20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Can Intensity-Modulated-Radiotherapy Reduce Toxicity in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma?

      review-article
      , *
      Cancers
      MDPI
      IMRT, 3DCRT, head and neck cancer, HNSCC, toxicity, xerostomia, radiotherapy

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a modern radiotherapy technique that was implemented in the mid-1990s. It allows closer shaping of dose, to target volumes, thereby sparing organs at risk (OARs). Before the IMRT-era, two-dimensional radiotherapy (2DRT) and later three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) were the techniques of choice, but this robust way of irradiating caused more normal tissue to receive a higher dose. Radiation of cancers in the head and neck region is complex because of close proximity to critical normal tissue and the large target volumes that need to be treated at high doses. IMRT offers an elegant solution compared with 3DCRT and surgery because it allows organ preservation and improved function preservation. In this manuscript, we review the rationales for IMRT, with an emphasis on toxicity outcomes compared with 3DCRT. We performed a review of the literature and looked at the most important randomised controlled trials comparing IMRT with 3DCRT. We conclude that IMRT is safe in regard to disease outcome, and that it allows better sparing of normal tissue, thereby causing less toxicity, resulting in a smaller impact on quality of life compared with conventional radiotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial

          Summary Background Xerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia. Methods We undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1–4, N0–3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537. Findings 47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0–59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56–87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23–55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23–61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55–89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63–95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14–48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival. Interpretation Sparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Funding Cancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A prospective, randomized study comparing outcomes and toxicities of intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional two-dimensional radiotherapy for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

            To compare clinical outcomes and toxicities of two-dimensional conventional radiation therapy (2D-CRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Between July 2003 and October 2008, 616 patients with non-metastatic stage I to IVb NPC were prospectively randomized to receive 2D-CRT (n=310; mean age, 44.8±13.6 years) or IMRT (n=306; mean age, 46.7±12.5 years). Clinical outcomes and acute and late toxicities were determined and compared. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to all parameters of demographics and disease characteristics (all, p>0.05). Median follow-up was 42 months (range, 1-83 months). The 5-year actuarial local control rate was 90.5% in the IMRT group and 84.7% in the 2D-CRT group. The local control rates were 91% for stage T3 and 81.5% for stage T4 disease in the IMRT group and 80% and 62.2% in the 2D-CRT group, respectively. The 5-year actuarial nodal relapse-free survival (NRFS) rate was 92.4% in the IMRT and 92.9% in the 2D-CRT group (p>0.05). The NRFS was 93.9% for N2 disease in the IMRT group and 91.4% in the 2D-CRT group (p=0.02). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 79.6% for the IMRT group and 67.1% for the 2D-CRT group (p=0.001). When stratified for stage, a significant difference was only noted for stage III disease. In terms of radiation-induced toxicities, patients in IMRT group had significantly lower radiation-induced toxicities than those in 2D-CRT group. IMRT provides improved local-recurrence free survival, especially in late-stage NPC patients and is associated with a lower incidence of toxicities. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis.

              Several trials have studied the role of unconventional fractionated radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, but the effect of such treatment on survival is not clear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess whether this type of radiotherapy could improve survival. Randomised trials comparing conventional radiotherapy with hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy, or both, in patients with non-metastatic HNSCC were identified and updated individual patient data were obtained. Overall survival was the main endpoint. Trials were grouped in three pre-specified categories: hyperfractionated, accelerated, and accelerated with total dose reduction. 15 trials with 6515 patients were included. The median follow-up was 6 years. Tumours sites were mostly oropharynx and larynx; 5221 (74%) patients had stage III-IV disease (International Union Against Cancer, 1987). There was a significant survival benefit with altered fractionated radiotherapy, corresponding to an absolute benefit of 3.4% at 5 years (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.97; p=0.003). The benefit was significantly higher with hyperfractionated radiotherapy (8% at 5 years) than with accelerated radiotherapy (2% with accelerated fractionation without total dose reduction and 1.7% with total dose reduction at 5 years, p=0.02). There was a benefit on locoregional control in favour of altered fractionation versus conventional radiotherapy (6.4% at 5 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 (hazard ratio 0.78 [0.65-0.94] for under 50 year olds, 0.95 [0.83-1.09] for 51-60 year olds, 0.92 [0.81-1.06] for 61-70 year olds, and 1.08 [0.89-1.30] for over 70 year olds; test for trends p=0.007). Altered fractionated radiotherapy improves survival in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Comparison of the different types of altered radiotherapy suggests that hyperfractionation has the greatest benefit.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Cancers (Basel)
                Cancers (Basel)
                cancers
                Cancers
                MDPI
                2072-6694
                06 October 2017
                October 2017
                : 9
                : 10
                : 135
                Affiliations
                Department of Oncology, Radiation-Oncology, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; julie.vanderveen@ 123456uzleuven.be
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: sandra.nuyts@ 123456uzleuven.be ; Tel.: +32-16-347-600
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1934-4845
                Article
                cancers-09-00135
                10.3390/cancers9100135
                5664074
                28984841
                48bb633b-5cc6-44a7-b480-882f3364313d
                © 2017 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 28 July 2017
                : 01 October 2017
                Categories
                Review

                imrt,3dcrt,head and neck cancer,hnscc,toxicity,xerostomia,radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article