, F.; Haynes, M.; Hunter, A. The Effect of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy on Radiation-Induced Second Malignancies. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2008, 70, 1530–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Welte, B.; Suhr, P.; Bottke, D.; Bartkowiak, D.; Dörr, W.; Trott, K.R.; Wiegel, T. Second Malignancies in High-Dose Areas of Previous Tumor Radiotherapy. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2010, 186, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chaturvedi, A.K.; Engels, E.A.; Gilbert, E.S.; Chen, B.E.; Storm, H.; Lynch, C.F.; Hall, P.; Langmark, F.; Pukkala, E.; Kaijser, M.; et al. Second Cancers among 104,760 Survivors of Cervical Cancer: Evaluation of Long-Term Risk. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007, 99, 1634–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Grégoire, V.; Guckenberger, M.; Haustermans, K.; Lagendijk, J.J.W.; Ménard, C.; Pötter, R.; Slotman, B.J.; Tanderup, K.; Thorwarth, D.; Van Herk, M.; et al. Image guidance in radiation therapy for better cure of cancer. Mol. Oncol. 2020, 14, 1470–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Corradini, S.; Alongi, F.; Andratschke, N.; Belka, C.; Boldrini, L.; Cellini, F.; Debus, J.; Guckenberger, M.; Hörner-Rieber, J.; Lagerwaard, F.J.; et al. MR-guidance in clinical reality: Current treatment challenges and future perspectives. Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 14, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Banerjee, R.; Kamrava, M. Brachytherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer: A review. Int. J. Women’s Health 2014, 6, 555–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Pötter, R.; Tanderup, K.; Kirisits, C.; De Leeuw, A.; Kirchheiner, K.; Nout, R.; Tan, L.T.; Haie-Meder, C.; Mahantshetty, U.; Segedin, B.; et al. The EMBRACE II study: The outcome and prospect of two decades of evolution within the GEC-ESTRO GYN working group and the EMBRACE studies. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 9, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Kim, Y.J.; Kang, H.-C.; Kim, Y.S. Impact of intracavitary brachytherapy technique (2D versus 3D) on outcomes of cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2020, 196, 973–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hanna, T.P.; Shafiq, J.; Delaney, G.P.; Vinod, S.K.; Thompson, S.R.; Barton, M.B. The population benefit of evidence-based radiotherapy: 5-Year local control and overall survival benefits. Radiother. Oncol. 2018, 126, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Douple, E.B.; Richmond, R.C. A review of platinum complex biochemistry suggests a rationale for combined platinum-radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 1979, 5, 1335–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nishimura, Y. Rationale for chemoradiotherapy. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004, 9, 414–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Weichselbaum, R.R.; Liang, H.; Deng, L.; Fu, Y.-X. Radiotherapy and immunotherapy: A beneficial liaison? Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 14, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kang, J.; DeMaria, S.; Formenti, S. Current clinical trials testing the combination of immunotherapy with radiotherapy. J. Immunother. Cancer 2016, 4, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Antonia, S.J.; Villegas, A.; Daniel, D.; Vicente, D.; Murakami, S.; Hui, R.; Kurata, T.; Chiappori, A.; Lee, K.H.; De Wit, M.; et al. Overall survival with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 2342–2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kagabu, M.; Nagasawa, T.; Fukagawa, D.; Tomabechi, H.; Sato, S.; Shoji, T.; Baba, T. Immunotherapy for Uterine Cervical Cancer. Healthcare 2019, 7, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Reid, B.M.; Permuth, J.B.; Sellers, T.A. Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: A review. Cancer Biol. Med. 2017, 14, 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Prat, J.; D’Angelo, E.; Espinosa, I. Ovarian carcinomas: At least five different diseases with distinct histological features and molecular genetics. Hum. Pathol. 2018, 80, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gourley, C.; Bookman, M.A. Evolving Concepts in the Management of Newly Diagnosed Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 2386–2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Jochum, F.; Vermel, M.; Faller, E.; Boisrame, T.; Lecointre, L.; Akladios, C. Three and Five-Year Mortality in Ovarian Cancer after Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Ovarian Cancer (Version 01.2020). Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ovarian.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2020).
  30. Ledermann, J.A.; Raja, F.A.; Fotopoulou, C.; Gonzalez-Martin, A.; Colombo, N.; Sessa, C.; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2013, 24 (Suppl. 6), vi24–vi32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hoskins, P.J.; Le, N.; Gilks, B.; Tinker, A.; Santos, J.; Wong, F.; Swenerton, K.D. Low-Stage Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma: Population-Based Outcomes in British Columbia, Canada, with Evidence for a Survival Benefit as a Result of Irradiation. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 1656–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lambert, H.E.; Rustin, G.J.; Gregory, W.M.; Nelstrop, A.E. A randomized trial comparing single-agent carboplatin with carboplatin followed by radiotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer: A North Thames Ovary Group study. J. Clin. Oncol. 1993, 11, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chiara, S.; Conte, P.; Franzone, P.; Orsatti, M.; Bruzzone, M.; Rubagotti, A.; Odicino, F.; Rugiati, S.; Carnino, F.; Rosso, R.; et al. High-Risk Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Cisplatin Plus Cyclophosphamide versus Whole Abdominal Radiotherapy. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 1994, 17, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sorbe, B. Consolidation treatment of advanced (FIGO stage III) ovarian carcinoma in complete surgical remission after induction chemotherapy: A randomized, controlled, clinical trial comparing whole abdominal radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and no further treatment. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2003, 13, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Arians, N.; Kieser, M.; Benner, L.; Rochet, N.; Katayama, S.; Sterzing, F.; Herfarth, K.; Schubert, K.; Schröder, L.; Leitzen, C.; et al. Adjuvant Intensity Modulated Whole-Abdominal Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Patients with Ovarian Cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Stage III): First Results of a Prospective Phase 2 Study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017, 99, 912–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Morice, P.; Leary, A.; Creutzberg, C.; Abu-Rustum, N.; Darai, E. Endometrial cancer. Lancet 2016, 387, 1094–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2015, 65, 5–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Murali, R.; Soslow, R.A.; Weigelt, B. Classification of endometrial carcinoma: More than two types. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, e268–e278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Levine, D.A. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013, 497, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. León-Castillo, A.; De Boer, S.M.; Powell, M.E.; Mileshkin, L.R.; Mackay, H.J.; Leary, A.; Nijman, H.W.; Singh, N.; Pollock, P.M.; Bessette, P.; et al. Molecular Classification of the PORTEC-3 Trial for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer: Impact on Prognosis and Benefit From Adjuvant Therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, JCO2000549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wortman, B.G.; Bosse, T.; Nout, R.A.; Lutgens, L.C.H.W.; Van Der Steen-Banasik, E.M.; Westerveld, H.; van den Berg, H.; Slot, A.; De Winter, K.A.J.; Verhoeven-Adema, K.W.; et al. Molecular-integrated risk profile to determine adjuvant radiotherapy in endometrial cancer: Evaluation of the pilot phase of the PORTEC-4a trial. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018, 151, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Marnitz, S.; Waltar, T.; Köhler, C.; Mustea, A.; Schömig-Markiefka, B. The brave new world of endometrial cancer: Future implications for adjuvant treatment decisions. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2020, 196, 963–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Uterine Neoplasms (Version 2.2020). Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uterine.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2020).
  44. Colombo, N.; Creutzberg, C.; Amant, F.; Bosse, T.; González-Martín, A.; Ledermann, J.; Marth, C.; Nout, R.; Querleu, D.; Mirza, M.R.; et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2016, 26, 2–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Amant, F.; Mirza, M.R.; Koskas, M.; Creutzberg, C.L. Cancer of the corpus uteri. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2018, 143, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Colombo, N.; Preti, E.; Landoni, F.; Carinelli, S.; Colombo, A.; Marini, C.; Sessa, C.; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2013, 24 (Suppl. 6), vi33–vi38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Creutzberg, C.L.; Van Putten, W.L.; Koper, P.C.; Lybeert, M.L.; Jobsen, J.J.; Wárlám-Rodenhuis, C.C.; De Winter, K.A.; Lutgens, L.C.; van den Bergh, A.C.; Van De Steen-Banasik, E.; et al. Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: Multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet 2000, 355, 1404–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Keys, H.M.; Roberts, J.A.; Brunetto, V.L.; Zaino, R.J.; Spirtos, N.M.; Bloss, J.D.; Pearlman, A.; Maiman, M.A.; Bell, J.G. A phase III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endometrial adenocarcinoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2004, 92, 744–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. ASTEC/EN.5 Study Group; Blake, P.; Swart, A.M.; Orton, J.; Kitchener, H.; Whelan, T.; Lukka, H.; Eisenhauer, E.; Bacon, M.; Tu, D.; et al. Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy in the treatment of endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC and NCIC CTG EN.5 randomised trials): Pooled trial results, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Lancet 2009, 373, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Wortman, B.G.; Creutzberg, C.L.; Putter, H.; Jürgenliemk-Schulz, I.M.; Jobsen, J.J.; Lutgens, L.C.H.W.; van der Steen-Banasik, E.M.; Mens, J.W.M.; Slot, A.; Kroese, M.C.S.; et al. Ten-year results of the PORTEC-2 trial for high-intermediate risk endometrial carcinoma: Improving patient selection for adjuvant therapy. Br. J. Cancer 2018, 119, 1067–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Nout, R.A.; Van De Poll-Franse, L.V.; Lybeert, M.L.M.; Wárlám-Rodenhuis, C.C.; Jobsen, J.J.; Mens, J.W.M.; Lutgens, L.C.H.W.; Pras, B.; Van Putten, W.L.J.; Creutzberg, C.L. Long-Term Outcome and Quality of Life of Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma Treated with or without Pelvic Radiotherapy in the Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma 1 (PORTEC-1) Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 1692–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nout, R.A.; Putter, H.; Jürgenliemk-Schulz, I.M.; Jobsen, J.J.; Lutgens, L.C.H.W.; Van Der Steen-Banasik, E.M.; Mens, J.W.M.; Slot, A.; Kroese, M.C.S.; Nijman, H.W.; et al. Five-year quality of life of endometrial cancer patients treated in the randomised Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Cancer (PORTEC-2) trial and comparison with norm data. Eur. J. Cancer 2012, 48, 1638–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Rydzewski, N.R.; Strohl, A.E.; Donnelly, E.D.; Kanis, M.J.; Lurain, J.R.; Nieves-Neira, W.; Strauss, J.B. Receipt of vaginal brachytherapy is associated with improved survival in women with stage I endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus: A National Cancer Data Base study. Cancer 2016, 122, 3724–3731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. De Boer, S.M.; Powell, M.E.; Mileshkin, L.; Katsaros, D.; Bessette, P.; Haie-Meder, C.; Ottevanger, P.B.; Ledermann, J.A.; Khaw, P.; D’Amico, R.; et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): Patterns of recurrence and post-hoc survival analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 1273–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. De Boer, S.M.; Powell, M.E.; Mileshkin, L.; Katsaros, D.; Bessette, P.; Haie-Meder, C.; Ottevanger, P.B.; Ledermann, J.A.; Khaw, P.; Colombo, A.; et al. Toxicity and quality of life after adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): An open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 1114–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Matei, D.; Filiaci, V.; Randall, M.E.; Mutch, D.; Steinhoff, M.M.; DiSilvestro, P.A.; Moxley, K.M.; Kim, Y.M.; Powell, M.A.; O’Malley, D.M.; et al. Adjuvant Chemotherapy plus Radiation for Locally Advanced Endometrial Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 2317–2326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Boothe, D.; Orton, A.; Odei, B.; Stoddard, G.; Suneja, G.; Poppe, M.M.; Werner, T.L.; Gaffney, D.K. Chemoradiation versus chemotherapy or radiation alone in stage III endometrial cancer: Patterns of care and impact on overall survival. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 141, 421–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Onal, C.; Sari, S.Y.; Yildirim, B.A.; Yavas, G.; Gultekin, M.; Guler, O.C.; Akyurek, S.; Yildiz, F. A multi-institutional analysis of sequential versus ‘sandwich’ adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage IIIC endometrial carcinoma. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019, 30, e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Todo, Y.; Kato, H.; Kaneuchi, M.; Watari, H.; Takeda, M.; Sakuragi, N. Survival effect of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): A retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet 2010, 375, 1165–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rossi, E.C.; Kowalski, L.D.; Scalici, J.; Cantrell, L.; Schuler, K.; Hanna, R.K.; Method, M.; Ade, M.; Ivanova, A.; Boggess, J.F. A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): A multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 384–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Van Der Steen-Banasik, E.; Christiaens, M.; Shash, E.; Coens, C.; Casado, A.; Herrera, F.G.; Ottevanger, P.B. Systemic review: Radiation therapy alone in medical non-operable endometrial carcinoma. Eur. J. Cancer 2016, 65, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Podzielinski, I.; Randall, M.E.; Breheny, P.J.; Escobar, P.F.; Cohn, D.E.; Quick, A.M.; Chino, J.P.; Lopez-Acevedo, M.; Seitz, J.L.; Zook, J.E.; et al. Primary radiation therapy for medically inoperable patients with clinical stage I and II endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012, 124, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kupelian, P.A.; Eifel, P.J.; Tornos, C.; Burke, T.W.; Delclos, L.; Oswald, M.J. Treatment of endometrial carcinoma with radiation therapy alone. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1993, 27, 817–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rotman, M.; Sedlis, A.; Piedmonte, M.R.; Bundy, B.; Lentz, S.S.; Muderspach, L.I.; Zaino, R.J. A phase III randomized trial of postoperative pelvic irradiation in stage IB cervical carcinoma with poor prognostic features: Follow-up of a gynecologic oncology group study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006, 65, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Chapman, B.V.; Gill, B.S.; Viswanathan, A.N.; Balasubramani, G.K.; Sukumvanich, P.; Beriwal, S. Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Margin-Positive Vulvar Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Defining the Ideal Dose-Response Using the National Cancer Data Base. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017, 97, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kunos, C.; Simpkins, F.; Gibbons, H.; Tian, C.; Homesley, H. Radiation Therapy Compared with Pelvic Node Resection for Node-Positive Vulvar Cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009, 114, 537–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration (CCCMAC). 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Kenter, G.; Greggi, S.; Vergote, I.; Katsaros, D.; Kobierski, J.; Massuger, L.; Van Doorn, H.C.; Landoni, F.; Van Der Velden, J.; Reed, N.S.; et al. Results from neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery compared to chemoradiation for stage Ib2-IIb cervical cancer, EORTC 55994. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 5503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Oonk, M.H.M.; Slomovitz, B.; Baldwin, P.; Van Doorn, H.; Van Der Velden, J.; De Hullu, J.; Slangen, B.; Gaarenstroom, K.; Vergote, I.; Brannstrom, M.; et al. Radiotherapy instead of inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy in vulvar cancer patients with a metastatic sentinel node: Results of GROINSS-V II. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2019, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Moore, D.H.; Ali, S.; Koh, W.-J.; Michael, H.; Barnes, M.N.; McCourt, C.K.; Homesley, H.D.; Walker, J.L. A phase II trial of radiation therapy and weekly cisplatin chemotherapy for the treatment of locally-advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva: A gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012, 124, 529–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Arbyn, M.; Weiderpass, E.; Bruni, L.; De Sanjosé, S.; Saraiya, M.; Ferlay, J.; Bray, F. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: A worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 8, e191–e203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Jansen, E.E.L.; Zielonke, N.; Gini, A.; Anttila, A.; Segnan, N.; Vokó, Z.; Ivanuš, U.; McKee, M.; De Koning, H.J.; De Kok, I.M.C.M.; et al. Effect of organised cervical cancer screening on cervical cancer mortality in Europe: A systematic review. Eur. J. Cancer 2020, 127, 207–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Brisson, M.; Kim, J.J.; Canfell, K.; Drolet, M.; Gingras, G.; Burger, E.A.; Martin, D.; Simms, K.T.; Bénard, É.; Boily, M.-C.; et al. Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination: A comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Lancet 2020, 395, 575–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Galic, V.; Herzog, T.J.; Lewin, S.N.; Neugut, A.I.; Burke, W.M.; Lu, Y.-S.; Hershman, D.L.; Wright, J.D. Prognostic significance of adenocarcinoma histology in women with cervical cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012, 125, 287–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Bhatla, N.; Berek, J.S.; Fredes, M.C.; Denny, L.A.; Grenman, S.; Karunaratne, K.; Kehoe, S.T.; Konishi, I.; Olawaiye, A.B.; Prat, J.; et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2019, 145, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Cervical Cancer (Version 02.2020). Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2020).
  77. Cibula, D.; Pötter, R.; Planchamp, F.; Avall-Lundqvist, E.; Fischerova, D.; Haie-Meder, C.; Köhler, C.; Landoni, F.; Lax, S.; Lindegaard, J.C.; et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Cervical Cancer. Virchows Arch. Int. Pathol. 2018, 472, 919–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Marth, C.; Landoni, F.; Mahner, S.; McCormack, M.; Gonzalez-Martin, A.; Colombo, N.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, iv72–iv83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Melamed, A.; Rauh-Hain, J.A.; Ramirez, P.T. Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: When Adoption of a Novel Treatment Precedes Prospective, Randomized Evidence. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 3069–3074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Ramirez, P.T.; Frumovitz, M.; Pareja, R.; Lopez, A.; Vieira, M.; Ribeiro, R.; Buda, A.; Yan, X.; Shuzhong, Y.; Chetty, N.; et al. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 1895–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Melamed, A.; Margul, D.J.; Chen, L.; Keating, N.L.; Del Carmen, M.G.; Yang, J.; Seagle, B.-L.L.; Alexander, A.; Barber, E.L.; Rice, L.W.; et al. Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 1905–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ekdahl, L.; Wallin, E.; Alfonzo, E.; Reynisson, P.; Lönnerfors, C.; Dahm-Kähler, P.; Falconer, H.; Persson, J. Increased Institutional Surgical Experience in Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer Reduces Recurrence Rate: Results from a Nationwide Study. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Cusimano, M.C.; Baxter, N.N.; Gien, L.T.; Moineddin, R.; Liu, N.; Dossa, F.; Willows, K.; Ferguson, S.E. Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 221, 619.e1–619.e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Fader, A.N. Surgery in Cervical Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 1955–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Mazeron, R.; Gouy, S.; Chargari, C.; Del Campo, E.R.; Dumas, I.; Mervoyer, A.; Genestie, C.; Bentivegna, E.; Balleyguier, C.; Pautier, P.; et al. Post radiation hysterectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer: Outcomes and dosimetric impact. Radiother. Oncol. 2016, 120, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kokka, F.; Bryant, A.; Brockbank, E.; Powell, M.; Oram, D. Hysterectomy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy or both for women with locally advanced cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, CD010260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Albert, A.; Allbright, R.; Lee, A.; Vijayakumar, S. Preoperative chemoradiation followed by hysterectomy for cervical cancer: Patterns of care and survival in a large, hospital database. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019, 30, e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Tewari, K.S.; Monk, B.J. Evidence-Based Treatment Paradigms for Management of Invasive Cervical Carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 2472–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 21 randomised trials. Eur. J. Cancer 2003, 39, 2470–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Gupta, S.; Maheshwari, A.; Parab, P.; Mahantshetty, U.; Hawaldar, R.; Sastri Chopra, S.; Kerkar, R.; Engineer, R.; Tongaonkar, H.; Ghosh, J.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Da Costa, S.C.S.; Bonadio, R.C.; Gabrielli, F.C.G.; Aranha, A.S.; Dias Genta, M.L.N.; Miranda, V.C.; De Freitas, D.; Abdo Filho, E.; Ferreira, P.A.O.; Machado, K.K.; et al. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Cisplatin and Gemcitabine Followed by Chemoradiation versus Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 3124–3131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kidd, E.A.; Siegel, B.A.; Dehdashti, F.; Rader, J.S.; Mutch, D.G.; Powell, M.A.; Grigsby, P.W. Lymph Node Staging by Positron Emission Tomography in Cervical Cancer: Relationship to Prognosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 2108–2113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Benito, V.; Carballo, S.; Silva, P.; Esparza, M.; Arencibia, O.; Federico, M.; Andújar, M.; Mori, M.; Medina, N.; Lubrano, A. Should the Presence of Metastatic Para-Aortic Lymph Nodes in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Lead to More Aggressive Treatment Strategies? J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017, 24, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Poorvu, P.D.; Sadow, C.A.; Townamchai, K.; Damato, A.L.; Viswanathan, A.N. Duodenal and Other Gastrointestinal Toxicity in Cervical and Endometrial Cancer Treated with Extended-Field Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy to Paraaortic Lymph Nodes. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2013, 85, 1262–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Gouy, S.; Morice, P.; Narducci, F.; Uzan, C.; Gilmore, J.; Kolesnikov-Gauthier, H.; Querleu, D.; Haie-Meder, C.; Leblanc, E. Nodal-staging surgery for locally advanced cervical cancer in the era of PET. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13, e212–e220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yap, M.L.; Cuartero, J.; Yan, J.; Pintilie, M.; Fyles, A.; Levin, W.; Manchul, L.; Milosevic, M. The Role of Elective Para-aortic Lymph Node Irradiation in Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 26, 797–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Meng, Q.; Liu, X.; Wang, W.; Hou, X.; Lian, X.; Sun, S.; Yan, J.; Liu, Z.; Miao, Z.; Hu, K.; et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of prophylactic extended field irradiation in the concomitant chemoradiotherapy treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer, stage IIIB in the 2018 FIGO classification. Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 14, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Thamronganantasakul, K.; Supakalin, N.; Kietpeerakool, C.; Pattanittum, P.; Lumbiganon, P. Extended-field radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 2018, CD012301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gouy, S.; Morice, P.; Narducci, F.; Uzan, C.; Martinez, A.; Rey, A.; Bentivegna, E.; Pautier, P.; Deandreis, D.; Querleu, D.; et al. Prospective Multicenter Study Evaluating the Survival of Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Undergoing Laparoscopic Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy Before Chemoradiotherapy in the Era of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 3026–3033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Marnitz, S.; Tsunoda, A.T.; Martus, P.; Vieira, M.; Junior, R.J.A.; Nunes, J.; Budach, V.; Hertel, H.; Mustea, A.; Sehouli, J.; et al. Surgical versus clinical staging prior to primary chemoradiation in patients with cervical cancer FIGO stages IIB–IVA: Oncologic results of a prospective randomized international multicenter (Uterus-11) intergroup study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2020, 30, 1855–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Marnitz, S.; Martus, P.; Köhler, C.; Stromberger, C.; Asse, E.; Mallmann, P.; Schmidberger, H.; Affonso, R.J.A., Jr.; Nunes, J.S.; Sehouli, J.; et al. Role of Surgical versus Clinical Staging in Chemoradiated FIGO Stage IIB-IVA Cervical Cancer Patients—Acute Toxicity and Treatment Quality of the Uterus-11 Multicenter Phase III Intergroup Trial of the German Radiation Oncology Group and the Gynecologic Cancer Group. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2016, 94, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yang, J.; Delara, R.; Magrina, J.; Magtibay, P.; Yi, J.; Langstraat, C.; Robertson, M.; Dinh, T.; Butler, K. Comparing survival outcomes between surgical and radiographic lymph node assessment in locally advanced cervical cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020, 156, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Gill, B.S.; Lin, J.F.; Krivak, T.C.; Sukumvanich, P.; Laskey, R.A.; Ross, M.S.; Lesnock, J.L.; Beriwal, S. National Cancer Data Base Analysis of Radiation Therapy Consolidation Modality for Cervical Cancer: The Impact of New Technological Advancements. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2014, 90, 1083–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. O’Donnell, B.; Shiao, J.C.; Pezzi, T.A.; Waheed, N.; Sharma, S.; Bonnen, M.D.; Ludwig, M.S. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, and Brachytherapy Boost Modalities in Invasive Cervical Cancer: A Study of the National Cancer Data Base. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2018, 28, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Albuquerque, K.; Tumati, V.; Lea, J.; Ahn, C.; Richardson, D.; Miller, D.; Timmerman, R. A Phase II Trial of Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy as a Boost for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2020, 106, 464–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Clivio, A.; Kluge, A.; Cozzi, L.; Köhler, C.; Neumann, O.; Vanetti, E.; Wlodarczyk, W.; Marnitz, S. Intensity Modulated Proton Beam Radiation for Brachytherapy in Patients with Cervical Carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2013, 87, 897–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Okonogi, N.; Wakatsuki, M.; Kato, S.; Karasawa, K.; Kiyohara, H.; Shiba, S.; Kobayashi, D.; Nakano, T.; Kamada, T.; Shozu, M.; et al. Clinical outcomes of carbon ion radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced uterine cervical adenocarcinoma in a phase 1/2 clinical trial (Protocol 1001). Cancer Med. 2018, 7, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Cetina, L.; González-Enciso, A.; Cantú, D.; Coronel, J.; Pérez-Montiel, D.; Hinojosa, J.; Serrano, A.; Rivera, L.; Poitevin, A.; Mota, A.; et al. Brachytherapy versus radical hysterectomy after external beam chemoradiation with gemcitabine plus cisplatin: A randomized, phase III study in IB2-IIB cervical cancer patients. Ann. Oncol. 2013, 24, 2043–2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Sturdza, A.; Pötter, R.; Fokdal, L.U.; Haie-Meder, C.; Tan, L.T.; Mazeron, R.; Petric, P.; Šegedin, B.; Jurgenliemk-Schulz, I.M.; Nomden, C.; et al. Image guided brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: Improved pelvic control and survival in RetroEMBRACE, a multicenter cohort study. Radiother. Oncol. 2016, 120, 428–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Falcetta, F.S.; Medeiros, L.R.; Edelweiss, M.I.; Pohlmann, P.R.; Stein, A.T.; Rosa, D.D. Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy for early stage cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 11, CD005342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Li, R.; Shinde, A.; Chen, Y.-J.; Amini, A.; Lee, S.; Dellinger, T.; Han, E.; Wakabayashi, M.; Nelson, R.; Beriwal, S.; et al. Survival Benefit of Adjuvant Brachytherapy after Hysterectomy With Positive Surgical Margins in Cervical Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2018, 102, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Dittmer, C.; Katalinic, A.; Mundhenke, C.; Thill, M.; Fischer, D. Epidemiology of vulvar and vaginal cancer in Germany. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2011, 284, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wu, X.; Matanoski, G.; Chen, V.W.; Saraiya, M.; Coughlin, S.S.; King, J.B.; Tao, X.-G. Descriptive epidemiology of vaginal cancer incidence and survival by race, ethnicity, and age in the United States. Cancer 2008, 113, 2873–2882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Smith, J.S.; Backes, D.M.; Hoots, B.E.; Kurman, R.J.; Pimenta, J.M. Human Papillomavirus Type-Distribution in Vulvar and Vaginal Cancers and Their Associated Precursors. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009, 113, 917–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Adams, T.S.; Cuello, M.A. Cancer of the vagina. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2018, 143, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Schnürch, H.-G.; Ackermann, S.; Alt-Radtke, C.D.; Angleitner, L.; Barinoff, J.; Beckmann, M.W.; Böing, C.; Dannecker, C.; Fehm, T.; Gaase, R.; et al. Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Vaginal Cancer and Its Precursors. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 032/042, October 2018). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2019, 79, 1060–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Beriwal, S.; Demanes, D.J.; Erickson, B.; Jones, E.; De Los Santos, J.F.; Cormack, R.A.; Yashar, C.; Rownd, J.J.; Viswanathan, A.N.; American Brachytherapy Society. American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for interstitial brachytherapy for vaginal cancer. Brachytherapy 2012, 11, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Di Donato, V.; Bellati, F.; Fischetti, M.; Plotti, F.; Perniola, G.; Panici, P.B. Vaginal cancer. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2012, 81, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Orton, A.; Boothe, D.; Williams, N.; Buchmiller, T.; Huang, Y.J.; Suneja, G.; Poppe, M.; Gaffney, D. Brachytherapy improves survival in primary vaginal cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 141, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Westerveld, H.; Nesvacil, N.; Fokdal, L.; Chargari, C.; Schmid, M.P.; Milosevic, M.; Mahantshetty, U.M.; Nout, R.A. Definitive radiotherapy with image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for primary vaginal cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, e157–e167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Manuel, M.M.; Cho, L.P.; Catalano, P.J.; Damato, A.L.; Miyamoto, D.T.; Tempany, C.M.; Schmidt, E.J.; Viswanathan, A.N. Outcomes with image-based interstitial brachytherapy for vaginal cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2016, 120, 486–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Miyamoto, D.T.; Viswanathan, A.N. Concurrent Chemoradiation for Vaginal Cancer. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e65048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Greenwalt, J.C.; Amdur, R.J.; Morris, C.G.; Morgan, L.S.; Castagno, J.; Markham, M.J.; Rich, S.; Yeung, A.R. Outcomes of Definitive Radiation Therapy for Primary Vaginal Carcinoma. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 38, 583–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Kang, Y.-J.; Smith, M.; Barlow, E.; Coffey, K.; Hacker, N.; Canfell, K. Vulvar cancer in high-income countries: Increasing burden of disease. Int. J. Cancer 2017, 141, 2174–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Alkatout, I.; Schubert, M.; Garbrecht, N.; Weigel, M.T.; Jonat, W.; Mundhenke, C.; Günther, V. Vulvar cancer: Epidemiology, clinical presentation, and management options. Int. J. Women’s Health 2015, 7, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  126. Zhou, J.; Shan, G. The prognostic role of FIGO stage in patients with vulvar cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr. Med Res. Opin. 2016, 32, 1121–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Vulvar Cancer (Version 03.2020). Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/vulvar.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2020).
  128. Oonk, M.H.M.; Planchamp, F.; Baldwin, P.; Bidzinski, M.; Brännström, M.; Landoni, F.; Mahner, S.; Mahantshetty, U.; Mirza, M.; Petersen, C.; et al. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Vulvar Cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2017, 27, 832–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Kamrava, M. The ideal adjuvant treatment in node positive vulvar cancer is (fill in your best guess here). Gynecol. Oncol. 2015, 137, 363–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Mahner, S.; Jueckstock, J.; Hilpert, F.; Neuser, P.; Harter, P.; De Gregorio, N.; Hasenburg, A.; Sehouli, J.; Habermann, A.; Hillemanns, P.; et al. Adjuvant Therapy in Lymph Node-Positive Vulvar Cancer: The AGO-CaRE-1 Study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2015, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Fons, G.; Groenen, S.M.A.; Oonk, M.H.M.; Ansink, A.C.; Van Der Zee, A.G.J.; Burger, M.P.M.; Stalpers, L.J.A.; Van Der Velden, J. Adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with vulvar cancer and one intra capsular lymph node metastasis is not beneficial. Gynecol. Oncol. 2009, 114, 343–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Rishi, A.; Rollins, M.; Ahmed, K.A.; Hunt, D.C.; Sarkar, P.; Fernandez, D.C.; Hoffman, M.S.; Apte, S.M.; Shahzad, M.M.K.; Chon, H.S.; et al. High-dose intensity-modulated chemoradiotherapy in vulvar squamous cell carcinoma: Outcome and toxicity. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020, 156, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Beriwal, S.; Coon, D.; Heron, D.E.; Kelley, J.L.; Edwards, R.P.; Sukumvanich, P.; Zorn, K.K.; Krivak, T.C. Preoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced vulvar carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 2008, 109, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Natesan, D.; Hong, J.C.; Foote, J.; Sosa, J.A.; Havrilesky, L.; Chino, J. Primary Versus Preoperative Radiation for Locally Advanced Vulvar Cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2017, 27, 794–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 10 00093 g001 550
Figure 1. Milestones in radiotherapy for gynecological malignancies. A schematic timeline showing innovations in radiotherapy, including external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, and systemic therapy.
Figure 1. Milestones in radiotherapy for gynecological malignancies. A schematic timeline showing innovations in radiotherapy, including external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, and systemic therapy.
Jcm 10 00093 g001
Jcm 10 00093 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparison of techniques for external beam radiotherapy. FIGO stage IIIC cervical cancer in a 30-year-old woman treated with definitive radiotherapy including external beam radiotherapy, high-dose-rate brachytherapy, and concurrent cisplatin. She had laparoscopic nodal staging and ovarian transposition prior to radiotherapy. The actual intensity-modulated treatment plan (right), allowing for superior conformality, is juxtaposed to an alternative 3D-conformal plan (left). Inguinal nodes are included in the radiation field due to distal vaginal extension of the primary cancer.
Figure 2. Comparison of techniques for external beam radiotherapy. FIGO stage IIIC cervical cancer in a 30-year-old woman treated with definitive radiotherapy including external beam radiotherapy, high-dose-rate brachytherapy, and concurrent cisplatin. She had laparoscopic nodal staging and ovarian transposition prior to radiotherapy. The actual intensity-modulated treatment plan (right), allowing for superior conformality, is juxtaposed to an alternative 3D-conformal plan (left). Inguinal nodes are included in the radiation field due to distal vaginal extension of the primary cancer.
Jcm 10 00093 g002
Table
Table 1. Schematic overview of common indications for adjuvant radiotherapy in newly diagnosed localized gynecological malignancies. Adjuvant radiotherapy is not used for ovarian cancer. The approach to vaginal cancer is similar to that for cervical cancer. Ovarian and vaginal cancer are therefore not listed here.
Table 1. Schematic overview of common indications for adjuvant radiotherapy in newly diagnosed localized gynecological malignancies. Adjuvant radiotherapy is not used for ovarian cancer. The approach to vaginal cancer is similar to that for cervical cancer. Ovarian and vaginal cancer are therefore not listed here.
EntityEndometrial CancerCervical CancerVulvar Cancer
Postoperative
clinical scenario		High-interm. risk
in early stage		High risk in early stage or
advanced stage		Risk factors (e.g., tumor > 4 cm, deep stromal invasion, positive resection margins)Primary tumor with persistent positive resection margins Lymphadenectomy with ≥2 positive LN or ECE
RadiotherapyBTEBRT
+/− Chemo		EBRT +/− Chemo +/− BTEBRTEBRT
Most relevant available efficacy outcomeVaginal recurrencePelvic/Vaginal recurrence,
overall survival		Local recurrence,
progression-free survival		Overall survivalOverall survival
Corresponding
Publications		Prospective, randomized
[46,49]		Prospective, randomized
[53,55]		Prospective, randomized
[64]		Retrospective
[65]		Prospective,randomized
[66]
Abbreviations: +/−, with or without; BT, brachytherapy; EBRT, external beam radiotherapy; LN, lymph node; ECE, extracapsular extension.
Table
Table 2. Schematic overview of common indications for primary radiotherapy in newly diagnosed localized gynecological malignancies. Primary radiotherapy is generally not used for ovarian cancer. The approach towards vaginal cancer is similar to that for cervical cancer. Ovarian and vaginal cancer are therefore not listed here.
Table 2. Schematic overview of common indications for primary radiotherapy in newly diagnosed localized gynecological malignancies. Primary radiotherapy is generally not used for ovarian cancer. The approach towards vaginal cancer is similar to that for cervical cancer. Ovarian and vaginal cancer are therefore not listed here.
EntityEndometrial CancerCervical CancerVulvar Cancer
Clinical scenarioMedically or surgically inoperableFIGO stage > IB2 or >IISingular micrometastasis
(≤2 mm) in SLN-biopsy		Medically or surgically inoperable
RadiotherapyBT +/− EBRT
+/− Chemo		EBRT + BT
+ Chemo		EBRT to the groinEBRT + Chemo
Most relevant available
efficacy outcome		Disease-specific survivalOverall survivalLocal recurrenceComplete response rate
Corresponding
Publications		Retrospective
[60]		Prospective, randomized
[67,68]		Prospective, non-randomized
[69]		Prospective, non-randomized
[70]
Abbreviations: +/−, with or without; BT, brachytherapy; EBRT, external beam radiotherapy; SLN, sentinel lymph node.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fabian, A.; Krug, D.; Alkatout, I. Radiotherapy and Its Intersections with Surgery in the Management of Localized Gynecological Malignancies: A Comprehensive Overview for Clinicians. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010093

AMA Style

Fabian A, Krug D, Alkatout I. Radiotherapy and Its Intersections with Surgery in the Management of Localized Gynecological Malignancies: A Comprehensive Overview for Clinicians. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(1):93. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010093

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fabian, Alexander, David Krug, and Ibrahim Alkatout. 2021. "Radiotherapy and Its Intersections with Surgery in the Management of Localized Gynecological Malignancies: A Comprehensive Overview for Clinicians" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 1: 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010093

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop