%0 Journal Article %T Pelvic bone marrow sparing radiotherapy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. %A Zhou P %A Zhang Y %A Luo S %A Zhang S %J Radiother Oncol %V 165 %N 0 %D Oct 2021 27 %M 34718055 %F 6.901 %R 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.10.015 %X BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer has significant hematologic toxicities (HT), leading to treatment disruption and affecting patient prognosis. We performed the meta-analysis to assess the clinical benefit of pelvic (active) bone marrow (BM) sparing radiotherapy.
METHODS: A systematic methodological search of six primary electronic databases was performed. This systematic review mainly assessed the differences in pelvic (active) BM dose-volume parameters (DVP), hematologic toxicity of pelvic (active) BM sparing versus non-sparing radiotherapy plans. The secondary objective was to explore optimal dose limitation regimens and evaluate other radiation-induced toxicities (gastrointestinal and urological toxicity (GT/UT)). Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Final 65 publications that met inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis and descriptive tables. Meta-analysis of mean pelvic BM-DVP differences showed that pelvic BM-V10,20,40,50 (Vx: volume of BM receiving ≥ X Gy) were reduced by -4.6% [95% CI: -6.6, -2.6], -10.9% [-13.2, -8.6], -7.3% [-9.5, -5.2] and -3.4% [-4.3, -2.4] in pelvic BM-sparing plans. Pelvic BM sparing radiotherapy decreased G2/3+ HT [odds ratio (OR) 0.31, (0.23, 0.41)/0.42, (0.28, 0.63)], without increasing GT [G2/3+: OR 0.76, (0.51, 1.14)/0.90, (0.47, 1.74)] and UT [G2/3+: OR 0.91, (0.57, 1.46)/0.54, (0.25, 1.17)]. Pelvic active BM sparing radiotherapy also reduced HT [G2/3+ HT: OR 0.42, (0.23, 0.77)/0.34, (0.16, 0.72)]. There were significant variations between publications in dose restriction regimens.
CONCLUSIONS: The pelvic BM protection radiotherapy can decrease BM dose and HT. Moreover, it does not increase GT and UT. The clinical benefit of pelvic active BM protection needs to be further validated in randomized controlled trials.