Chawalit Lertbutsayanukul1, Anussara Prayongrat2, Danita Kannarunimit2, Chakkapong Chakkabat2, Buntipa Netsawang2, Sarin Kitpanit2. 1. Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, Rama IV Rd., Pathumwan, 1873, 10330, Bangkok, Thailand. wisutiyano@gmail.com. 2. Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, Rama IV Rd., Pathumwan, 1873, 10330, Bangkok, Thailand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was performed to compare the acute and late toxicities between sequential (SEQ) and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Stage I-IVB NPC patients were randomized to receive SEQ-IMRT or SIB-IMRT. SEQ-IMRT consisted of two plans: 2 Gy × 25 fractions to low-risk planning target volume (PTV) followed by a sequential boost (2 Gy × 10 fractions) to high-risk PTV, while SIB-IMRT treated low- and high-risk PTVs with doses of 56 and 70 Gy in 33 fractions. Toxicities and survival outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS:Between October 2010 and September 2015, of the 209 patients who completed treatment, 102 in the SEQ and 107 in the SIB arm were analyzed. The majority had undifferentiated squamous cell carcinoma (82%). Mucositis and dysphagia were the most common grade 3-5 acute toxicities. There were no statistically significant differences in the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 acute toxicities between the two arms (59.8% in SEQ vs. 58.9% in SIB; P = 0.892). Common grade 3-4 late toxicities for SEQ and SIB included hearing loss (2.9 vs. 8.4%), temporal lobe injury (2.9 vs. 0.9%), cranial nerve injury (0 vs. 2.8%), and xerostomia (2 vs. 0.9%). With the median follow-up of 41 months, 3‑year progression-free and overall survival rates were 72.7 vs. 73.4% (P = 0.488) and 86.3 vs. 83.6% (P = 0.938), respectively. CONCLUSION: SEQ and SIB provide excellent survival outcomes with few late toxicities. According to our study, SIB with a satisfactory dose-volume constraint to nearby critical organs is the technique of choice for NPC treatment due to its convenience.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This study was performed to compare the acute and late toxicities between sequential (SEQ) and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stage I-IVB NPCpatients were randomized to receive SEQ-IMRT or SIB-IMRT. SEQ-IMRT consisted of two plans: 2 Gy × 25 fractions to low-risk planning target volume (PTV) followed by a sequential boost (2 Gy × 10 fractions) to high-risk PTV, while SIB-IMRT treated low- and high-risk PTVs with doses of 56 and 70 Gy in 33 fractions. Toxicities and survival outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Between October 2010 and September 2015, of the 209 patients who completed treatment, 102 in the SEQ and 107 in the SIB arm were analyzed. The majority had undifferentiated squamous cell carcinoma (82%). Mucositis and dysphagia were the most common grade 3-5 acute toxicities. There were no statistically significant differences in the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 acute toxicities between the two arms (59.8% in SEQ vs. 58.9% in SIB; P = 0.892). Common grade 3-4 late toxicities for SEQ and SIB included hearing loss (2.9 vs. 8.4%), temporal lobe injury (2.9 vs. 0.9%), cranial nerve injury (0 vs. 2.8%), and xerostomia (2 vs. 0.9%). With the median follow-up of 41 months, 3‑year progression-free and overall survival rates were 72.7 vs. 73.4% (P = 0.488) and 86.3 vs. 83.6% (P = 0.938), respectively. CONCLUSION: SEQ and SIB provide excellent survival outcomes with few late toxicities. According to our study, SIB with a satisfactory dose-volume constraint to nearby critical organs is the technique of choice for NPC treatment due to its convenience.
Entities:
Keywords:
IMRT with sequential boost; IMRT with simultaneous integrated boost; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Survival; Toxicities
Authors: M A Hunt; M J Zelefsky; S Wolden; C S Chui; T LoSasso; K Rosenzweig; L Chong; S V Spirou; L Fromme; M Lumley; H A Amols; C C Ling; S A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Suzanne L Wolden; William C Chen; David G Pfister; Dennis H Kraus; Sean L Berry; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: E B Butler; B S Teh; W H Grant; B M Uhl; R B Kuppersmith; J K Chiu; D T Donovan; S Y Woo Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jian Min Tang; Xiu Mei Ma; Yan Li Hou; Li Yan Dai; Hong Bin Cao; Ming Ye; Yong Rui Bai Journal: J Radiat Res Date: 2014-03-09 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Sarin Kitpanit; Anna Lee; Ken L Pitter; Dan Fan; James C H Chow; Brian Neal; Zhiqiang Han; Pamela Fox; Kevin Sine; Dennis Mah; Lara A Dunn; Eric J Sherman; Loren Michel; Ian Ganly; Richard J Wong; Jay O Boyle; Marc A Cohen; Bhuvanesh Singh; Cameron W Brennan; Igor T Gavrilovic; Vaios Hatzoglou; Bernard O'Malley; Kaveh Zakeri; Yao Yu; Linda Chen; Daphna Y Gelblum; Jung Julie Kang; Sean M McBride; Chiaojung J Tsai; Nadeem Riaz; Nancy Y Lee Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2020-05-28
Authors: Olgun Elicin; Paul Martin Putora; Marco Siano; Martina A Broglie; Christian Simon; Daniel Zwahlen; Gerhard F Huber; Giorgio Ballerini; Lorenza Beffa; Roland Giger; Sacha Rothschild; Sandro V Negri; Pavel Dulguerov; Guido Henke Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Christiane Matuschek; Jan Haussmann; Edwin Bölke; Stephan Gripp; Patrick J Schuler; Bálint Tamaskovics; Peter Arne Gerber; Freddy-Joel Djiepmo-Njanang; Kai Kammers; Christian Plettenberg; Bahar Anooshahr; Klaus Orth; Wilfried Budach Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 3.481