Recurrence in region of spared parotid gland after definitive intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE: To discuss the implications of three examples of periparotid recurrence after definitive intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We present 3 patients with HNC who underwent definitive IMRT with concurrent chemotherapy and later had treatment failure in or near a spared parotid gland. Two patients had bilateral multilevel nodal disease, and all had Level II nodal disease ipsilateral to the site of recurrence. The patients were treated using dose-painting IMRT with a dose of 70 Gy to the gross tumor volume and 59.4 Gy or 54 Gy to the high-risk or low-risk clinical tumor volume, respectively. The parotid glands were spared bilaterally. The patients had not undergone any surgical treatment for HNC before radiotherapy. RESULTS: All patients had treatment failure in the region of a spared parotid gland. Failure in the 2 patients with bilateral multilevel nodal involvement occurred in the periparotid lymph nodes. The third patient developed a dermal metastasis near the tail of a spared parotid gland. On pretreatment imaging, the 2 patients with nodal failure had small nonspecific periparotid nodules that showed no hypermetabolic activity on positron emission tomography. CONCLUSION: For HNC patients receiving definitive IMRT, nonspecific positron emission tomography-negative periparotid nodules on pretreatment imaging should raise the index of suspicion for subclinical disease in the presence of multilevel or Level II nodal metastases. Additional evaluation of such nodules might be indicated before sparing the ipsilateral parotid gland.     

Patterns of failure and toxicity after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE: To determine the outcome of patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the charts of 100 consecutive patients treated with IMRT for squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx (64%), nasopharynx (16%), hypopharynx (14%), and larynx (6%). Most patients were treated with a concomitant boost schedule to 72 Gy. Of the 100 patients, 54 (54%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, mostly concurrent cisplatin. The dosimetry plans for patients with either locoregional failure or Grade 4-5 complications were reviewed and fused over the computed tomography images corresponding with the location of the event. Marginal failures were defined as those that occurred at a region of high-dose falloff, where conventional fields would have provided better coverage. RESULTS: The median follow-up of living patients was 3.1 years (range, 1-5.2 years). The 3-year rate of local control, locoregional control, freedom from relapse, cause-specific survival, and overall survival for all patients was 89%, 87%, 72%, 78%, and 71%, respectively. The 3-year rate of freedom from relapse, cause-specific survival, and overall survival for the 64 oropharynx patients was 86%, 92%, and 84%, respectively. Of the 10 local failures, 2 occurred at the margin of the high-dose planning target volume. Both regional failures occurred within the planning target volume. No locoregional failures occurred outside the planning target volume. Of the 100 patients, 8 and 5 had Grade 4 and 5 complications from treatment, respectively. All patients with Grade 5 complications had received adjuvant chemotherapy. No attempt was made to discriminate between the complications from IMRT and other aspects of the patients' treatment. CONCLUSION: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy did not compromise the outcome compared with what we have achieved with conventional techniques. The 2 cases of recurrence in the high-dose gradient region highlight the potential hazard of approaches that involve highly conformal dose distributions.     

Clinical application of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a modern treatment technique that allows one to shape the dose to the target volume and to reduce the dose delivered to healthy tissue. Over the last decade, IMRT has been implemented for head and neck cancer treatment, with the aim of reducing the dose delivered to the parotid glands and improving the dose coverage of complex target volumes located close to critical structures. The potential benefits of IMRT in terms of salivary function preservation and better local control have contributed to the rapid diffusion of this new technology. However, it should not be overlooked that IMRT is a novel treatment technique and that its clinical application represents a paradigm shift in the practice of radiation oncology. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical experience with IMRT for head and neck cancer treatment and to discuss some important issues related to its implementation.     

Evidence-based review: Quality of life following head and neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Inverse planned Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can minimize the dose to normal structures and therefore can reduce long-term radiotherapy-related morbidity and may improve patients’ long-term quality of life. Despite overwhelming evidence that IMRT can reduce late functional deficits in patients with head and neck cancer, treated with radiotherapy, a review of the published literature produced conflicting results with regard to quality of life outcomes. Following a critical appraisal of the literature, reasons for the discrepant outcomes are proposed.     

The impact of dose on parotid salivary recovery in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation therapy

PURPOSE: A common side effect experienced by head and neck cancer patients after radiation therapy (RT) is impairment of the parotid glands' ability to produce saliva. Our purpose is to investigate the relationship between radiation dose and saliva changes in the 2 years after treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population includes 142 patients treated with conformal or intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Saliva flow rates from 266 parotid glands are measured before and 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. Measurements are collected separately from each gland under both stimulated and unstimulated conditions. Bayesian nonlinear hierarchical models were developed and fit to the data. RESULTS: Parotids receiving higher radiation produce less saliva. The largest reduction is at 1-3 months after RT followed by gradual recovery. When mean doses are lower (e.g., <25 Gy), the model-predicted average stimulated saliva recovers to pretreatment levels at 12 months and exceeds it at 18 and 24 months. For higher doses (e.g., >30 Gy), the stimulated saliva does not return to original levels after 2 years. Without stimulation, at 24 months, the predicted saliva is 86% of pretreatment levels for 25 Gy and <31% for >40 Gy. We do not find evidence to support that the overproduction of stimulated saliva at 18 and 24 months after low dose in 1 parotid gland is the result of low saliva production from the other parotid gland. CONCLUSIONS: Saliva production is affected significantly by radiation, but with doses <25-30 Gy, recovery is substantial and returns to pretreatment levels 2 years after RT.     

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and purpose

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) provides the possibility of dose-escalation with better normal tissue sparing. This study was performed to assess whether IMRT can improve clinical outcomes when compared with two-dimensional (2D-RT) or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in patients with head and neck cancer.

Methods and materials

Only prospective phase III randomized trials comparing IMRT with 2D-RT or 3D-CRT were eligible. Combined surgery and/or chemotherapy were allowed. Two authors independently selected and assessed the studies regarding eligibility criteria and risk of bias.

Results

Five studies were selected. A total of 871 patients were randomly assigned for 2D-RT or 3D-CRT (437), versus IMRT (434). Most patients presented with nasopharyngeal cancers (82%), and stages III/IV (62.1%). Three studies were classified as having unclear risk and two as high risk of bias. A significant overall benefit in favor of IMRT was found (hazard ratio – HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.87; p < 0.0001) regarding xerostomia scores grade 2–4, with similar loco-regional control and overall survival.

Conclusions

IMRT reduces the incidence of grade 2–4 xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancers without compromising loco-regional control and overall survival.     

Lack of osteoradionecrosis of the mandible after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: likely contributions of both dental care and improved dose distributions

PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence and dosimetric and clinical predictors of mandibular osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in patients with head and neck cancer who underwent a pretherapy dental evaluation and prophylactic treatment according to a uniform policy and were treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1996 and 2005, all patients with head-and-neck cancer treated with parotid gland-sparing IMRT in prospective studies underwent a dental examination and prophylactic treatment according to a uniform policy that included extractions of high-risk, periodontally involved, and nonrestorable teeth in parts of the mandible expected to receive high radiation doses, fluoride supplements, and the placement of guards aiming to reduce electron backscatter off metal teeth restorations. The IMRT plans included dose constraints for the maximal mandibular doses and reduced mean parotid gland and noninvolved oral cavity doses. A retrospective analysis of Grade 2 or worse (clinical) ORN was performed. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients had a minimal follow-up of 6 months. Of these, 31 (17%) had undergone teeth extractions before RT and 13 (7%) after RT. Of the 176 patients, 75% and 50% had received >or=65 Gy and >or=70 Gy to >or=1% of the mandibular volume, respectively. Falloff across the mandible characterized the dose distributions: the average gradient (in the axial plane containing the maximal mandibular dose) was 11 Gy (range, 1-27 Gy; median, 8 Gy). At a median follow-up of 34 months, no cases of ORN had developed (95% confidence interval, 0-2%). CONCLUSION: The use of a strict prophylactic dental care policy and IMRT resulted in no case of clinical ORN. In addition to the dosimetric advantages offered by IMRT, meticulous dental prophylactic care is likely an essential factor in reducing ORN risk.     

Patterns of relapse following definitive treatment of head and neck squamous cell cancer by intensity modulated radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin

Eighty-three patients with oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal or laryngeal cancer were treated with concomitant cisplatin 40 mg/m² once a week during the radiotherapy and IMRT up to a total dose of 70 Gy. The 2-year rate of local control, overall survival and disease specific survival were 84%, 82% and 89%, respectively. The corresponding 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates were 79%, 69% and 76%.     

Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on health-related quality of life for head and neck cancer patients: matched-pair comparison with conventional radiotherapy

PURPOSE: To assess the benefit of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared with conventional RT for the quality of life (QOL) of head and neck cancer survivors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cross-sectional QOL measures (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire C30 and head and neck cancer module) were used with a French multicenter cohort of patients cured of head and neck cancer (follow-up > or = 1 year) who had received bilateral neck RT (> or = 45 Gy) as a part of their initial treatment. We compared the QOL mean scores regarding RT modality (conventional RT vs. IMRT). The patients of the two groups were matched (one to one) according to the delay between the end of RT and the timing of the QOL evaluation and the T stage. Each QOL item was divided into two relevant levels of severity: "not severe" (responses, "not at all" and "a little") vs. "severe" (responses "quite a bit" and "very much"). The association between the type of RT and the prevalence of severe symptoms was approximated, through multivariate analysis using the prevalence odds ratio. RESULTS: Two comparable groups (67 pairs) were available. Better scores were observed on the head and neck cancer module QOL questionnaire for the IMRT group, especially for dry mouth and sticky saliva (p < 0.0001). Severe symptoms were more frequent with conventional RT concerning saliva modifications and oral discomfort. The adjusted prevalence odds ratios were 3.17 (p = 0.04) for dry mouth, 3.16 (p = 0.02) for sticky saliva, 3.58 (p = 0.02) for pain in the mouth, 3.35 (p = 0.04) for pain in the jaw, 2.60 (p = 0.02) for difficulties opening the mouth, 2.76 (p = 0.02) for difficulties with swallowing, and 2.68 (p = 0.03) for trouble with eating. CONCLUSION: The QOL assessment of head and neck cancer survivors demonstrated the benefit of IMRT, particularly in the areas of salivary dysfunction and oral discomfort.     

Positron emission tomography-guided, focal-dose escalation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using positron emission tomography (PET)-guided dose escalation, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose in head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Phase I clinical trial was designed to escalate the dose limited to the [(18)-F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET)-delineated subvolume within the gross tumor volume. Positron emission tomography scanning was performed in the treatment position. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy with an upfront simultaneously integrated boost was employed. Two dose levels were planned: 25 Gy (level I) and 30 Gy (level II), delivered in 10 fractions. Standard IMRT was applied for the remaining 22 fractions of 2.16 Gy. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2005, 41 patients were enrolled, with 23 at dose level I, and 18 at dose level II; 39 patients completed the planned therapy. The median follow-up for surviving patients was 14 months. Two cases of dose-limiting toxicity occurred at dose level I (Grade 4 dermitis and Grade 4 dysphagia). One treatment-related death at dose level II halted the study. Complete response was observed in 18 of 21 (86%) and 13 of 16 (81%) evaluated patients at dose levels I and II (p < 0.7), respectively, with actuarial 1-year local control at 85% and 87% (p = n.s.), and 1-year overall survival at 82% and 54% (p = 0.06), at dose levels I and II, respectively. In 4 of 9 patients, the site of relapse was in the boosted (18)F-FDG-PET-delineated region. CONCLUSIONS: For head and neck cancer, PET-guided dose escalation appears to be well-tolerated. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached at the investigated dose levels.     

Comparison of cervical esophagus dose-volumes for three radiotherapy techniques for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE: This study compares the radiation dose-volume of the cervical esophagus during head and neck radiotherapy using three different techniques. METHODS: Treatment plans of 58 patients from 3/04 to 1/06 treated with bilateral head and neck radiotherapy were analyzed retrospectively. A comparison of the cervical esophagus dose with three-field 3D conformal RT (3DRT, n=34), whole-field IMRT (WF-IMRT, n=12), and half-beam IMRT (HB-IMRT, n=12) was performed. The volumes of esophagus receiving > or =50Gy (V50), > or =54Gy (V54) and > or = 60Gy (V60) and lengths receiving circumferential dose > or = 50Gy (L50) and > or = 54Gy (L54) were evaluated. RESULTS: Maximum dose, V54 and L54 were greater for the first 2cm and entire cervical esophagus with WF-IMRT than HB-IMRT or 3DRT. In patients requiring a high match, WF-IMRT was associated with a greater maximum dose, V54 and L54 than HB-IMRT and 3DRT (p<0.05). In the low match group, WF-IMRT was associated with a greater V54 and L54 (p<0.05). Low neck disease, low primary site, and definitive radiotherapy were associated with increased irradiation of the esophagus. CONCLUSION: Treatment of the lower neck with IMRT is associated with increased irradiation to the cervical esophagus, and dose constraints should be included to reduce toxicity.     

Effects of radiotherapy on parotid salivary sialochemistry in head and neck cancer patients

Aim

To determine the effects of high dose irradiation on parotid salivary sodium and pH concentration at subsequent duration of 1.5, 3 and 6 months following radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

Eighty parotid glands of head and neck cancer patients were irradiated with mean dose of 66 Gy. The stimulated parotid flow (PF) was collected by a cannulation of Stenson’s duct followed by analysis of sodium (PF sodium) by Easylyte Sodium/Potassium auto analyzer and pH by litmus narrow band pH paper.

Results

A steep elevation of PF sodium was found in post-RT period after 1.5 months of starting RT followed by gradual increase up to 6 months and pH changed towards acidity.

Conclusions

A high dose of 66 Gy causes irreversible damage to parotid salivary duct system.     

三维适形放疗治疗直肠癌术后复发病例临床观察

目的：观察三维适形放疗治疗直肠癌术后复发病例的疗效。方法：选择直肠癌术后复发患者54例接受三维适形放疗，其中低分化腺癌4例，中分化腺癌37例，高分化腺癌7例，粘液腺癌6例。放疗总剂量在60－72GY／22－24F／每周4－5次，其毒性作用用血液学、生化试验、胃肠道和泌尿系统反应进行评价。观察有无放射性肠淡症状，监测血细胞。每3月复查MRCT1次，二年生每6月复查MR或CT1次。结果：迄2000年12月25日止共随访54例，随访到53例（98.1%），失访1例（1.9%）；中位随访时间为15.4个月，平均访时间为14.3个月（3－30个月）。疗效判定标准：按WHO制订标准，完全缓解5例，占9.3%；部分缓解27例，占50.0%。稳定15例，占27.8%；进展6例占11.1%。有效率为59.3%。一年生存率61.1%（33/54），症状缓解率92.6%（50／54）。放射性肠炎发生率约为5.6%。均未出现白细胞减少和肝、肾功能降低与尿频、尿急、尿痛和血尿。结论：三维适形放射治疗直肠癌术后复发患者具有明显的剂量分布优势，局部控制率和症状缓解率高，放射性肠炎发生率低。     

Molecular biomarkers and site of first recurrence after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

The prognostic significance of a panel of molecular biomarkers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) for first failure site (primary (T), nodal (N) or distant (M)) was analysed in 309 patients randomised to continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) vs. conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. Multivariate competing risks analysis was performed using an accelerated failure-time model. First-order interactions between each marker and trial arm were also tested. Bcl2-positivity increased the time to T- and N-failures, increasing cyclin D1 score decreased the time to N-failures. A random proliferative pattern and low Ki-67 decreased the time to M-failures. A high CD31 score was associated with a significantly longer time to T-failure after CHART, but not after conventional fractionation. Risks of T-, N- and M-failures could be estimated for individual patients. Competing risks analysis of failure sites allows the rational selection of patients for more aggressive loco-regional or systemic therapy.     

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer

Background and purpose

Various radiotherapy planning methods for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) have been proposed to decrease normal tissue toxicity. We compare IMRT, adaptive IMRT, proton therapy (IMPT), and adaptive IMPT for SCCHN.

Materials and methods

Initial and re-simulation CT images from 10 consecutive patients with SCCHN were used to quantify dosimetric differences between photon and proton therapy. Contouring was performed on both CTs, and plans (n = 40 plans) and dose-volume histograms were generated.

Results

The mean GTV volume decreased 53.4% with re-simulation. All plans provided comparable PTV coverage. Compared with IMRT, adaptive IMRT significantly reduced the maximum dose to the mandible (p = 0.020) and mean doses to the contralateral parotid gland (p = 0.049) and larynx (p = 0.049). Compared with IMRT and adaptive IMRT, IMPT significantly lowered the maximum doses to the spinal cord (p < 0.002 for both) and brainstem (p < 0.002 for both) and mean doses to the larynx (p < 0.002 for both) and ipsilateral (p = 0.004 IMRT, p = 0.050 adaptive) and contralateral (p < 0.002 IMRT, p = 0.010 adaptive) parotid glands. Adaptive IMPT significantly reduced doses to all critical structures compared with IMRT and adaptive IMRT and several critical structures compared with non-adaptive IMPT.

Conclusions

Although adaptive IMRT reduced dose to several normal structures compared with standard IMRT, non-adaptive proton therapy had a more favorable dosimetric profile than IMRT or adaptive IMRT and may obviate the need for adaptive planning. Protons allowed significant sparing of the spinal cord, parotid glands, larynx, and brainstem and should be considered for SCCHN to decrease normal tissue toxicity while still providing optimal tumor coverage.     

Global and health-related quality of life after intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer

This study aims to evaluate the current literature regarding the effects of conventional radiation therapy (CRT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on global quality of life (QoL) among patients treated for head and neck cancer. A PubMed literature review was performed. Only articles comparing global QoL scores in head and neck cancer patients treated with CRT versus IMRT were included. Studies were scrutinized for methodology, level of evidence and limitations. Outcomes were evaluated for external validity, level of evidence and applicability. Between 2005 and 2012, 14 eligible studies (six prospective, two randomized controlled trials) were identified. Although all presented data comment on the advantages of IMRT, differences in study design made comparisons difficult. The vast majority of these were also limited by relatively small sample sizes and heterogeneity with respect to patient and treatment-related characteristics. Although more robust evidence is needed in the future, the published data reasonably support the benefits of IMRT as compared with CRT (either 2D or 3D) in improving QoL, beginning at approximately 3–6 months post-treatment, and possibly potentiating with time up to 2 and 3 years.