L H Braun1, K Braun2, B Frey1, S M Wolpert3, H Löwenheim3, D Zips1, S Welz1. 1. Universitätsklinik für Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 2. Universitätsklinik für Hals‑, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Straße 5, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. Katharina.Braun@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 3. Universitätsklinik für Hals‑, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Straße 5, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cochlea sparing can reduce late ototoxicity in head and neck cancer patients treated with cisplatin-based radiochemotherapy. In this situation, a mean cochlear dose (MCD) constraint of 10 Gy has been suggested by others based on the dose-effect relationship of clinical data. We aimed to investigate whether this is feasible for primary and postoperative radiochemotherapy in locoregionally advanced tumors without compromising target coverage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients treated with definitive and ten patients treated with adjuvant intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and concurrent chemotherapy were investigated. The cochleae and a planning risk volume (PRV) with a 3 mm margin were newly delineated, whereas target volumes and other organs at risk were not changed. The initial plan was recalculated with a constraint of 10 Gy (MCD) on the low-risk side. The quality of the resulting plan was evaluated using the difference in the equivalent uniform dose (EUD). RESULTS: A unilateral MCD of below 10 Gy could be achieved in every patient. The mean MCD was 6.8 Gy in the adjuvant cohort and 7.6 Gy in the definitive cohort, while the non-spared side showed a mean MCD of 18.7 and 30.3 Gy, respectively. The mean PRV doses were 7.8 and 8.4 Gy for the spared side and 18.5 and 29.8 Gy for the non-spared side, respectively. The mean EUD values of the initial and recalculated plans were identical. Target volume was not compromised. CONCLUSION: Unilateral cochlea sparing with an MCD of less than 10 Gy is feasible without compromising the target volume or dose coverage in locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer patients treated with IMRT. A prospective evaluation of the clinical benefit of this approach as well as further investigation of the dose-response relationship for future treatment modification appears promising.
BACKGROUND: Cochlea sparing can reduce late ototoxicity in head and neck cancerpatients treated with cisplatin-based radiochemotherapy. In this situation, a mean cochlear dose (MCD) constraint of 10 Gy has been suggested by others based on the dose-effect relationship of clinical data. We aimed to investigate whether this is feasible for primary and postoperative radiochemotherapy in locoregionally advanced tumors without compromising target coverage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients treated with definitive and ten patients treated with adjuvant intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and concurrent chemotherapy were investigated. The cochleae and a planning risk volume (PRV) with a 3 mm margin were newly delineated, whereas target volumes and other organs at risk were not changed. The initial plan was recalculated with a constraint of 10 Gy (MCD) on the low-risk side. The quality of the resulting plan was evaluated using the difference in the equivalent uniform dose (EUD). RESULTS: A unilateral MCD of below 10 Gy could be achieved in every patient. The mean MCD was 6.8 Gy in the adjuvant cohort and 7.6 Gy in the definitive cohort, while the non-spared side showed a mean MCD of 18.7 and 30.3 Gy, respectively. The mean PRV doses were 7.8 and 8.4 Gy for the spared side and 18.5 and 29.8 Gy for the non-spared side, respectively. The mean EUD values of the initial and recalculated plans were identical. Target volume was not compromised. CONCLUSION: Unilateral cochlea sparing with an MCD of less than 10 Gy is feasible without compromising the target volume or dose coverage in locoregionally advanced head and neck cancerpatients treated with IMRT. A prospective evaluation of the clinical benefit of this approach as well as further investigation of the dose-response relationship for future treatment modification appears promising.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cisplatin; Ear, inner; Organs at risk; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; Toxicity
Authors: Charlotte L Brouwer; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Jean Bourhis; Wilfried Budach; Cai Grau; Vincent Grégoire; Marcel van Herk; Anne Lee; Philippe Maingon; Chris Nutting; Brian O'Sullivan; Sandro V Porceddu; David I Rosenthal; Nanna M Sijtsema; Johannes A Langendijk Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Heather D Pacholke; Robert J Amdur; Ilona M Schmalfuss; Debbie Louis; William M Mendenhall Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Charlie C Pan; Avraham Eisbruch; Julia S Lee; Rhonda M Snorrason; Randall K Ten Haken; Paul R Kileny Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marije R Vergeer; Patricia A H Doornaert; Derek H F Rietveld; C René Leemans; Ben J Slotman; Johannes A Langendijk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-12-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Peter G Hawkins; Jae Y Lee; Yanping Mao; Pin Li; Michael Green; Francis P Worden; Paul L Swiecicki; Michelle L Mierzwa; Matthew E Spector; Matthew J Schipper; Avraham Eisbruch Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Nam P Nguyen; Misty Ceizyk; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Thomas Sroka; Siyoung Jang; Rihan Khan; Angela Locke; Gabby Albala; Christina Truong; Juan Godinez; Richard Vo; Lexie Smith-Raymond Journal: Tumori Date: 2012-11