BACKGROUND: Our aim was to correlate patterns of failure with target volume delineations in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to report subjective xerostomia outcomes after IMRT as compared with conventional radiation therapy (CRT). METHODS: Between January 2000 and April 2005, 69 patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic HNSCC underwent curative parotid-sparing IMRT at Stanford University. Sites included were oropharynx (n = 39), oral cavity (n = 8), larynx (n = 8), hypopharynx (n = 8), and unknown primary (n = 6). Forty-six patients received definitive IMRT (66 Gy, 2.2 Gy/fraction), and 23 patients received postoperative IMRT (60.2 Gy, 2.15 Gy/fraction). Fifty-one patients also received concomitant chemotherapy. Posttreatment salivary gland function was evaluated by a validated xerostomia questionnaire in 29 IMRT and 75 matched CRT patients >6 months after completing radiation treatment. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 25 months for living patients (range, 10-60), 7 locoregional failures were observed, 5 in the gross target or high-risk postoperative volume, 1 in the clinical target volume, and 1 at the junction of the IMRT and supraclavicular fields. The 2-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for locoregional control and overall survival were 92% and 74% for definitive IMRT and 87% and 87% for postoperative IMRT patients, respectively. The mean total xerostomia questionnaire score was significantly better for IMRT than for CRT patients (p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: The predominant pattern of failure in IMRT-treated patients is in the gross tumor volume. Parotid sparing with IMRT resulted in less subjective xerostomia and may improve quality of life in irradiated HNSCC patients.
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to correlate patterns of failure with target volume delineations in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to report subjective xerostomia outcomes after IMRT as compared with conventional radiation therapy (CRT). METHODS: Between January 2000 and April 2005, 69 patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic HNSCC underwent curative parotid-sparing IMRT at Stanford University. Sites included were oropharynx (n = 39), oral cavity (n = 8), larynx (n = 8), hypopharynx (n = 8), and unknown primary (n = 6). Forty-six patients received definitive IMRT (66 Gy, 2.2 Gy/fraction), and 23 patients received postoperative IMRT (60.2 Gy, 2.15 Gy/fraction). Fifty-one patients also received concomitant chemotherapy. Posttreatment salivary gland function was evaluated by a validated xerostomia questionnaire in 29 IMRT and 75 matched CRT patients >6 months after completing radiation treatment. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 25 months for living patients (range, 10-60), 7 locoregional failures were observed, 5 in the gross target or high-risk postoperative volume, 1 in the clinical target volume, and 1 at the junction of the IMRT and supraclavicular fields. The 2-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for locoregional control and overall survival were 92% and 74% for definitive IMRT and 87% and 87% for postoperative IMRT patients, respectively. The mean total xerostomia questionnaire score was significantly better for IMRT than for CRT patients (p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: The predominant pattern of failure in IMRT-treated patients is in the gross tumor volume. Parotid sparing with IMRT resulted in less subjective xerostomia and may improve quality of life in irradiated HNSCC patients.
Authors: S B Jensen; A M L Pedersen; A Vissink; E Andersen; C G Brown; A N Davies; J Dutilh; J S Fulton; L Jankovic; N N F Lopes; A L S Mello; L V Muniz; C A Murdoch-Kinch; R G Nair; J J Napeñas; A Nogueira-Rodrigues; D Saunders; B Stirling; I von Bültzingslöwen; D S Weikel; L S Elting; F K L Spijkervet; M T Brennan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Katherine Y Fan; Hrishikesh Gogineni; David Zaboli; Spencer Lake; Marianna L Zahurak; Simon R Best; Marshall A Levine; Mei Tang; Eva S Zinreich; John R Saunders; Joseph A Califano; Ray G Blanco; Sara I Pai; Barbara Messing; Patrick K Ha Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S B Jensen; A M L Pedersen; A Vissink; E Andersen; C G Brown; A N Davies; J Dutilh; J S Fulton; L Jankovic; N N F Lopes; A L S Mello; L V Muniz; C A Murdoch-Kinch; R G Nair; J J Napeñas; A Nogueira-Rodrigues; D Saunders; B Stirling; I von Bültzingslöwen; D S Weikel; L S Elting; F K L Spijkervet; M T Brennan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Brynn Hollingsworth; Leigha Senter; Xiaoli Zhang; Guy N Brock; Wael Jarjour; Rebecca Nagy; Pamela Brock; Kevin R Coombes; Richard T Kloos; Matthew D Ringel; Jennifer Sipos; Ilene Lattimer; Ricardo Carrau; Sissy M Jhiang Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Anne M Traynor; Gregory M Richards; Gregory K Hartig; Deepak Khuntia; James F Cleary; Peggy A Wiederholt; Søren M Bentzen; Paul M Harari Journal: Head Neck Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.147