PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the dose delivered to the pharyngo-esophageal axis using different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques for treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and to correlate this with acute swallowing toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 28 patients treated with IMRT between February 2002 and August 2005: 20 with whole field IMRT (WF-IMRT) and 8 with IMRT fields junctioned with an anterior neck field with central shielding (j-IMRT). Dose to the pharyngo-esophageal axis was measured using dose-volume histograms. Acute swallowing toxicity was assessed by review of dysphagia grade during treatment and enteral feeding requirements. RESULTS: The mean pharyngo-esophageal dose was 55.2 Gy in the WF-IMRT group and 27.2 Gy in the j-IMRT group, p < 0.001. Ninety-five percent (19/20) of the WF-IMRT group developed Grade 3 dysphagia compared with 62.5% (5/8) of the j-IMRT group, p = 0.06. Feeding tube duration was a median of 38 days for the WF-IMRT group compared with 6 days for the j-IMRT group, p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical vigilance must be maintained when introducing new technology to ensure that unanticipated adverse effects do not result. Although newer planning systems can reduce the dose to the pharyngo-esophageal axis with WF-IMRT, the j-IMRT technique is preferred at least in patients with no gross disease in the lower neck.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the dose delivered to the pharyngo-esophageal axis using different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques for treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and to correlate this with acute swallowing toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 28 patients treated with IMRT between February 2002 and August 2005: 20 with whole field IMRT (WF-IMRT) and 8 with IMRT fields junctioned with an anterior neck field with central shielding (j-IMRT). Dose to the pharyngo-esophageal axis was measured using dose-volume histograms. Acute swallowing toxicity was assessed by review of dysphagia grade during treatment and enteral feeding requirements. RESULTS: The mean pharyngo-esophageal dose was 55.2 Gy in the WF-IMRT group and 27.2 Gy in the j-IMRT group, p < 0.001. Ninety-five percent (19/20) of the WF-IMRT group developed Grade 3 dysphagia compared with 62.5% (5/8) of the j-IMRT group, p = 0.06. Feeding tube duration was a median of 38 days for the WF-IMRT group compared with 6 days for the j-IMRT group, p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical vigilance must be maintained when introducing new technology to ensure that unanticipated adverse effects do not result. Although newer planning systems can reduce the dose to the pharyngo-esophageal axis with WF-IMRT, the j-IMRT technique is preferred at least in patients with no gross disease in the lower neck.
Authors: Stefan Janssen; Christoph Glanzmann; Bita Yousefi; Karl Loewenich; Gerhard Huber; Stephan Schmid; Gabriela Studer Journal: Mol Clin Oncol Date: 2015-05-04
Authors: Barbara Roa Pauloski; Alfred W Rademaker; Jerilyn A Logemann; Muveddet Discekici-Harris; Bharat B Mittal Journal: Head Neck Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Baoqing Li; Dan Li; Derick H Lau; D Gregory Farwell; Quang Luu; David M Rocke; Kathleen Newman; Jean Courquin; James A Purdy; Allen M Chen Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 3.481