| Literature DB >> 30025444 |
Won Kyung Cho1, Dongryul Oh1, Eonju Lee2, Tae Gyu Kim2, Hyebin Lee3, Heerim Nam3, Jae Myoung Noh1, Yong Chan Ahn1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to report the clinical outcomes following selective neck irradiation (SNI) with lower elective radiation therapy (RT) dose in treating nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) patients.Entities:
Keywords: Lymphatic irradiation; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Radiotherapy
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30025444 PMCID: PMC6473294 DOI: 10.4143/crt.2018.240
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Res Treat ISSN: 1598-2998 Impact factor: 4.679
Fig. 1.The policy of selective neck irradiation with differential radiation dose plan employed in the current study is illustrated: (A) 66-72 Gy to gross tumor volume (GTV) of primary tumor and metastatic lymph nodes; (B) 54-60 Gy to clinical target volume at high risk (CTV-HR) that included 1.0-1.5 cm margin to nodal GTV; and (C) 36 Gy to clinical target volume at low risk (CTV-LR) that included 2-2.5 cm distal margin from CTV-HR.
Patients’ characteristics
| Characteristic | No. (%) (n=347) |
|---|---|
| 51 (16-86) | |
| Male | 267 (76.9) |
| Female | 80 (23.1) |
| ECOG 0-1 | 336 (96.8) |
| ECOG 2 | 11 (3.2) |
| Keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma | 56 (17.0) |
| Non-keratinizing carcinoma, differentiated type | 67 (20.4) |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 197 (59.9) |
| Unclassified | 9 (2.7) |
| CT | 3 (0.9) |
| CT, MRI | 51 (14.7) |
| CT, FDG-PET | 236 (68.0) |
| CT, MRI, FDG-PET | 57 (16.4) |
| cT1 | 157 (45.2) |
| cT2 | 45 (13.0) |
| cT3 | 80 (23.1) |
| cT4 | 65 (18.7) |
| cN0 | 50 (14.4) |
| cN1 | 97 (28.0) |
| cN2 | 148 (42.7) |
| cN3 | 52 (15.0) |
| RT alone | 58 (16.7) |
| NAC+RT | 1 (0.3) |
| CCRT alone | 188 (54.2) |
| NAC+CCRT | 10 (2.9) |
| CCRT+AC | 89 (25.6) |
| NAC+CCRT+AC | 1 (0.3) |
| 3D-CRT | 152 (43.8) |
| IMRT | 195 (56.2) |
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; FDG, 5-fluorodeoxyglucose; PET, positron emission tomography; RT, radiation therapy; NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; AC, adjuvant chemotherapy; 3D-CRT, 3 dimensional conformal RT; IMRT, intensity-modulated RT.
Fig. 2.Patterns of failure in 100 patients.
Fig. 3.The sites of regional failures in relation to target volume and detail of seven patients who developed regional failure in or outside clinical target volume at low risk (CTV-LR). GTV, gross tumor volume; CTV-HR, clinical target volume at high risk. RT, radiotherapy; NED, no evidence of disease; DOD, dead of disease; M, male.
Comparison of regional control rates and survival between the current study and other studies employing entire neck irradiation
| Study | No. of patients | Median FU (mo) | Regional control rate | Survival outcomes (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wolden et al. (2006) [ | 74 | 35 | 93% at 3 yr | OS 83 at 3 yr |
| DFS 67 at 3 yr | ||||
| Wong et al. (2010) [ | 175 | 34 | 93.3% at 3 yr | OS 87.2 at 3 yr |
| DMFS 86.6 at 3 yr | ||||
| Wang et al. (2013) [ | 300 | 80.2 | 95.1% at 4 yr | OS 96.1 at 4 yr |
| DMFS 87.4 at 4 yr | ||||
| Au et al. (2018) [ | 3,328 | 80.2 | 91.5% at 8 yr | OS 68.5 at 8 yr |
| DFS 62.6 at 8 yr | ||||
| Current study | 347 | 68.1 | 92.6% at 3 yr | OS 87.1 at 3 yr |
| DFS 74.7 at 3 yr |
FU, follow-up; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; DMFS, distant metastasis-free survival.