PURPOSE: To report on the potential benefits of swallowing-sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SW-IMRT) in the first 100 SW-IMRT treated patients, as well as on the factors that influence the potential benefit of SW-IMRT relative to standard parotid sparing (ST)-IMRT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive head and neck cancer patients, scheduled for primary radiotherapy, were included in this prospective cohort study. For each patient, ST-IMRT and SW-IMRT treatment plans were created. All patients were eventually treated with SW-IMRT. Objectives for SW-IMRT were identical to those with ST-IMRT, with additional objectives to spare the swallowing organs at risk (SWOARs). After 20 patients, interim results were evaluated by a multidisciplinary committee. RESULTS: The mean gain of SW-IMRT relative to ST-IMRT in the first 20 patients was less than expected based on our previous planning comparative study. A critical review of all plans revealed that the results with SW-IMRT could be improved by: (1) gaining experience and attempting to reduce SWOAR dose as much as possible; (2) accepting a moderate shift of dose to unspecified tissues; (3) maximizing SWOAR sparing while keeping PTV coverage exactly according to protocol. In the additional 80 patients, the mean dose to the various SWOARs was further reduced significantly compared to ST-IMRT. Dose reductions with SW-IMRT were largest for patients who received neck irradiation, had a tumour located in the larynx, oropharynx, nasopharynx or oral cavity, and had <75% overlap between SWOARs and PTVs. The mean absolute reduction in predicted physician-rated RTOG grade 2-4 swallowing dysfunction for patients numbered 21-100 was 6.1%, ranging from 0.0% to 17.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of SW-IMRT depends significantly on neck radiotherapy, tumour site and the amount of overlap between SWOARs and PTVs. Optimal clinical introduction requires a detailed evaluation and comparison between the standard (ST-IMRT) and new technique (SW-IMRT) in order to fully exploit the potential benefits.
PURPOSE: To report on the potential benefits of swallowing-sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SW-IMRT) in the first 100 SW-IMRT treated patients, as well as on the factors that influence the potential benefit of SW-IMRT relative to standard parotid sparing (ST)-IMRT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive head and neck cancerpatients, scheduled for primary radiotherapy, were included in this prospective cohort study. For each patient, ST-IMRT and SW-IMRT treatment plans were created. All patients were eventually treated with SW-IMRT. Objectives for SW-IMRT were identical to those with ST-IMRT, with additional objectives to spare the swallowing organs at risk (SWOARs). After 20 patients, interim results were evaluated by a multidisciplinary committee. RESULTS: The mean gain of SW-IMRT relative to ST-IMRT in the first 20 patients was less than expected based on our previous planning comparative study. A critical review of all plans revealed that the results with SW-IMRT could be improved by: (1) gaining experience and attempting to reduce SWOAR dose as much as possible; (2) accepting a moderate shift of dose to unspecified tissues; (3) maximizing SWOAR sparing while keeping PTV coverage exactly according to protocol. In the additional 80 patients, the mean dose to the various SWOARs was further reduced significantly compared to ST-IMRT. Dose reductions with SW-IMRT were largest for patients who received neck irradiation, had a tumour located in the larynx, oropharynx, nasopharynx or oral cavity, and had <75% overlap between SWOARs and PTVs. The mean absolute reduction in predicted physician-rated RTOG grade 2-4 swallowing dysfunction for patients numbered 21-100 was 6.1%, ranging from 0.0% to 17.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of SW-IMRT depends significantly on neck radiotherapy, tumour site and the amount of overlap between SWOARs and PTVs. Optimal clinical introduction requires a detailed evaluation and comparison between the standard (ST-IMRT) and new technique (SW-IMRT) in order to fully exploit the potential benefits.
Authors: Molly K Barnhart; Bena Cartmill; Elizabeth C Ward; Elizabeth Brown; Jonathon Sim; George Saade; Sandra Rayner; Rachelle A Robinson; Virginia A Simms; Robert I Smee Journal: Dysphagia Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 3.438
Authors: Beibei Xu; Isabel J Boero; Lindsay Hwang; Quynh-Thu Le; Vitali Moiseenko; Parag R Sanghvi; Ezra E W Cohen; Loren K Mell; James D Murphy Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jim P Tol; Max Dahele; Jarkko Peltola; Janne Nord; Ben J Slotman; Wilko F A R Verbakel Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Imran Petkar; Keith Rooney; Justin W G Roe; Joanne M Patterson; David Bernstein; Justine M Tyler; Marie A Emson; James P Morden; Kathrin Mertens; Elizabeth Miles; Matthew Beasley; Tom Roques; Shreerang A Bhide; Kate L Newbold; Kevin J Harrington; Emma Hall; Christopher M Nutting Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ingrid C Cnossen; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Birgit I Witte; Yke J Aalders; Cees J T de Goede; Remco de Bree; Patricia Doornaert; Derek H F Rietveld; Jan Buter; Johannes A Langendijk; C René Leemans; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Lisanne V van Dijk; Johannes A Langendijk; Tian-Tian Zhai; Thea A Vedelaar; Walter Noordzij; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Nanna M Sijtsema Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 4.379