Literature DB >> 17145527

A comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and concomitant boost radiotherapy in the setting of concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma.

Nancy Y Lee1, Fernando F de Arruda, Dev R Puri, Suzanne L Wolden, Ashwatha Narayana, James Mechalakos, Ennapadam S Venkatraman, Dennis Kraus, Ashok Shaha, Jatin P Shah, David G Pfister, Michael J Zelefsky.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare toxicity/efficacy of conventional radiotherapy using delayed accelerated concomitant boost radiotherapy (CBRT) vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the setting of concurrent chemotherapy (CT) for locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between September 1998 and June 2004, a total of 293 consecutive patients were treated at our institution for cancer of the oropharynx. Of these, 112 had Stage III/IV disease and squamous cell histology. In all, 41 were treated with IMRT/CT and 71 were treated with CBRT/CT, both to a median dose of 70 Gy. Most common CT was a planned two cycles given every 3 to 4 weeks of cisplatin, 100 mg/m2 i.v., but an additional cycle was given to IMRT patients when possible. Both groups were well-matched for all prognostic factors.
RESULTS: Median follow-up was 46 months (range, 3-93 months) for the CBRT patients and 31 months (range, 20-64 months) for the IMRT group. Three-year actuarial local-progression-free, regional-progression-free, locoregional progression-free, distant-metastases-free, disease-free, and overall survival rates were 85% vs. 95% (p = 0.17), 95% vs. 94% (p = 0.90), 82% vs. 92% (p = 0.18), 85% vs. 86% (p = 0.78), 76% vs. 82% (p = 0.57), and 81% vs. 91% (p = 0.10) for CBRT and IMRT patients, respectively. Three patients died of treatment-related toxicity in the CBRT group vs. none undergoing IMRT. At 2 years, 4% IMRT patients vs. 21% CBRT patients were dependent on percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (p = 0.02). Among those who had > or =20 months follow-up, there was a significant difference in Grade > or =2 xerostomia as defined by the criteria of the Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group, 67% vs. 12% (p = 0.02), in the CBRT vs. IMRT arm.
CONCLUSION: In the setting of CT for locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma, IMRT results in lower toxicity and similar treatment outcomes when compared with CBRT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17145527     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  37 in total

1.  Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of helical tomotherapy, forward-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy and two-phase conformal plans for radical radiotherapy treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.

Authors:  S Chatterjee; N Willis; S M Locks; J H Mott; C G Kelly
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies: management strategies and economic impact.

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

3.  Organ sparing and clinical outcome with step-and-shoot IMRT for head and neck cancer: a mono-institutional experience.

Authors:  Rosario Mazzola; Giuseppe Ferrera; Filippo Alongi; Mariella Mannino; Boris Abbate; Teresa Cucchiara; Giuseppina Iacoviello; Francesco Sciumè; Gioacchino Di Paola; Manuela Federico; Livio Blasi; Antonio Lo Casto; Roberto Lagalla; Domenico Messana
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 4.  Clinical application of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

Authors:  O Ballivy; R Galiana Santamaría; A Lozano Borbalas; F Guedea Edo
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  IMRT and IGRT in head and neck cancer: Have we delivered what we promised?

Authors:  Gupta Tejpal; Agarwal Jaiprakash; Bannerjee Susovan; Sarbani Ghosh-Laskar; Vedang Murthy; Ashwini Budrukkar
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-11-21

6.  Intensity modulated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy for larynx preservation of advanced resectable hypopharyngeal cancer.

Authors:  Wen-Yen Huang; Yee-Min Jen; Chang-Ming Chen; Yu-Fu Su; Chun-Shu Lin; Yaoh-Shiang Lin; Ying-Nan Chang; Hsing-Lung Chao; Kuen-Tze Lin; Li-Ping Chang
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Radiobiological evaluation of forward and inverse IMRT using different fractionations for head and neck tumours.

Authors:  Brigida C Ferreira; Maria do Carmo Lopes; Josefina Mateus; Miguel Capela; Panayiotis Mavroidis
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 3.481

8.  Treatment strategies in early-stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a French national survey.

Authors:  Philippe Gorphe; Pierre Blanchard; Sylvain Morinière; Nicolas Fakhry
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 9.  HPV & head and neck cancer: a descriptive update.

Authors:  Peter K C Goon; Margaret A Stanley; Jörg Ebmeyer; Lars Steinsträsser; Tahwinder Upile; Waseem Jerjes; Manuel Bernal-Sprekelsen; Martin Görner; Holger H Sudhoff
Journal:  Head Neck Oncol       Date:  2009-10-14

10.  Standard chemoradiation versus intensity-modulated chemoradiation: a quality of life assessment in oropharyngeal cancer patients.

Authors:  Sarah E Mowry; Christopher Tang; Ahmad Sadeghi; Marilene B Wang
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 2.503

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.