Hypofractionated Radiotherapy as a Potential Alternative to Conventional Treatment for Cervical Cancer in Resource-Limited Setting: A Prospective Comparative Analysis
Recommended Citation
Mallum A, Li H, Ngwa W, Saidu R, Ngoma TA, Tendwa M, Avery SM, Huq MS, Akudugu J, Incrocci L, Seppo SF, Phan P, Oboh EC, Myagmarsuren D, Voster M, Bhadree S, Swanson W, Olatunji EO. Hypofractionated Radiotherapy as a Potential Alternative to Conventional Treatment for Cervical Cancer in Resource-Limited Setting: A Prospective Comparative Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2025; 123(1S):S46-S47.
Document Type
Conference Proceeding
Publication Date
9-1-2025
Publication Title
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Abstract
Purpose/Objective(s): The study aimed to evaluated and comparing the toxicity profiles of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy (HFRT) and Conventional Radiotherapy (CFRT) as primary endpoint while secondary endpoint the survival outcomes. Materials/Methods: The prospective cohort study was conducted at Inkosi Albert Luthuli central Hospital (IALCH), South Africa from March 2022 to March 2023. A total of 107 patient diagnosed with FIGO staged IB3-IVA cervical cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive CFRT (n=54) or HFRT (n=53). Clinical data and adverse events were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical Computing Software (version 3.6.3), with a significance level set as p=0.005. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 36.4 years (range: 28.2-62.9), with 85.0% of the patients under 40years old and 86.0% being HIV position. Most patients in both groups presented with stage IIB and moderately differentiate squamous cells carcinoma. HFRT significantly reduced treatment duration, with patients completing therapy in a median of 35 days compared to 62 days for CFRT (p=0.001). Both groups experienced similar rates of gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), and skin toxicity, though GI (p=0.005) and GU (p=0.01) adverse effects were significantly different between groups. Vaginal stenosis was more common in the CFRT group (51.9%) than in the HFRT (43.4%). Despite these differences, both groups exhibited comparable clinical response, recurrence free survival rates, and an absence of residual disease within 12 months of treatment. Conclusion: HFRT (42.72Gy in 16 fractions) demonstrated clinical outcomes comparable to CFRT (50.50Gy in 25 fractions) while significantly reducing treatment duration. These findings suggest that HFRT is a viable alternative in resource-limited settings, potentially improving treatment accessibility and efficiency for cervical cancer patients.
Volume
123
Issue
1S
First Page
S46
Last Page
S47
