Population benefit of RT| Volume 114, ISSUE 3, P389-394, March 2015

Download started.


The population benefit of radiotherapy for cervical cancer: Local control and survival estimates for optimally utilized radiotherapy and chemoradiation

  • T.P. Hanna
    Corresponding author at: Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Cancer Research Institute at Queen’s University, 10 Stuart Street, 2nd Level, Kingston, Ontario K7L3N6, Canada.
    Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE), Ingham Institute, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • J. Shafiq
    Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE), Ingham Institute, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • G.P. Delaney
    Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE), Ingham Institute, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • M.B. Barton
    Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE), Ingham Institute, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
Published:February 28, 2015DOI:



      Population benefits of radiotherapy if evidence-based guidelines were routinely followed across the entire population are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate population-based benefits for cervical cancer.


      Overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) benefits were investigated. XRT benefit was defined as the absolute benefit of radiotherapy, over no treatment, for radical indications and defined as the benefit of adjuvant radiation over surgery alone for adjuvant indications. The concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) benefit was the incremental benefit of CRT over XRT. Australian population benefits were modeled using decision trees. Citation databases were systematically queried. Meta-analysis was performed if multiple sources of the same evidence level existed. Robustness of the model assumptions was tested through sensitivity analysis.


      53% of all cervix patients had adjuvant or curative radiotherapy indications. 96% were for CRT. The estimated 5-year absolute benefits of optimally utilized radiotherapy alone were: LC: 31% (95% Confidence Interval 29%, 34%), OS: 17% (15%, 18%). These were over and above the contribution of other modalities to outcomes. The incremental 5-year absolute benefits of CRT were: LC 4% (2%, 5%), OS 3% (1%, 5%). In sensitivity analysis, the model was robust.


      Optimally utilized radiotherapy provides substantial population OS and LC benefits for cervical cancer. Chemoradiation provides a modest population benefit over XRT. The population-based model was robust.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Radiotherapy and Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Hanna T.P.
        • Shafiq J.
        Estimating the population benefit of radiotherapy: using demand models to estimate achievable cancer outcomes.
        Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2015; 27: 99-106
        • Kerba M.
        • et al.
        Defining the need for breast cancer radiotherapy in the general population: a criterion-based benchmarking approach.
        Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2007; 19: 481-489
        • Delaney G.
        • et al.
        The role of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: estimating optimal utilization from a review of evidence-based clinical guidelines.
        Cancer. 2005; 104: 1129-1137
        • Barton M.B.
        • Frommer M.
        • Shafiq J.
        Role of radiotherapy in cancer control in low-income and middle-income countries.
        Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7: 584-595
        • Jena R.
        • et al.
        The Malthus programme – a new tool for estimating radiotherapy demand at a local level.
        Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012; 24: 1-3
        • Usmani N.
        • et al.
        An evidence-based estimate of the appropriate rate of utilization of radiotherapy for cancer of the cervix.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 63: 812-827
        • Barbera L.
        • et al.
        Estimating the benefit and cost of radiotherapy for lung cancer.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004; 20: 545-551
        • Shafiq J.
        • Delaney G.
        • Barton M.B.
        An evidence-based estimation of local control and survival benefit of radiotherapy for breast cancer.
        Radiother Oncol. 2007; 84: 11-17
        • Delaney G.
        • Jacob S.
        • Barton M.
        Estimation of an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for gynecologic carcinoma: part I – malignancies of the cervix, ovary, vagina and vulva.
        Cancer. 2004; 101: 671-681
      1. National Health and Medical Research Council, NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. 2009: Australian Government.

      2. Ng, W.L., Estimating the optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate as an evidence-based benchmark in cancers of the breast, upper gastrointestinal tract, gynaecological tract, head and neck, kidney, bladder, thyroid and unknown primary. 2010. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales (Ph. D Thesis).

        • Shimkin M.B.
        • Griswold M.H.
        • Cutler S.J.
        Classics in oncology. Survival in untreated and treated cancer.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 1984; 34: 282-294
        • Ng W.
        • et al.
        Estimation of an optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate for head and neck carcinoma: setting an evidence-based benchmark for the best-quality cancer care.
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 2150-2159
        • Delaney G.
        • Jacob S.
        • Barton M.
        Estimation of an optimal external beam radiotherapy utilization rate for head and neck carcinoma.
        Cancer. 2005; 103: 2216-2227
        • Borkowf C.B.
        A simple hybrid variance estimator for the Kaplan–Meier survival function.
        Stat Med. 2005; 24: 827-851
        • Parmar M.K.
        • Torri V.
        • Stewart L.
        Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints.
        Stat Med. 1998; 17: 2815-2834
        • Tierney J.F.
        • et al.
        Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis.
        Trials. 2007; 8: 16
      3. Greater Metropolitan Clinical Taskforce, Best Clinical Practice Gynaecological Cancer Guidelines. 2009, North Sydney, NSW: NSW Department of Health.

      4. National Cancer Institute, Cervical Cancer Treatment PDQ Health Professional Version Available at 2012.

      5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology-v 2.2013-Cervical Cancer. Available at 2013.

      6. Alberta Health Services, Cancer of the Uterine Cervix Clinical Practice Guideline GYNE-004 Available at: 2012, Alberta.

      7. Vergote, I., et al., Een nationale praktijkrichtlijn voor de aanpak van cervixkanker. Good Clinical Practice (GCP). 2011, Brussels: Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg (KCE).

      8. BC Cancer Agency, Uterine Cervix Management Invasive – Squamous Cell Carcinoma & Adenocarcinoma. Available at 2006: BC Cancer Agency.

        • Haie-Meder C.
        • Morice P.
        • Castiglione M.
        Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.
        Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: v37-v40
      9. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, 99 Management of cervical cancer: A national clinical guideline. Available at 2008.

      10. Lukka, H., et al., Primary Treatment for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Concurrent Platinum-based Chemotherapy and Radiation. Practice Guideline Report #4-5, in Program in Evidence-Based Care. 2004, Cancer Care Ontario.

      11. eviQ, Radiation Oncology, Gynaecological, Cervix, Definitive, EBRT 2013: Cancer Institute; NSW.

      12. Gaffney, D.K., et al., Advanced Cervical Cancer. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. 2012: American College of Radiology.

      13. Sydney Gynaecological Oncology Group. Cervical Cancer. 2012 5 Jan 2012; Available from:

      14. YCN Gynaecology Network Site Specific Group, Guidelines for the Management of Gynaecological Cancers. 2012: Yorkshire Cancer Network.

        • Stock R.G.
        • et al.
        Node-positive cervical cancer: impact of pelvic irradiation and patterns of failure.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995; 31: 31-36
        • Monk B.J.
        • et al.
        Rethinking the use of radiation and chemotherapy after radical hysterectomy: a clinical-pathologic analysis of a Gynecologic Oncology Group/Southwest Oncology Group/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2005; 96: 721-728
        • Peters 3rd, W.A.
        • et al.
        Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix.
        J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 1606-1613
        • Rotman M.
        • et al.
        A phase III randomized trial of postoperative pelvic irradiation in Stage IB cervical carcinoma with poor prognostic features: follow-up of a gynecologic oncology group study.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 65: 169-176
        • Smaniotto D.
        • et al.
        Concurrent 5-fluorouracil, mitomycin C and radiation with or without brachytherapy in recurrent cervical cancer: a scoring system to predict clinical response and outcome.
        Tumori. 2005; 91: 295-301
        • Thomas G.M.
        • et al.
        Long-term results of concurrent radiation and chemotherapy for carcinoma of the cervix recurrent after surgery.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1993; 3: 193-198
        • Stehman F.B.
        Radiation therapy with or without weekly cisplatin for bulky stage 1B cervical carcinoma: follow-up of a Gynecologic Oncology Group trial.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197 (p. 503 e1–6)
      15. National Cancer Institute, SEER∗Stat 6.6.2. 2010, Silver Spring, MD: The Surveillance Research Program of the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute.

      16. Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration (CCCMAC), Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: individual patient data meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010(1). p. CD008285.

        • Lorvidhaya V.
        • et al.
        Concurrent mitomycin C, 5-fluorouracil, and radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix: a randomized trial.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 55: 1226-1232
        • Roberts K.B.
        • et al.
        Interim results of a randomized trial of mitomycin C as an adjunct to radical radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the cervix.
        Int J Cancer. 2000; 90: 206-223
        • Rotman M.
        • et al.
        Prophylactic extended-field irradiation of para-aortic lymph nodes in stages IIB and bulky IB and IIA cervical carcinomas. Ten-year treatment results of RTOG 79–20.
        JAMA. 1995; 274: 387-393
        • Tattersall M.H.
        • Ramirez C.
        • Coppleson M.
        A randomized trial comparing platinum-based chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1992; 2: 244-251
        • Yamauchi N.
        • et al.
        A randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery versus radiotherapy alone in Stage IIIb carcinoma of the uterine cervix.
        J Gynecol Surg. 2010; 26: 105-113
        • Estape R.E.
        • et al.
        Close vaginal margins as a prognostic factor after radical hysterectomy.
        Gynecol Oncol. 1998; 68: 229-232
        • Viswanathan A.N.
        • et al.
        Influence of margin status and radiation on recurrence after radical hysterectomy in Stage IB cervical cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 65: 1501-1507
      17. Ferlay, J., et al., GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Available from:, accessed on 27 September 2014. 2013, Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer.

      18. Barton, M.B., et al., Review of optimal radiotherapy utilisation rates. 2012, Sydney: Ingham Institute, Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation.

        • Barton M.B.
        • et al.
        Estimating the demand for radiotherapy from the evidence: a review of changes from 2003 to 2012.
        Radiother Oncol. 2014; 112: 140-144
        • Pearcey R.
        • et al.
        Impact of adoption of chemoradiotherapy on the outcome of cervical cancer in Ontario: results of a population-based cohort study.
        J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 2383-2388