Evangelia Katsoulakis1, Nadeem Riaz1, Man Hu2, Luc Morris3, Eric Sherman4, Sean McBride1, Nancy Lee1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital, Shandong, China. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology ENT. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Compare outcomes of hypopharyngeal carcinoma that received conventional radiotherapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-institution trial. METHODS: Between April 1990 and May 2011, 100 patients with hypopharyngeal cancer underwent curative radiotherapy (RT) at our institution: 50 with IMRT and 50 with conventional RT. The median age was 63 years. There were 12 T1, 22 T2, 37 T3, and 28 T4 patients. The majority of patients (82%) had nodal disease: 54% N2 and 8% N3. The majority of patients (83%) received chemotherapy. Of the patients who received chemotherapy, 84% received a platinum-based regimen. The median RT dose was 7,000 cGy. The majority of patients (62%) had prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Toxicities were reviewed. Local control (LC), locoregional control (LRC), freedom from distant metastasis (FFM) rates, functional larynx preservation (LP), laryngectomy-free survival (LFS), and overall-survival (OS) curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to test prognostic variables. RESULTS: With a median follow up of 48.4 months, the 3/5-year LC, LRC, FFM, LP, LFS and OS rates were 74%/69%, 77%/74%, 70%/66%, 51%/29%, 49.6%/31.8%, and 49%/34%, respectively. The median OS was 2.9 years. The 3-year LC rate for IMRT was 77% versus 81% for conventional RT (P = .91); 3-year LRC for IMRT was 85% versus 76% for conventional RT (P = .32). There was no increased local failure with IMRT. There was no difference in the rate of stricture with IMRT (32%) versus conventional RT (25.3%) (P = .86). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT achieved comparable LC and LRC rates to conventional RT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 126:620-626, 2016.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Compare outcomes of hypopharyngeal carcinoma that received conventional radiotherapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-institution trial. METHODS: Between April 1990 and May 2011, 100 patients with hypopharyngeal cancer underwent curative radiotherapy (RT) at our institution: 50 with IMRT and 50 with conventional RT. The median age was 63 years. There were 12 T1, 22 T2, 37 T3, and 28 T4 patients. The majority of patients (82%) had nodal disease: 54% N2 and 8% N3. The majority of patients (83%) received chemotherapy. Of the patients who received chemotherapy, 84% received a platinum-based regimen. The median RT dose was 7,000 cGy. The majority of patients (62%) had prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Toxicities were reviewed. Local control (LC), locoregional control (LRC), freedom from distant metastasis (FFM) rates, functional larynx preservation (LP), laryngectomy-free survival (LFS), and overall-survival (OS) curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to test prognostic variables. RESULTS: With a median follow up of 48.4 months, the 3/5-year LC, LRC, FFM, LP, LFS and OS rates were 74%/69%, 77%/74%, 70%/66%, 51%/29%, 49.6%/31.8%, and 49%/34%, respectively. The median OS was 2.9 years. The 3-year LC rate for IMRT was 77% versus 81% for conventional RT (P = .91); 3-year LRC for IMRT was 85% versus 76% for conventional RT (P = .32). There was no increased local failure with IMRT. There was no difference in the rate of stricture with IMRT (32%) versus conventional RT (25.3%) (P = .86). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT achieved comparable LC and LRC rates to conventional RT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 126:620-626, 2016.
Authors: J L Lefebvre; D Chevalier; B Luboinski; A Kirkpatrick; L Collette; T Sahmoud Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1996-07-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gang Peng; Tao Wang; Kun-Yu Yang; Sheng Zhang; Tao Zhang; Qin Li; Jun Han; Gang Wu Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Fernando F de Arruda; Dev R Puri; Joanne Zhung; Ashwatha Narayana; Suzanne Wolden; Margie Hunt; Hilda Stambuk; David Pfister; Dennis Kraus; Ashok Shaha; Jatin Shah; Nancy Y Lee Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-05-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nancy Y Lee; William O'Meara; Kelvin Chan; Cesar Della-Bianca; James G Mechalakos; Joanne Zhung; Suzanne L Wolden; Ashwatha Narayana; Dennis Kraus; Jatin P Shah; David G Pfister Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gary Mok; Isabelle Gauthier; Haiyan Jiang; Shao Hui Huang; Kelvin Chan; Ian J Witterick; Brian O'Sullivan; John N Waldron; Andrew J Bayley; B C John Cho; Bernard J Cummings; Laura A Dawson; Andrew J Hope; John J Kim; Jolie Ringash Journal: Head Neck Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Arlene A Forastiere; Qiang Zhang; Randal S Weber; Moshe H Maor; Helmuth Goepfert; Thomas F Pajak; William Morrison; Bonnie Glisson; Andy Trotti; John A Ridge; Wade Thorstad; Henry Wagner; John F Ensley; Jay S Cooper Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer R Cracchiolo; Anne F Klassen; Danny A Young-Afat; Claudia R Albornoz; Stefan J Cano; Snehal G Patel; Andrea L Pusic; Evan Matros Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jonathan E Leeman; Jin-Gao Li; Xin Pei; Praveen Venigalla; Zachary S Zumsteg; Evangelia Katsoulakis; Eitan Lupovitch; Sean M McBride; Chiaojung J Tsai; Jay O Boyle; Benjamin R Roman; Luc G T Morris; Lara A Dunn; Eric J Sherman; Nancy Y Lee; Nadeem Riaz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 31.777