Clinical profile and outcomes in cervical cancer: An audit from a tertiary cancer center

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Carcinoma cervix contributes to a major proportion of cancer treatment in tertiary oncology centers. The outcomes are dependent on multiple factors. We conducted an audit to establish the pattern of treatment practiced for carcinoma cervix at the institute and suggest changes thereof to improve the quality of care. Methodology: A retrospective observational study of 306 diagnosed cases of carcinoma cervix was carried out for the year 2010. Data was collected with regards to diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. Results: Out of 306 cases, 102 (33.33%) patients received only radiation therapy and 204 (66.66%) patients received concurrent chemotherapy. The most common chemotherapy used was weekly cisplatin 99 (48.52%), followed by weekly carboplatin 60 (29.41%) and three weekly cisplatin 45 (22.05%). Disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years was 36.6% with patients of overall treatment time (OTT) of <8 weeks and >8 weeks showing DFS of 41.8% and 34% (P = 0.149), respectively. Overall survival (OS) was 34%. Concurrent chemoradiation improved overall survival by a median of 8 months (P = 0.035). There was a trend towards improved survival with three weekly cisplatin regimen, however, insignificant. Stage correlated with improved overall survival significantly with stage I and II showing 40% and stage III and IV showing 32% (P < 0.05) OS. Acute toxicity (grade I-III) was higher in the concurrent chemoradiation group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: This audit was a first of its kind in the institute and threw light on the treatment and survival trends. It also revealed the number of patients lost to follow-up and prompted us to review the reasons for it. It has laid the foundation for future audits and recognized the importance of electronic medical records in the maintenance of data.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.