Comparative treatment planning study on sequential vs. simultaneous integrated boost in head and neck cancer patients: Differences in dose distributions and potential implications for clinical practice

Disease outcome and associated factors after definitive platinum based chemoradiotherapy for advanced stage HPV-negative head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Definitive concomitant cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the current gold standard for most patients with advanced stage head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) of the pharynx and larynx. Since previous meta-analysis on CRT outcomes in HNSCC have been reported, advances have been made in radiotherapy techniques and clinical management, while HPV-status has been identified as a strong confounding prognostic factor in oropharyngeal cancer. Here, we present real-world outcome data from a large multicenter cohort of HPV-negative advanced stage HNSCC treated with CRT using contemporary IMRT-based techniques.

METHOD

Retrospective data were collected from a multicenter cohort of 513 patients treated with definitive concurrent platinum-based CRT with curative intent between January 2009 and August 2017. Only patients with HPV-negative advanced stage (III-IV) HNSCC were included. A prognostic model for outcome was developed based on clinical parameters and compared to TNM.

RESULTS

Nearly half of the 513 patients (49%) had an oropharyngeal tumor, often locally advanced (73.3% T3-T4b) and with involvement of the regional lymph nodes (84%). Most patients (84%) received cisplatin as single agent. 66% received the planned number of cycles and 75% reached a cumulative cisplatin dose of ≥200 mg/m². Locoregional control was achieved in 324 (63%) patients during follow-up, and no association with tumor sites was observed (p = 0.48). Overall survival at 5 year follow-up was 47%, with a better survival for laryngeal cancer (p = 0.02) compared to other sites. A model with clinical variables (gender, high pre-treatment weight loss, N2c/N3-stage and <200 mg/m² dose of cisplatin) provided a noticeably stronger association with overall survival than TNM-staging (C- index 0.68 vs 0.55). Simultaneous Integrated Boosting (SIB) significantly outperformed Sequential Boosting (SEQ) to reduce the development of distant metastasis (SEQ vs SIB: OR 1.91 (1.11 - 3.26; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Despite advances in clinical management, more than a third of patients with HPV-negative HNSCC do not complete CRT treatment protocols due to cisplatin toxicity. A model that consists of clinical variables and treatment parameters including cisplatin dose provided the strongest association with overall survival. Since cisplatin toxicity is a major obstacle in completing definitive CRT, the development of alternative and less toxic radiosensitizers is therefore warranted to improve treatment results. The association of RT-boost technique with distant metastasis is an important finding and requires further study.

Single-Institute Clinical Experiences Using Whole-Field Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Sequential IMRT in Postoperative Patients With Oral Cavity Cancer (OCC)

This study aimed to review clinical experiences using whole-field simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and sequential IMRT in postoperative patients with oral cavity cancer (OCC). From November 2006 to December 2014, a total of 182 postoperative patients with OCC who underwent either SIB-IMRT (n = 63) or sequential IMRT (n = 119) were enrolled retrospectively and matched randomly according to multiple risk factors by a computer. The differences were well balanced after patient matching (P = .38). The median follow-up time was 65 months. For patients treated with the SIB technique and the sequential technique, the respective mortality rates were 36.8% and 20.0% (P = .04). The primary recurrence rates were 26.3% and 10.0% (P = .02), respectively. The respective marginal failure rates were 26.7% and 16.7%. A multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that patients who received the SIB technique had a 2.74 times higher risk of death than those who received the sequential technique (95% confidence interval = 1.10-6.79, P = .03). Sequential IMRT provided a significantly lower dose to the esophagus (5.2 Gy, P = .02) and trachea (4.6 Gy, P = .03) than SIB-IMRT. For patients with locally advanced OCC, postoperative sequential IMRT may overcome an unpredictable geographic miss, potentially with a lower marginal failure rate in the primary area. Patients treated by sequential IMRT show equal overall survival benefits to those treated by SIB-IMRT and a lower mortality rate than those treated by SIB-IMRT. Additionally, a reduced dose to the esophagus and trachea compared to sequential IMRT was noted.

Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-study

Background

The ESCALOX trial was designed as a multicenter, randomized prospective dose escalation study for head and neck cancer. Therefore, feasibility of treatment planning via different treatment planning systems (TPS) and radiotherapy (RT) techniques is essential. We hypothesized the comparability of dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) volumes respecting the constraints by different TPS and RT techniques.

Methods

CT data sets of the first six patients (all male, mean age: 61.3 years) of the pre-study (up to 77 Gy) were used for comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy (HT). Oropharynx was the primary tumor location. Normalization of the three step SIB (77 Gy, 70 Gy, 56 Gy) was D95% = 77 Gy. Coverage (CVF), healthy tissue conformity index (HTCI), conformation number (CN), and dose homogeneity (HI) were compared for PTVs and conformation index (COIN) for parotids.

Results

All RT techniques achieved good coverage. For SIB77Gy, CVF was best for IMRT and VMAT, HT achieved highest CN followed by VMAT and IMRT. HT reached good HTCI value, and HI compared to both other techniques. For SIB70Gy, CVF was best by IMRT. HTCI favored HT, consequently CN as well. HI was slightly better for HT. For SIB56Gy, CVF resulted comparably. Conformity favors VMAT as seen by HTCI and CN. Dmean of ipsilateral and contralateral parotids favor HT.

Conclusion

Different TPS for dose escalation reliably achieved high plan quality. Despite the very good results of HT planning for coverage, conformity, and homogeneity, the TPS also achieved acceptable results for IMRT and VMAT.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT 01212354, EudraCT-No.: 2010-021139-15. ARO: ARO 14-01

Comparative effectiveness of simultaneous integrated boost vs sequential intensity-modulated radiotherapy for oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer patients: A population-based propensity score-matched analysis

There were 2 common radiotherapy dose fractionation strategies in head-and-neck cancer patients (such as oropharyngeal cancer [OPC] or hypopharyngeal cancer [HPC]) treated with radiotherapy: intensity-modulated radiotherapy using simultaneous integrated boost (IMRT-SIB) and sequential IMRT (IMRT-SEQ). There is a lack of high-level clinical evidence to compare IMRT-SIB vs IMRT-SEQ specifically for OPC or HPC patients. The present study investigated the survival outcomes of OPC or HPC patients receiving definite concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with either IMRT-SIB or IMRT-SEQ via a population-based propensity score (PS)-based analysis.The localized stage OPC or HPC patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 were identified based on the Health and Welfare Data Science Center database in Taiwan. These patients received definitive CCRT with either IMRT-SIB or IMRT-SEQ. We constructed a PS-matched cohort (1:1 for IMRT-SIB vs IMRT-SEQ) to balance observable potential confounders. We compared the hazard ratio (HR) of death between IMRT-SIB and IMRT-SEQ during the entire follow-up period. We also evaluated other disease outcome or subgroups.Our study population constituted 200 patients with well balance in observed covariables. The HR of death when IMRT-SIB was compared to IMRT-SEQ was 1.23 (95% confidence interval 0.84-1.80, P = .29). The results were similar for other disease outcome or subgroups.We found the survival outcome might be comparable for those treated with IMRT-SIB vs those treated with IMRT-SEQ.

A comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) versus sequential boost (SEQ) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique for head and neck cancer (HNC) has not been determined yet. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)-IMRT versus the sequential boost (SEQ)-IMRT in HNC.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of 7 studies involving a total of 1049 patients was carried out to compare the treatment outcomes together with severe acute adverse effects of the SIB-IMRT versus the SEQ-IMRT in HNC patients.

RESULTS

Comparison of the SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT showed no significant difference in the measurement of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94; 95% confidence inerval [CI], 0.70-1.27; P = .71), progression free survival (PFS) (HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30; P = .79), locoregional recurrence free survival (LRFS) (HR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.65-1.47; P = .91), and distance metastasis free survival (DMFS) (HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50-1.53; P = .63). Moreover, there were no significant differences in adverse effect occurrence between the SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT groups.

CONCLUSION

SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT can provide comparable outcomes in the treatment of patients afflicted by HNC. Both IMRT techniques were found to carry a similar risk of severe acute adverse effect. SIB-IMRT may have advantages due to its convenience and short-course of treatment; however, the optimum fractionation and prescribed dose remained unclear. Furthermore, both IMRT techniques can be advocated as the technique of choice for HNC. Treatment plan should be individualized for patients.

Organ preservation in rectal cancer - Challenges and future strategies

Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy with subsequent total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. While this multimodal strategy has decreased local recurrences rates below 5%, long-term morbidities are considerable in terms of urinary, sexual or bowel functioning. At the same time approximately 10–20% of patients have no evidence of residual tumour in their surgical specimen. Pioneering studies from Brazil have suggested that surgery can safely be omitted in carefully selected patients with a clinical complete response after radiochemotherapy. Although confirmatory studies showed similar results, challenges in terms of optimizing radiochemotherapy for organ-preservation, appropriate selection of patients for non-operative management and the safety of this approach remain. The present review will summarize the current data on organ-preservation in rectal cancer and discuss the challenges that need to be addressed in future trials.

mARC Treatment of Hypopharynx Carcinoma with Flat and Flattening-Filter-Free Beam Energies - A Planning Study

BACKGROUND

The recently implemented mARC-rotation-technique is capable to deliver high dose rate bursts. For the case of hypopharynx cancer plans we evaluate whether the mARC can achieve an advantage in treatment time in comparison to IMRT. These plans consider two arcs with flat and flattening filter free (FFF) beam energies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For 8 hypopharynx-cancer patients step-and-shoot-IMRT and mARC plans were created retrospectively using flat and FFF beam energy. The comparison of the plan scenarios considered measures of quality for PTV coverage and sparing of organs at risk. All plans were irradiated on an anthromorphic phantom equipped with thermoluminescent dosimeters to measure scattered dose and treatment times.

RESULTS

A visual comparison of the dose distribution did not show a marked preference for either technique or energy. The statistical evaluation yielded significant differences in favor of the mARC technique and the FFF energy. Scattered dose could be decreased markedly by the use of the mARC technique. Treatment times could be reduced up to 3 minutes with the use of mARC in comparison to IMRT. The high dose rate energy results in another time advantage of about 1 minute.

CONCLUSIONS

All four plan scenarios yielded equally good quality plans. A combination of the mARC technique with FFF 7 MV high dose rate resulted in a decrease of treatment times from about 9 minutes to 5-6 minutes in comparison to 6 MV IMRT.

Unilateral and bilateral neck SIB for head and neck cancer patients : Intensity-modulated proton therapy, tomotherapy, and RapidArc

AIM

To compare simultaneous integrated boost plans for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and RapidArc therapy (RA) for patients with head and neck cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 20 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck received definitive chemoradiation with bilateral (n = 14) or unilateral (n = 6) neck irradiation and were planned using IMPT, HT, and RA with 54.4, 60.8, and 70.4 GyE/Gy in 32 fractions. Dose distributions, coverage, conformity, homogeneity to planning target volumes (PTV)s and sparing of organs at risk and normal tissue were compared.

RESULTS

All unilateral and bilateral plans showed excellent PTV coverage and acceptable dose conformity. For unilateral treatment, IMPT delivered substantially lower mean doses to contralateral salivary glands (< 0.001-1.1 Gy) than both rotational techniques did (parotid gland: 6-10 Gy; submandibular gland: 15-20 Gy). Regarding the sparing of classical organs at risk for bilateral treatment, IMPT and HT were similarly excellent and RA was satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

For unilateral neck irradiation, IMPT may minimize the dry mouth risk in this subgroup but showed no advantage over HT for bilateral neck treatment regarding classical organ-at-risk sparing. All methods satisfied modern standards regarding toxicity and excellent target coverage for unilateral and bilateral treatment of head and neck cancer at the planning level.