AJLAlexander J Lin
Papers(2)
Long-term outcomes of…Standardized Uptake V…
Collaborators(8)
Barry A. SiegelFarrokh DehdashtiJulie K. SchwarzKay JayachandranMatthew InkmanPerry W. GrigsbySisi ZhangTodd A. DeWees
Institutions(2)
Taylor Family Institu…Mayo Clinic

Papers

Long-term outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and high dose rate brachytherapy as adjuvant therapy after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

Compared with 3D-planned pelvic radiation, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been shown to reduce acute toxicity in cervical cancer patients after radical hysterectomy. This study evaluated late toxicity and patterns of failure after post-operative pelvic IMRT interdigitated weekly with high dose rate brachytherapy. This retrospective study included 53 cervical cancer patients treated between January 2006 and August 2019 with radical hysterectomy, lymphadenectomy, and post-operative IMRT and high dose rate brachytherapy. The decision to include chemotherapy was made by the treating gynecologic oncologist based on patient-specific criteria including positive pelvic lymph nodes, positive surgical margins, or positive parametrial invasion. The actuarial rates of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, vaginal cuff/regional nodal/distant failure, and overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Median follow-up was 70 months (range 5.4-148) months and age at diagnosis was 47 (range 24-73) years. The 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) clinical stages were IB1 (n=19), IB2 (n=7), IIB (n=7), IIIC1 (n=19), and IIIC2 (n=1). Median radiation dose delivered in 160 cGy daily fractions was 5120 (range 4640-5120) cGy. Median brachytherapy dose prescribed to the vaginal surface delivered in six weekly fractions was 2400 (range 1200-4800) cGy. Concurrent chemotherapy was delivered in 35 (66%) patients. There were no acute grade Post-operative IMRT with high dose rate brachytherapy for patients with cervical cancer is associated with excellent outcomes and limited rates of radiation-related non-hematologic toxicity.

Standardized Uptake Value for 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Is a Marker of Inflammatory State and Immune Infiltrate in Cervical Cancer

Abstract Purpose: Chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer fails in over a third of patients. Biomarkers with therapeutic implications are therefore needed. We investigated the relationship between an established prognostic marker, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, and the inflammatory and immune state of cervical cancers. Experimental Design: An SUVmax most prognostic for freedom from progression (FFP) was identified and compared with known prognostic clinical variables in a cohort of 318 patients treated with definitive radiation with prospectively collected clinical data. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and CIBERSORT of whole-transcriptome data from 68 patients were used to identify biological pathways and immune cell subpopulations associated with high SUVmax. IHC using a tissue microarray (TMA, N = 82) was used to validate the CIBERSORT findings. The impact of macrophages on cervical cancer glucose metabolism was investigated in coculture experiments. Results: SUVmax <11.4 was most prognostic for FFP (P = 0.001). The GSEA showed that high SUVmax is associated with increased gene expression of inflammatory pathways, including JAK/STAT3 signaling. CIBERSORT and CD68 staining of the TMA showed high SUVmax tumors are characterized by a monocyte-predominant immune infiltrate. Coculture of cervical cancer cells with macrophages or macrophage-conditioned media altered glucose uptake, and IL6 and JAK/STAT3 signaling contribute to this effect. Conclusions: SUVmax is a prognostic marker in cervical cancer that is associated with activation of inflammatory pathways and tumor infiltration of myeloid-derived immune cells, particularly macrophages. Macrophages contribute to changes in cervical cancer glucose metabolism. See related commentary by Williamson et al., p. 4136

2Papers
8Collaborators