Systematic review and meta-analysis of radiotherapy in various head and neck cancers: Comparing photons, carbon-ions and protons
Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Cancer Treatment Reviews
(Impact Factor: 7.59).
05/2011; 37(3):185-201. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2010.08.004
To synthesize and compare available evidence considering the effectiveness of carbon-ion, proton and photon radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.
A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed to retrieve evidence on tumor control, survival and late treatment toxicity for carbon-ion, proton and the best available photon radiotherapy.
In total 86 observational studies (74 photon, 5 carbon-ion and 7 proton) and eight comparative in-silico studies were included. For mucosal malignant melanomas, 5-year survival was significantly higher after carbon-ion therapy compared to conventional photon therapy (44% versus 25%; P-value 0.007). Also, 5-year local control after proton therapy was significantly higher for paranasal and sinonasal cancer compared to intensity modulated photon therapy (88% versus 66%; P-value 0.035). No other statistically significant differences were observed. Although poorly reported, toxicity tended to be less frequent in carbon-ion and proton studies compared to photons. In-silico studies showed a lower dose to the organs at risk, independently of the tumor site.
For carbon-ion therapy, the increased survival in mucosal malignant melanomas might suggest an advantage in treating relatively radio-resistant tumors. Except for paranasal and sinonasal cancer, survival and tumor control for proton therapy were generally similar to the best available photon radiotherapy. In agreement with included in-silico studies, limited available clinical data indicates that toxicity tends to be lower for proton compared to photon radiotherapy. Since the overall quantity and quality of data regarding carbon-ion and proton therapy is poor, we recommend the construction of an international particle therapy register to facilitate definitive comparisons.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.