PURPOSE: Methods to estimate the likely origin of recurrences after radiation therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma are compared. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 25 patients meeting the following inclusion criteria were randomly selected: curatively intended intensity-modulated radiotherapy planned on a positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) scan during the period 2005-2009; squamous cell carcinoma in the oral cavity, pharynx or larynx; complete clinical response followed by locoregional recurrence; and a CT scan at recurrence before any salvage therapy. Exclusion criteria were previous cancer in the area, surgery prior to radiotherapy, or a synchronous cancer. Three methods of estimating focal points of recurrence origin and two volume overlap methods assigning the recurrences to the most central target volumes encompassing at least 50% or 95% of the recurrence volumes were tested. Treatment planning and recurrence scans were rigid and deformable co-registered in order to transfer focal points to the treatment planning scan. Double determinations of all volumes, points, and co-registrations were made. RESULTS: The volume overlap methods assigned the recurrences to significantly more peripheral target volumes than focal methods (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons of 95% overlap vs. focal methods, p < 0.028 for all comparisons of 50% overlap vs. focal methods). Repeated registrations of the same point had higher reproducibility with deformable registration than with rigid registration (median distance 0.31 vs. 0.35 cm, p = 0.015). No significant differences were observed among the focal methods. CONCLUSION: Significant differences between methods were found which may affect strategies to improve radiotherapy based on pattern of failure analyses.
PURPOSE: Methods to estimate the likely origin of recurrences after radiation therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma are compared. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 25 patients meeting the following inclusion criteria were randomly selected: curatively intended intensity-modulated radiotherapy planned on a positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) scan during the period 2005-2009; squamous cell carcinoma in the oral cavity, pharynx or larynx; complete clinical response followed by locoregional recurrence; and a CT scan at recurrence before any salvage therapy. Exclusion criteria were previous cancer in the area, surgery prior to radiotherapy, or a synchronous cancer. Three methods of estimating focal points of recurrence origin and two volume overlap methods assigning the recurrences to the most central target volumes encompassing at least 50% or 95% of the recurrence volumes were tested. Treatment planning and recurrence scans were rigid and deformable co-registered in order to transfer focal points to the treatment planning scan. Double determinations of all volumes, points, and co-registrations were made. RESULTS: The volume overlap methods assigned the recurrences to significantly more peripheral target volumes than focal methods (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons of 95% overlap vs. focal methods, p < 0.028 for all comparisons of 50% overlap vs. focal methods). Repeated registrations of the same point had higher reproducibility with deformable registration than with rigid registration (median distance 0.31 vs. 0.35 cm, p = 0.015). No significant differences were observed among the focal methods. CONCLUSION: Significant differences between methods were found which may affect strategies to improve radiotherapy based on pattern of failure analyses.
Authors: Anne Kirkebjerg Due; Stine Korreman; Søren M Bentzen; Wolfgang Tomé; Edward Bender; Marianne Aznar; Ivan Vogelius; Anne K Berthelsen; Claus A Kristensen; Lena Specht Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Indira Madani; Wim Duthoy; Cristina Derie; Werner De Gersem; Tom Boterberg; Micky Saerens; Filip Jacobs; Vincent Grégoire; Max Lonneux; Luc Vakaet; Barbara Vanderstraeten; Wouter Bauters; Katrien Bonte; Hubert Thierens; Wilfried De Neve Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gordon O Schoenfeld; Robert J Amdur; Christopher G Morris; Jonathan G Li; Russell W Hinerman; William M Mendenhall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-12-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joana Caldas-Magalhaes; Nicolien Kasperts; Nina Kooij; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Chris H J Terhaard; Cornelis P J Raaijmakers; Marielle E P Philippens Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephen L Breen; Julia Publicover; Shiroma De Silva; Greg Pond; Kristy Brock; Brian O'Sullivan; Bernard Cummings; Laura Dawson; Anne Keller; John Kim; Jolie Ringash; Eugene Yu; Aaron Hendler; John Waldron Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Abdallah S R Mohamed; Carlos E Cardenas; Adam S Garden; Musaddiq J Awan; Crosby D Rock; Sarah A Westergaard; G Brandon Gunn; Abdelaziz M Belal; Ahmed G El-Gowily; Stephen Y Lai; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller; Michalis Aristophanous Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Stefan Huttenlocher; Nina D Seibold; Maximilian P Gebhard; Frank Noack; Christoph Thorns; Katrin Hasselbacher; Barbara Wollenberg; Steven E Schild; Dirk Rades Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Abdallah S R Mohamed; Manee-Naad Ruangskul; Musaddiq J Awan; Charles A Baron; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Richard Castillo; Edward Castillo; Thomas M Guerrero; Esengul Kocak-Uzel; Jinzhong Yang; Laurence E Court; Michael E Kantor; G Brandon Gunn; Rivka R Colen; Steven J Frank; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anne K Due; Ivan R Vogelius; Marianne C Aznar; Søren M Bentzen; Anne K Berthelsen; Stine S Korreman; Annika Loft; Claus A Kristensen; Lena Specht Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 6.280