Considerations for study design in the DAHANCA 35 trial of protons versus photons for head and neck cancer

Proton radiotherapy offers a dosimetric advantage compared to photon therapy in sparing normal tissue, but the clinical evidence for toxicity reductions in the treatment of head and neck cancer is limited. The Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (DAHANCA) has initiated the DAHANCA 35 randomised trial to clarify the value of proton therapy (NCT04607694). The DAHANCA 35 trial is performed in an enriched population of patients selected by an anticipated benefit of proton therapy to reduce the risk of late dysphagia or xerostomia based on normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modelling. We present our considerations on the trial design and a test of the selection procedure conducted before initiating the randomised study.

NTCP model validation method for DAHANCA patient selection of protons versus photons in head and neck cancer radiotherapy

Introduction: Prediction models using logistic regression may perform poorly in external patient cohorts. However, there is a need to standardize and validate models for clinical use. The purpose of this project was to describe a method for validation of external NTCP models used for patient selection in the randomized trial of protons versus photons in head and neck cancer radiotherapy, DAHANCA 35. Material and methods: Organs at risk of 588 patients treated primarily with IMRT in the randomized controlled DAHANCA19 trial were retrospectively contoured according to recent international recommendations. Dose metrics were extracted using MatLab and all clinical parameters were retrieved from the DAHANCA database. The model proposed by Christianen et al. to predict physician-rated dysphagia was validated through the closed testing, where change of the model intercept, slope and individual beta's were tested for significant prediction improvements. Results: Six months prevalence of dysphagia in the validation cohort was 33%. The closed testing procedure for physician-rated dysphagia showed that the Christianen et al. model needed an intercept refitting for the best match for the Danish patients. The intercept update increased the risk of dysphagia for the validation cohort by 7.9 ± 2.5% point. For the raw model performance, the Brier score (mean squared residual) was 0.467, which improved significantly with a new intercept to 0.415. Conclusions: The previously published Dutch dysphagia model needed an intercept update to match the Danish patient cohort. The implementation of a closed testing procedure on the current validation cohort allows quick and efficient validation of external NTCP models for patient selection in the future.

Dosimetric and geometric evaluation of the use of deformable image registration in adaptive intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer

The aim of this study was to carry out geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the usefulness of a deformable image registration algorithm utilized for adaptive head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Data consisted of seven patients, each with a planning CT (pCT), a rescanning CT (ReCT) and a cone beam CT (CBCT). The CBCT was acquired on the same day (± 1 d) as the ReCT (i.e. at Fraction 17, 18, 23, 24 or 29). The ReCT served as ground truth. A deformed CT (dCT) with structures was created by deforming the pCT to the CBCT. The geometrical comparison was based on the volumes of the deformed, and the manually delineated structures on the ReCT. Likewise, the center of mass shift (CMS) and the Dice similarity coefficient were determined. The dosimetric comparison was performed by recalculating the initial treatment plan on the dCT and the ReCT. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) points and a range of conformity measures were used for the evaluation. We found a significant difference in the median volume of the dCT relative to that of the ReCT. Median CMS values were ∼ 2-5 mm, except for the spinal cord, where the median CMS was 8 mm. Dosimetric evaluation of target structures revealed small differences, while larger differences were observed for organs at risk. The deformed structures cannot fully replace manually delineated structures. Based on both geometrical and dosimetrical measures, there is a tendency for the dCT to overestimate the need for replanning, compared with the ReCT.