Stereotactic body radiotherapy boost in patients with cervical cancer

Our aim was to evaluate the oncological outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) boost in patients with cervical cancer. The data of 21 patients who received SBRT boost after definitive radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) between March 2012 and April 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) was applied to patients with a total dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis (IBM SPSS 23 software) and p < .05 value was considered significant. After definitive RT or CRT, there was a complete response in 9 (43%) patients, partial response in 11 (52%) patients and stable disease in 1 (5%) patient. The median follow-up period was 28 months (range, 7.5-88 months). Two-years cancer-specific survival rate was 80%. While 2-year LC rate was 75% in patients with residual tumour size <4 cm, it was 50% when there was >= 4 cm residual tumour after definitive CRT (p = .1). The treatment was well-tolerated and no acute or late toxicity was observed. Although brachytherapy (BRT) is an essential part of the treatment in locally advanced cervical cancer, SBRT may be used in patients with small residual disease who are not candidate for BRT. IMPACT STATEMENT Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world, and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BRT) are the main treatment options. However, in rare cases where BRT is not feasible, it has been questioned whether stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as an alternative to BRT. What is already known on this subject? Nowadays, BRT still appears to be the gold standard treatment. However, studies with a small number of patients and short follow-up periods in the literature show that SBRT can be a good alternative in cases where BRT cannot be performed. What do the results of this study add? Our study is one of the series with the largest number of patients in the literature and with the longest follow-up period. In this area where there is no prospective study, we think that retrospective data with high patient numbers are enlightening. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our study shows that SBRT is an alternative option in cases with small residual disease where BRT cannot be applied, and it provides a basis for a prospective randomised study.