Article

Comparison of 3D Confromal Radiotherapy and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy with or without Simultaneous Integrated Boost during Concurrent Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers

NIH, United States of America
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 04/2014; 9(4):e94456. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094456
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Radiotherapy techniques have evolved from 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) to intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) where boost fields are delivered either sequentially (IMRTseq) or with a simultaneous integrated boost (IMRT+SIB). Our goal was to compare the outcomes of patients treated with IMRT+SIB to traditional standards.
We analyzed the efficacy and toxicity of patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation using 3D-CRT, IMRTseq or IMRT+SIB. Between 1993 and 2012, 379 patients with non-metastatic Stage III-IV head and neck squamous cell cancer were treated with concurrent chemoradiation using 3D-CRT (n = 125), IMRTseq (n = 120) and IMRT+SIB (n = 134).
Patients treated with any technique had similar rates of 2y local control, 2y regional control, 2y progression free survival and 2y overall survival. Patients treated with IMRT+SIB had lower rates acute toxicity according to Grade 3 or greater mucositis (3D-CRT: 44.0% vs. IMRTseq: 36.7% vs. IMRT+SIB: 22.4%; P<.0001), dermatitis (3D-CRT: 44.0% vs. IMRTseq: 20.0% vs. IMRT+SIB: 7.5%; P<.0001) and feeding tube placement during radiotherapy (3D-CRT: 80.0% vs. IMRTseq: 50.8% vs. IMRT+SIB: 44.0%; P<.0001) as well as late toxicity as measured by feeding tube use (P<.0001) and tracheostomy use (P<.0001). On multivariate analysis, IMRT+SIB predicted for less mucositis, dermatitis and feeding tube use compared to 3D-CRT and for less dermatitis compared to IMRTseq.
Compared to 3D-CRT and IMRTseq, IMRT+SIB provided similar outcomes and potentially less toxicity indicating it is a feasible technique for chemoradiation in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

0 Followers
 · 
40 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The sinonasal cavities represent an anatomical region affected by a variety of tumours with clinical, aetiological, pathological, and genetic features distinct from tumours at the main head and neck cancer localizations. Together, squamous-cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma account for 80% of all sinonasal tumours, and are aetiologically associated with professional exposure to wood and leather dust particles and other industrial compounds, and therefore, are officially recognized as an occupational disease. Owing to their distinctive characteristics, sinonasal tumours should be considered as separate entities, not to be included in the miscellany of head and neck cancers. Sinonasal tumours are rare, with an annual incidence of approximately 1 case per 100,000 inhabitants worldwide, a fact that has hampered molecular-genetic studies of the tumorigenic pathways and the testing of alternative treatment strategies. Nevertheless, the clinical management of sinonasal cancer has improved owing to advances in imaging techniques, endoscopic surgical approaches, and radiotherapy. Genetic profiling and the development of in vitro cell lines and animal models currently form the basis for future targeted anticancer therapies. We review these advances in our understanding and treatment of sinonasal tumours.
    Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 06/2014; 11(8). DOI:10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.97 · 15.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of various malignancies, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is an attractive option because it can deliver precise conformal radiation doses to the target while minimizing the dose to adjacent normal tissues. IMRT provides a highly conformal dose distribution by modulating the intensity of the radiation beam. A number of malignancies have been targeted by IMRT; this work reviews published data on the major disease sites treated with IMRT. The dosimetric advantage of IMRT has resulted in the significant reduction of adverse effects in some tumors. However, there are few clinical trials comparing IMRT and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and no definite increase in survival or the loco-regional control rate by IMRT has been demonstrated in many malignancies. IMRT also requires greater time and resources to complete compared to 3D-CRT. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of IMRT versus 3D-CRT has not yet been established.
    International Journal of Clinical Oncology 07/2014; 19(4). DOI:10.1007/s10147-014-0718-y · 2.17 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from