No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundDespite screening campaigns, cervical cancers remain among the most prevalent malignancies and carry significant mortality, especially in developing countries. Most studies report outcomes of patients receiving the usual standard of care. It is possible that these selected patients may not correctly represent patients in a real-world setting, which may be a limitation in interpreting outcomes. This study was undertaken to identify prognostic factors, management strategies and outcomes of locally advanced cervical cancers (LACC) treated in daily clinical practice.MethodsMedical files of all consecutive patients treated with curative intent for LACC in a French Cancer Care Center between 2004 and 2014 were reviewed retrospectively.ResultsNinety-four patients were identified. Performance status was ≥ 2 in 10.6%. Median age at diagnosis was 63.0. Based on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics classification, tumours were classified as follows: 10.6% IB2, 22.3% IIA, 51.0% IIB, 4.3% IIIA and 11.7% IIIB. Pelvic lymph nodes were involved in 34.0% of cases. Radiotherapy was delivered for all patients. Radiotherapy technique was intensity modulated radiation therapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy in 39.4% of cases. A concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy was delivered in 68.1% of patients. Brachytherapy was performed in 77.7% of cases. The recommended standard care (concurrent chemoradiotherapy with at least five chemotherapy cycles during radiotherapy, followed by brachytherapy) was delivered in 43.6%. The median overall treatment time was 56 days. Complete tumour sterilisation was achieved in 55.2% of cases. Mean follow-up was 54.3 months. Local recurrence rate was 18.1%. Five-year overall survival was 61.9% (95% Confident Interval (CI) = 52.3–73.2) and five-year disease-specific survival was 68.5% (95% CI = 59.2–79.2). Poor performance status, lymph nodes metastasis and absence of concurrent chemotherapy were identified as poor prognostic factors in multivariate analysis.ConclusionsLess than 50% of patients received the standard care. Because LACC patients and disease are heterogeneous, treatment tailoring appears to be common in current clinical practice. However, guidelines for tailoring management are not currently available. More data about real-world settings are required in order to to optimise clinical trials’ aims and designs, and make them translatable in daily clinical practice.Trial registrationretrospectively registered.

Radiation-induced fibrosis is widely considered as a common but forsaken phenomenon that can lead to clinical sequela and possibly vital impairments. Lysophosphatidic acid is a bioactive lipid involved in fibrosis and probably in radiation-induced fibrosis as suggested in recent studies. Lysophosphatidic acid is also a well-described pro-oncogenic factor, involved in carcinogenesis processes (proliferation, survival, angiogenesis, invasion, migration). The present review highlights and summarizes the links between lysophosphatidic acid and radiation-induced fibrosis, lysophosphatidic acid and radioresistance, and proposes lysophosphatidic acid as a potential central actor of the radiotherapy therapeutic index. Besides, we hypothesize that following radiotherapy, the newly formed tumour micro-environment, with increased extracellular matrix and increased lysophosphatidic acid levels, is a favourable ground to metastasis development. Lysophosphatidic acid could therefore be an exciting therapeutic target, minimizing radio-toxicities and radio-resistance effects.

Phase III randomized controlled trials featured severe limitations, since a third did not report radiotherapy technique, follow-up or late toxicities. The fast-paced technological evolution creates a discrepancy between literature and radiotherapy techniques performed in daily-routine, suggesting that phase III methodology needs to be reinvented.