Article

Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

Head and Neck Surgery, Hôpital Foch, 40 rue Worth, Suresnes, France, 92150.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 12/2010; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002026
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several trials have studied the role of altered fractionation radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, but the effect of such treatment on survival is not clear.
The aim of this individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was to assess whether this type of radiotherapy could improve survival.
We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; CENTRAL (2010, Issue 3); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 8 August 2010.
We identified randomised trials comparing conventional radiotherapy with hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy, or both, in patients with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinomas and grouped trials into three pre-specified treatment categories: hyperfractionated, accelerated and accelerated with total dose reduction. Trials were eligible if they began recruitment after 1969 and ended before 1998.
We obtained updated individual patient data. Overall survival was the main outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures were local or regional control rates (or both), distant control rates and cause-specific mortality.
We included 15 trials with 6515 patients. The median follow up was six years. Tumour sites were mostly oropharynx and larynx; 5221 (74%) patients had stage III-IV disease (UICC 2002). There was a significant survival benefit with altered fractionation radiotherapy, corresponding to an absolute benefit of 3.4% at five years (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97; P = 0.003). The benefit was significantly higher with hyperfractionated radiotherapy (8% at five years) than with accelerated radiotherapy (2% with accelerated fractionation without total dose reduction and 1.7% with total dose reduction at five years, P = 0.02). There was a benefit in locoregional control in favour of altered fractionation versus conventional radiotherapy (6.4% at five years; P < 0.0001), which was particularly efficient in reducing local failure, whereas the benefit on nodal control was less pronounced. The benefit was significantly higher in the youngest patients (under 50 year old) (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94), 0.95 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.09) for 51 to 60 year olds, 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.06) for 61 to 70 year olds, and 1.08 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.30) for those over 70 years old; test for trends P = 0.007).
Altered fractionation radiotherapy improves survival in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Comparison of the different types of altered radiotherapy suggests that hyperfractionation provides the greatest benefit. An update of this IPD meta-analysis (MARCH 2), which will increase the power of this analysis and allow for other comparisons, is currently in progress.

0 Followers
 · 
134 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The management of advanced oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers is problematic and has traditionally relied on surgery and radiotherapy, both of which are associated with substantial adverse effects. Radiotherapy has been in use since the 1950s and has traditionally been given as single daily doses. This method of dividing up the total dose, or fractionation, has been modified over the years and a variety of approaches have been developed with the aim of improving survival whilst maintaining acceptable toxicity. To determine which radiotherapy regimens for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and locoregional control. The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 July 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 July 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 July 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more radiotherapy regimens, radiotherapy versus other treatment modality, or the addition of radiotherapy to other treatment modalities. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials. 30 trials involving 6535 participants were included. Seventeen trials compared some form of altered fractionation (hyperfractionation/accelerated) radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy; three trials compared different altered fractionation regimens; one trial compared timing of radiotherapy, five trials evaluated neutron therapy and four trials evaluated the addition of pre-operative radiotherapy. Pooling trials of any altered fractionation radiotherapy compared to a conventional schedule showed a statistically significant reduction in total mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.98). In addition, a statistically significant difference in favour of the altered fractionation was shown for the outcome of locoregional control (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89). No statistically significant difference was shown for disease free survival.No statistically significant difference was shown for any other comparison. Altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with an improvement in overall survival and locoregional control in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. More accurate methods of reporting adverse events are needed in order to truly assess the clinical performance of different radiotherapy regimens.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2010; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006387.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the past three decades there has been a move toward organ preservation protocols in the management of locally advanced mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (LAHNSCC) with combinations of radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy and, more recently, biological agents. Current standard chemoradiation strategies have reached the upper limits of toxicity. In addition, the traditional one size fits all approach of grouping patients according to traditional clinicopathological features fails to take into account the vast underlying biological heterogeneity of tumors and their host. A number of recent advances such as highly conformal RT, molecular profiling and targeted agents, and improvements in treatment response assessment have set the scene for a fundamental paradigm shift toward greater tailoring of therapy with the aim of improving outcomes and reducing the burden of survivorship. This review focuses on the recognition of the prognostic value of tumor human papillomavirus (HPV) status, the incorporation of biologically targeted therapies and the evolving role of molecular imaging in predicting tumor response and prognosis in the curative management of LAHNSCC.
    Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology 09/2011; 7(3):236-51. DOI:10.1111/j.1743-7563.2011.01420.x · 1.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In loco-regionally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC), concurrent 3-weekly cisplatin improves overall survival (OS) compared to radiotherapy alone, but is often associated with renal toxicity. The use of radiotherapy with accelerated fractionation schedules has been reported to improve survival but its optimal combination with chemotherapy is unclear. Retrospective analysis of treatment outcome and nephrotoxicity of radiotherapy given with an intensity-modulated approach (IMRT) concurrent with either 3-weekly or weekly cisplatin in 94 patients with stage III/IV HNSCC. Patients treated with weekly cisplatin were significantly older (p=0.0014) and received a significantly lower total cisplatin dose (p=0.0002). With a median follow-up of 2.8 years, at univariate analysis, 3-weekly cisplatin shows a longer OS (p=0.041) but progression-free survival (PFS) is similar for both schedules (p=0.47). Cisplatin doses >240 mg/m(2) were associated with better OS but not PFS. Chronic renal failure rate was significantly higher with 3-weekly cisplatin (p=0.04). Multivariate analysis (Cox regression controlling for age) confirmed the significant and independent impact of alcohol and smoking habits on both PFS (HR, 2.2) and OS (HR, 2.3), while the treatment schedule affected only OS (HR, 2.2). Weekly cisplatin is less nephrotoxic. Both schedules can be combined to curative IMRT. PFS was not significantly different even if patients treated with the weekly schedule were significantly older and received reduced cisplatin doses. The study suggests that the different cisplatin dose doesn't affect the PFS results if concomitant to IMRT. Controlled prospective studies are needed.
    Oral Oncology 11/2011; 48(3):266-71. DOI:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.10.005 · 3.03 Impact Factor