Dosimetric comparison and prognostic analysis of helical tomotherapy vs. intensity‑modulated radiation therapy in locally advanced cervical cancer

Résumé fourni par la source

Cervical cancer is a major oncological challenge worldwide, particularly in its locally advanced stages where optimal radiotherapy strategies are essential. The present study aimed to compare the dosimetric characteristics, clinical efficacy and radiation‑related toxicity of helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity‑modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer, providing scientific evidence to optimize radiotherapy strategies. A retrospective analysis was performed using data from 100 patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated at the Cangzhou Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital between January 2015 and December 2023. Among them, 50 patients received HT and 50 received IMRT for whole pelvic radiotherapy. Comparisons included dosimetric parameters of target areas and organs‑at‑risk (OARs), short‑term efficacy (based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1), long‑term outcomes [5‑year overall survival (OS) and progression‑free survival (PFS)] and radiation‑related toxicity (graded using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria). The results revealed that HT demonstrated significantly greater conformity index and homogeneity index values compared with that of IMRT (P<0.05), with significantly reduced high‑dose exposure (V40 and V50) to the rectum, bladder and femoral heads compared with those in the IMRT group (P<0.05). The 5‑year OS was comparable between groups (72.0 vs. 68.0%; P=0.210), whilst the 5‑year PFS was significantly higher in the HT group compared with that in the IMRT group (60.0 vs. 52.0%; P=0.033). The HT group also demonstrated a notably higher objective response rate (92.0 vs. 86.0%) and lower incidences of radiation‑induced toxicity, particularly involving the rectum and bladder. In conclusion, HT provides marked advantages over IMRT in terms of target dose distribution, OAR protection and PFS improvement, with a favorable toxicity profile. However, further optimization is warranted to address low‑dose exposure to normal tissues, as well as multicenter randomized controlled trials to validate the long‑term efficacy and safety of HT.

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