1
|
Phan J, Spiotto MT, Goodman CD, Reddy J, Newcomm P, Garden AS, Lee A. Reirradiation for Locally Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions. Semin Radiat Oncol 2025; 35:243-258. [PMID: 40090750 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2025.02.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2025] [Accepted: 02/17/2025] [Indexed: 03/18/2025]
Abstract
Reirradiation of the head and neck presents one of the most complex and challenging scenarios faced by (for) clinicians due to the narrow therapeutic window. Its use is increasing in clinical practice, often guided by empirical and pragmatic approaches due to the limited availability of high-level evidence from randomized clinical trials. Successful reirradiation requires a precise balance between tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). Advances in radiation technologies, including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), proton beam therapy (PBT), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), have enabled more precise high-dose delivery, potentially improving dose distribution and reducing severe toxicity. This review explores current state-of-the-art approaches to reirradiating recurrent head and neck cancer, focusing on modern reirradiation techniques and critically assessing the literature on their clinical application, integration with systemic therapy, and future directions. It also addresses key practical challenges related to patient selection and toxicity/risk management, offering a comprehensive overview of the evolving treatment landscape and highlighting some of the most complex issues clinicians face in reirradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jack Phan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| | - Michael T Spiotto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Christopher D Goodman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jay Reddy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Phillip Newcomm
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Adam S Garden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Anna Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wang H, Alsanea FM, Rhee DJ, Zhang X, Liu W, Yang J, Wen Z, Zhao Y, Williamson TD, Hunter RA, Balter PA, Briere TM, Zhu RX, Lee A, Moreno AC, Reddy JP, Garden AS, Rosenthal DI, Gunn GB, Phan J. Advanced External Beam Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Skull Base Reirradiation. Cancers (Basel) 2025; 17:540. [PMID: 39941906 PMCID: PMC11817895 DOI: 10.3390/cancers17030540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2024] [Revised: 01/29/2025] [Accepted: 01/31/2025] [Indexed: 02/16/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for skull base reirradiation is particularly challenging, as patients have already received substantial radiation doses to the region, and nearby normal organs may have approached their tolerance limit from prior treatments. In this study, we reviewed the characteristics and capabilities of four advanced external beam radiation delivery systems and four modern treatment planning systems and evaluated the treatment plan quality of each technique using skull base reirradiation patient cases. METHODS SBRT plans were generated for sixteen skull base reirradiation patients using four modalities: the GK plan for the Elekta Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion/ICON, the CyberKnife (CK) plan for the Accuray CyberKnife, the intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan for the Hitachi ProBeat-FR proton therapy machine, and the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan for the Varian TrueBeam STx. These plans were evaluated and compared using two novel gradient indices in addition to traditional dosimetry metrics for targets and organs at risk (OARs). The steepest border gradient quantified the percent prescription dose fall-off per millimeter at the boundary between the target and adjacent critical structures. This gradient index highlighted the system's ability to spare nearby critical OARs. The volume gradient assessed the extent of dose spread outside the target toward the patient's body. RESULTS All plans achieved comparable target coverage and conformity, while IMPT and VMAT demonstrated significantly better uniformity. The GK plans exhibited the highest border gradient, up to 20.9%/mm, followed by small-spot-size IMPT plans and CK plans. Additionally, IMPT plans showed the benefit of reduced dose spread in low-dose regions and the lowest maximum and mean doses to the brainstem and carotid artery. CONCLUSIONS The advanced external beam radiotherapy modalities evaluated in this study are well-suited for SBRT in skull base reirradiation, which demands precise targeting of tumors with highly conformal doses and steep dose gradients to protect nearby normal structures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- He Wang
- Radiation Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (F.M.A.); (D.J.R.); (X.Z.); (J.Y.); (Y.Z.)
| | - Fahed M. Alsanea
- Radiation Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (F.M.A.); (D.J.R.); (X.Z.); (J.Y.); (Y.Z.)
| | - Dong Joo Rhee
- Radiation Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (F.M.A.); (D.J.R.); (X.Z.); (J.Y.); (Y.Z.)
| | - Xiaodong Zhang
- Radiation Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (F.M.A.); (D.J.R.); (X.Z.); (J.Y.); (Y.Z.)
| | - Wei Liu
- Medical Physics, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Jinzhong Yang
- Radiation Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (F.M.A.); (D.J.R.); (X.Z.); (J.Y.); (Y.Z.)
| | - Zhifei Wen
- Radiation Oncology, Hoag Memorial Hospital, Hoag Cancer Center, Newport Beach, CA 92663, USA
| | - Yao Zhao
- Radiation Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (F.M.A.); (D.J.R.); (X.Z.); (J.Y.); (Y.Z.)
| | - Tyler D. Williamson
- Radiation Therapeutic Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Rachel A. Hunter
- Radiation Therapeutic Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Peter A. Balter
- Radiation Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (F.M.A.); (D.J.R.); (X.Z.); (J.Y.); (Y.Z.)
| | - Tina M. Briere
- Radiation Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (F.M.A.); (D.J.R.); (X.Z.); (J.Y.); (Y.Z.)
| | - Ronald X. Zhu
- Radiation Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (F.M.A.); (D.J.R.); (X.Z.); (J.Y.); (Y.Z.)
| | - Anna Lee
- Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA (J.P.)
| | - Amy C. Moreno
- Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA (J.P.)
| | - Jay P. Reddy
- Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA (J.P.)
| | - Adam S. Garden
- Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA (J.P.)
| | - David I. Rosenthal
- Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA (J.P.)
| | - Gary B. Gunn
- Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA (J.P.)
| | - Jack Phan
- Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA (J.P.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gaito S, Burnet NG, Aznar MC, Marvaso G, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Crellin A, Indelicato D, Pan S, Colaco R, Rieu R, Smith E, Whitfield G. Proton Beam Therapy in the Reirradiation Setting of Brain and Base of Skull Tumour Recurrences. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2023; 35:673-681. [PMID: 37574418 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2023.07.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2023] [Revised: 07/04/2023] [Accepted: 07/25/2023] [Indexed: 08/15/2023]
Abstract
The therapeutic management of local tumour recurrence after a first course of radical radiotherapy is always complex. Surgery and reirradiation carry increased morbidity due to radiation-induced tissue changes. Proton beam therapy (PBT) might be advantageous in the reirradiation setting, thanks to its distinct physical characteristics. Here we systematically reviewed the use of PBT in the management of recurrent central nervous system (CNS) and base of skull (BoS) tumours, as published in the literature. The research question was framed following the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) criteria: the population of the study was cancer patients with local disease recurrence in the CNS or BoS; the intervention was radiation treatment with PBT; the outcomes of the study focused on the clinical outcomes of PBT in the reirradiation setting of local tumour recurrences of the CNS or BoS. The identification stage resulted in 222 records in Embase and 79 in Medline as of March 2023. Sixty-eight duplicates were excluded at this stage and 56 were excluded after screening as not relevant, not in English or not full-text articles. Twelve full-text articles were included in the review and are presented according to the site of disease, namely BoS, brain or both brain and BoS. This review showed that reirradiation of brain/BoS tumour recurrences with PBT can provide good local control with acceptable toxicity rates. However, reirradiation of tumour recurrences in the CNS or BoS setting needs to consider several factors that can increase the risk of toxicities. Therefore, patient selection is crucial. Randomised evidence is needed to select the best radiation modality in this group of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Gaito
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK; Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK.
| | - N G Burnet
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M C Aznar
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - G Marvaso
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20126 Milan, Italy
| | - B A Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20126 Milan, Italy
| | - A Crellin
- National Lead Proton Beam Therapy NHSe, UK
| | - D Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - S Pan
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - R Colaco
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - R Rieu
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
| | - E Smith
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK; Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - G Whitfield
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Jaffray DA, Knaul F, Baumann M, Gospodarowicz M. Harnessing progress in radiotherapy for global cancer control. NATURE CANCER 2023; 4:1228-1238. [PMID: 37749355 DOI: 10.1038/s43018-023-00619-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2021] [Accepted: 06/22/2023] [Indexed: 09/27/2023]
Abstract
The pace of technological innovation over the past three decades has transformed the field of radiotherapy into one of the most technologically intense disciplines in medicine. However, the global barriers to access this highly effective treatment are complex and extend beyond technological limitations. Here, we review the technological advancement and current status of radiotherapy and discuss the efforts of the global radiation oncology community to formulate a more integrative 'diagonal approach' in which the agendas of science-driven advances in individual outcomes and the sociotechnological task of global cancer control can be aligned to bring the benefit of this proven therapy to patients with cancer everywhere.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David A Jaffray
- Departments of Radiation Physics and Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Felicia Knaul
- Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA
| | | | - Mary Gospodarowicz
- Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
McGovern SL, Luo D, Johnson J, Nguyen K, Li J, McAleer MF, Yeboa D, Grosshans DR, Ghia AJ, Chung C, Bishop AJ, Song J, Thall PF, Brown PD, Mahajan A. A Prospective Study of Conventionally Fractionated Dose Constraints for Reirradiation of Primary Brain Tumors in Adults. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:231-238. [PMID: 36596356 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2022.12.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2022] [Revised: 12/22/2022] [Accepted: 12/26/2022] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Dose constraints for reirradiation of recurrent primary brain tumors are not well-established. This study was conducted to prospectively evaluate composite dose constraints for conventionally fractionated brain reirradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS A single-institution, prospective study of adults with previously irradiated, recurrent brain tumors was performed. For 95% of patients, electronic dosimetry records from the first course of radiation (RT1) were obtained and deformed onto the simulation computed tomography for the second course of radiation (RT2). Conventionally fractionated treatment plans for RT2 were developed that met protocol-assigned dose constraints for RT2 alone and the composite dose of RT1 + RT2. Prospective composite dose constraints were based on histology, interval since RT1, and concurrent bevacizumab. Patients were followed with magnetic resonance imaging including spectroscopy and perfusion studies. Primary endpoint was the rate of symptomatic brain necrosis at 6 months after RT2. RESULTS Patients were enrolled from March 2017 to May 2018; 20 were evaluable. Eighteen had glioma, 1 had atypical choroid plexus papilloma, and 1 had hemangiopericytoma. Nineteen patients were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy, and one was treated with protons. Median RT1 dose was 57 Gy (range, 50-60 Gy). Median RT1-RT2 interval was 49 months (range, 9-141 months). Median RT2 dose was 42.4 Gy (range, 36-60 Gy). Median planning target volume was 186 cc (range, 8-468 cc). Nineteen of 20 patients (95%) were free of grade 3+ central nervous system necrosis. One patient had grade 3+ necrosis 2 months after RT2; the patient recovered fully and lived another 18 months until dying of disease progression. Median overall survival from RT2 start for all patients was 13.3 months (95% credible interval, 6.3-20.7); for patients with glioblastoma, 11.5 months (95% credible interval, 6.1-20.1). CONCLUSIONS Brain reirradiation can be safely performed with conventionally fractionated regimens tailored to previous dose distributions. The prospective composite dose constraints described here are a starting point for future studies of conventionally fractionated reirradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan L McGovern
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Dershan Luo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jason Johnson
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Kham Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jing Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mary Frances McAleer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Debra Yeboa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - David R Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Amol J Ghia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Caroline Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Andrew J Bishop
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Juhee Song
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Peter F Thall
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Paul D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Anita Mahajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Schur SE, Hanna EY, Su SY, Kupferman ME, DeMonte F, Raza SM. Impact of salvage surgery for recurrent sinonasal cancers with skull base and intracranial involvement. J Neurosurg 2022; 137:961-968. [PMID: 35120325 DOI: 10.3171/2021.12.jns212278] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2021] [Accepted: 12/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Patients with recurrent sinonasal cancers (RSNCs) often present with extensive involvement of the skull base and exhibit high rates of subsequent recurrence and death after therapy. The impact of salvage surgery and margin status on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) has yet to be demonstrated. The goal of this study was to determine whether skull base resection with negative margins has an impact on outcomes in the recurrent setting. METHODS A retrospective chart review of 47 patients who underwent surgery for RSNC with skull base invasion between November 1993 and June 2020 was conducted. The following variables were extracted from the clinical records: patient demographic characteristics (age and sex), tumor pathology, dural and orbital invasion, and prior radiation exposure and induction chemotherapy. Metastatic disease status, surgical approach, margin status, and history of postoperative chemotherapy and/or postoperative radiation therapy were noted. The primary and secondary outcomes were PFS and OS, respectively. RESULTS The cohort included 30 males (63.8%) and 17 females (36.2%), with a mean ± SD age of 54.8 ± 14.4 years. Thirty-five (74.5%) patients showed disease progression, and 29 (61.7%) patients died during the study period. The mean ± SD patient follow-up period was 61.8 ± 64.4 months. Dural invasion was associated with increased risk of death (HR 2.62, 95% CI 1.13-6.08). High-risk histopathology (HR 3.14, 95% CI 1.10-8.95) and induction chemotherapy (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.07-5.06) were associated with increased odds of disease progression. When compared to patients with positive margins or gross-total resection with unknown margin status, those with negative margins had decreased odds of disease progression (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.63) and death (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.85). CONCLUSIONS RSNCs show high rates of subsequent disease progression and mortality. This study demonstrated that negative margins may be associated with improved PFS and OS in carefully selected patients who have undergone salvage surgery for RSNC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Solon E Schur
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; and
| | - Ehab Y Hanna
- 2Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Shirley Y Su
- 2Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael E Kupferman
- 2Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Franco DeMonte
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; and
| | - Shaan M Raza
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; and
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Doyen J, Aloi D, Groulier A, Vidal M, Lesueur P, Calugaru V, Bondiau PY. Role of proton therapy in reirradiation and in the treatment of sarcomas. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:550-553. [PMID: 34284969 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.06.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2021] [Revised: 06/11/2021] [Accepted: 06/16/2021] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
Reirradiation and irradiation of sarcoma is often difficult due to the frequent need for a high dose of radiation in order to increase tumor control. This can result in a greater risk of toxicity which can be mitigated with the use of proton therapy. The present review aims to summarize the role of proton therapy in these 2 clinical contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Doyen
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France.
| | - D Aloi
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France
| | - A Groulier
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France
| | - M Vidal
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France
| | - P Lesueur
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre François Baclesse, Centre de Protonthérapie de Normandie, University of Caen Normandie, Caen, France
| | - V Calugaru
- Department of radiation oncology, Institut Curie, Centre de Protonthérapie d'Orsay, Orsay, France
| | - P Y Bondiau
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gamez ME, Patel SH, McGee LA, Sio TT, McDonald M, Phan J, Ma DJ, Foote RL, Rwigema JCM. A Systematic Review on Re-irradiation with Charged Particle Beam Therapy in the Management of Locally Recurrent Skull Base and Head and Neck Tumors. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:131-154. [PMID: 34285942 PMCID: PMC8270105 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00064.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 03/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the clinical outcomes and treatment related toxicities of charged particle-based re-irradiation (reRT; protons and carbon ions) for the definitive management of recurrent or second primary skull base and head and neck tumors. Materials and Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were applied for the conduct of this systematic review. Published work in English language evaluating the role of definitive charged particle therapies in the clinical setting of reRT for recurrent or second primary skull base and head and neck tumors were eligible for this analysis. Results A total of 26 original studies (15 protons, 10 carbon ions, and 1 helium/neon studies) involving a total of 1,118 patients (437 with protons, 670 with carbon ions, and 11 with helium/neon) treated with curative-intent charged particle reRT were included in this systematic review. All studies were retrospective in nature, and the majority of them (n=23, 88 %) were reported as single institution experiences (87% for protons, and 90% for carbon ion-based studies). The median proton therapy reRT dose was 64.5 Gy (RBE 1.1) (range, 50.0 – 75.6 Gy ), while the median carbon ion reRT dose was 53.8 Gy (RBE 2.5 – 3.0) (range, 44.8 – 60 Gy ). Induction and/or concurrent chemotherapy was administered to 232 (53%) of the patients that received a course of proton reRT, and 122 (18%) for carbon ion reRT patients. ReRT with protons achieved 2-year local control rates ranging from 50% to 86%, and 41% to 92% for carbon ion reRT. The 2-year overall survival rates for proton and carbon ion reRT ranged from 33% to 80%, and 50% to 86% respectively. Late ≥ G3 toxicities ranged from 0% to 37%, with brain necrosis, ototoxicity, visual deficits, and bleeding as the most common complications. Grade 5 toxicities for all treated patients occurred in 1.4% (n= 16/1118) with fatal bleeding as the leading cause. Conclusions Based on current data, curative intent skull base and head and neck reRT with charged particle radiotherapy is feasible and safe in well-selected cases, associated with comparable or potentially improved local control and toxicity rates compared to historical reRT studies using photon radiotherapy. Prospective multi-institutional studies reporting oncologic outcomes, toxicity, and dosimetric treatment planning data are warranted to further validate these findings and to improve the understanding of the clinical benefits of charged particle radiotherapy in the reRT setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mauricio E Gamez
- Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University - The James Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | | | - Lisa A McGee
- Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | | | - Mark McDonald
- Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jack Phan
- Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Daniel J Ma
- Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|