| Literature DB >> 30782197 |
Sati Akbaba1,2,3, Thomas Held1,2, Kristin Lang1,2, Juliane Hoerner-Rieber1,2,3, Karim Zaoui4, Tobias Forster1,2, Stefan Rieken1,2,3, Peter Plinkert4, Juergen Debus1,2,3, Sebastian Adeberg5,6,7.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Salvage surgery of recurrent hypopharyngeal and laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) results in limited local control and survival rates. As a result of recent technological progress, radiotherapy (RT) has become a valuable, potentially curative therapeutic option. Thus, we aimed to determine prognostic factors for survival outcome in order to optimize patient selection for salvage radiotherapy after failure of first-line treatment with surgery alone in this special patient cohort.Entities:
Keywords: Function preservation; Recurrent hypopharynx and larynx carcinoma; Salvage radiotherapy; Squamous cell carcinoma
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30782197 PMCID: PMC6381740 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1238-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Treatment characteristics at first-line and second-line treatment, n = 75
| first-line treatment (surgery) | |
| number of previous surgeries | |
| 1 | 46 (61) |
| 2 | 17 (23) |
| 3 | 10 (13) |
| 4 | 2 (3) |
| total laryngetomy | 18 (24) |
| larynx-preserving surgery | 57 (76) |
| vocal cord tripping | 2 (3) |
| endoscopic laser resection | 21 (28) |
| partial laryngectomy | 34 (45) |
| unilateral ND | 10 (13) |
| bilateral ND | 27 (36) |
| ECS | 11 (30) |
| second-line treatment (RT/CRT) | |
| median EQD2 in Gy | 67 Gy (60–72 Gy) |
| median PTV1 | 101 cc (21–1949 cc) |
| median PTV2 | 740 cc (51–72 cc) |
| concomitant chemotherapy | 48 (64) |
| concomitant cetuximab | 10 (13) |
abbreviations: RT radiotherapy, CRT chemoradiotherapy, ECS extracapsular spread, EQD2 equivalent dose in 2 Gy single dose fractions, ND neck dissection, PTV planning target volume
Patient and tumor characteristics at first-line and second-line treatment, n = 75
| characteristic | No. (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| first-line treatment (surgery) | second-line treatment (RT/CRT) | |
| median age (years) | 59 (42–83) | 62 (46–83) |
| gender | ||
| male | 64 (85) | 64 (85) |
| female | 11 (15) | 11 (15) |
| Karnofsky performance score in % | ||
| 100 | 25 (33) | 12 (16) |
| 90 | 18 (24) | 23 (31) |
| 80 | 24 (32) | 17 (23) |
| 70 | 8 (11) | 17 (23) |
| 60 | none | 6 (8) |
| tumor site | ||
| glottic larynx | 46 (61) | 31 (41) |
| subglottic larynx | 3 (4) | 10 (13) |
| supraglottic larynx | 12 (16) | 8 (11) |
| hypopharynx | 14 (19) | 14 (19) |
| neopharynx | none | 12 (16) |
| UICC stage | ||
| I | 20 (27) | 16 (21) |
| II | 22 (29) | 8 (11) |
| III | 9 (12) | 21 (28) |
| IVA | 22 (29) | 19 (25) |
| IVB | 1 (1) | 10 (13) |
| IVC | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
| TNM stage | ||
| T1 | 22 (29) | 22 (29) |
| T2 | 25 (33) | 12 (16) |
| T3 | 14 (19) | 15 (20) |
| T4 | 14 (19) | 26 (35) |
| N0 | 51 (68) | 48 (64) |
| N1 | 3 (4) | 11 (15) |
| N2 | 20 (27) | 14 (19) |
| N3 | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
| M0 | 74 (99) | 73 (97) |
| M1 | 1 (1) | 2 (3) |
| G stage | ||
| G1 | 2 (3) | 2 (3) |
| G2 | 51 (68) | 49 (65) |
| G3 | 19 (25) | 21 (28) |
| Gx | 3 (4) | 3 (4) |
abbreviations: RT radiotherapy, CRT chemoradiotherapy, T tumor stage, N nodal stage, M metastasis stage, G grading, UICC Union Internationale Contre le Cancer
Results (n = 70)
| characteristics | 5-year survival | univariate analysis | multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%-KI) | HR (95%-KI) | ||||
| overall survival | |||||
| at first-line treatment (surgery) | |||||
| iT stage (T3/4 vs. T1/2) | 45% vs. 72% | 1.46 (1.01–2.11) | 0.041 | ||
| iN stage (N+ vs. N0) | 25% vs. 78% | 5.78 (2.66–12.59) | 0.000 | 2.50 (0.96–6.49) | 0.060 |
| at second-line treatment (RT/CRT) | |||||
| recurrent tumor site (others vs. | |||||
| glottis) | 42% vs. 89% | 4.70 (1.79–12.33) | 0.001 | 4.77 (1.00–22.70) | 0.050 |
| rKPS (≥90% vs. < 90%) | 68% vs. 36% | 0.55 (0.35–0.84) | 0.050 | ||
| chemotherapy (others vs. cisplatin weekly) | 35% vs. 64% | 2.37 (1.04–5.45) | 0.035 | ||
| local recurrence after RT | |||||
| (yes vs. no) | 25% vs. 74% | 3.10 (1.44–6.67) | 0.002 |
|
|
| metastases after RT (yes vs. no) | 3% vs. 70% | 3.44 (1.54–7.71) | 0.001 | ||
| local progression-free survival | |||||
| at first-line treatment (surgery) | |||||
| iN stage (N+ vs. N0) | 50% vs. 86% | 4.52 (1.60–12.72) | 0.002 | 3.62 (0.92–14.19) | 0.065 |
| iG stage (G3 vs. G1/2) | 59% vs. 82% | 2.77 (1.00–7.66) | 0.038 | ||
| at second-line treatment (RT/CRT) | |||||
| rG stage (G3 vs. G1/2) | 59% vs. 82% | 2.66 (1.04–7.80) | 0.036 | ||
| EQD2 (> 70 Gy vs. =70 Gy) | 90% vs. 68% | 0.25 (0.06–1.10) | 0.045 |
|
|
| chemotherapy (others vs. cisplatin weekly) | 46% vs. 86% | 5.78 (1.75–19.13) | 0.001 |
|
|
| distant progression-free survival | |||||
| at first-line treatment (surgery) | |||||
| iN stage (N+ vs. N0) | 40% vs. 89% | 6.19 (1.85–20.76) | 0.001 |
|
|
| iG stage (G3 vs. G1/2) | 65% vs. 85% | 3.06 (1.03–9.13) | 0.035 | 3.45 (0.98–12.23) | 0.055 |
| at second-line treatment (RT/CRT) | |||||
| rT stage (T3/4 vs. T1/2) | 70% vs. 90% | 3.30 (0.91–11.99) | 0.055 |
|
|
| rG stage (G3 vs. G1/2) | 65% vs. 85% | 3.12 (1.00–9.25) | 0.037 | 3.45 (0.98–12.23) | 0.054 |
| recurrent tumor site (others vs. | |||||
| glottis) | 68% vs. 100% | 6.02 (0.68–10.24) | 0.014 | ||
| PTV1 volume (=median vs. | |||||
| <median of 101 cc) | 65% vs. 87% | 3.85 (1.04–14.22) | 0.030 |
|
|
| chemotherapy (others vs. cisplatin weekly) | 57% vs. 82% | 3.27 (1.03–10.41) | 0.034 | ||
abbreviations: EQD2 equivalent dose to 2 Gy single fraction, HR hazard ratio, iT stage initial tumor stage, iN stage initial nodal stage, KPS Karnofsky performance score, RT radiotherapy, CRT chemoradiotherapy, G stage grading stage, rT stage recurrent tumor stage, PTV planning target volume
Fig. 1LPFS depends significantly on the use of concomitant systemic therapy with survival benefit for patients receiving cisplatin weekly chemotherapy vs. others (carboplatin/5-fluoruracil and cetuximab) (p = 0.006). 5-year LPFS amounts 86% vs. 43% for patients who received concomitant cisplatin weekly vs. patients who did not
Fig. 2LPFS depends significantly on the applied RT dose with survival benefit for patients receiving an EQD2 > 70 Gy (p = 0.032). Patients who received an EQD2 > 70 Gy show a 5-year LPFS of 90% vs. 68% compared with patients who received an EQD2 ≤ 70 Gy
Overview of acute and chronic toxicity (n = 70)
| characteristic | acute toxicity (n = 70) | chronic toxicity ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. (%) | No. (%) | ||||
| under RT and 6 weeks post RT | 3–6 months post RT | 12 months post RT | 24 months post RT | at last follow-up | |
| toxicity | |||||
| grade 1 | 10 (14) | 19 (27) | 22 (31) | 23 (33) | 17 (24) |
| grade 2 | 39 (56) | 21 (30) | 10 (14) | 6 (9) | 5 (7) |
| grade 3 | 14 (20) | 4 (6) | 3 (4) | 3 (4) | 3 (4) |
| grade 4 | 0 | 4 (6) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | |
| dysphagia | |||||
| grade 1 | 6 (9) | 7 (10) | 6 (9) | 6 (9) | 5 (7) |
| grade 2 | 28 (40) | 4 (6) | 5 (7) | 1 (1) | 0 |
| grade 3 | 4 (6) | 3 (4) | 3 (4) | 3 (4) | 3 (4) |
| odynophagia | |||||
| grade 1 | 8 (11) | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| grade 2 | 14 (20) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| grade 3 | 5 (7) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| mucositits | |||||
| grade 1 | 12 (17) | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| grade 2 | 36 (51) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| grade 3 | 2 (3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| dermatitis | |||||
| grade 1 | 19 (27) | 2 (3) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| grade 2 | 18 (26) | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| grade 3 | 4 (6) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| xerostomia | |||||
| grade 1 | 32 (46) | 30 (43) | 17 (24) | 13 (19) | 10 (14) |
| grade 2 | 12 17 () | 4 (6) | 2 (3) | 2 (3) | 2 (3) |
| grade 3 | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| hoarseness | |||||
| grade 1 | 16 (23) | 15 (21) | 13 (19) | 12 (17) | 10 (14) |
| grade 2 | 13 (19) | 7 (10) | 3 (4) | 1 (1) | 2 (3) |
| grade 3 | 3 (4) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 0 |
| fatigue | |||||
| grade 1 | 6 (9) | 3 (4) | 2 (3) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
| grade 2 | 6 (9) | 2 (3) | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 |
| dysgeusia | |||||
| grade 1 | 11 (16) | 14 (20) | 11 (16) | 8 (11) | 7 (10) |
| grade 2 | 20 (29) | 4 (6) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| dry cough | |||||
| grade 1 | 7 (10) | 5 (7) | 2 (3) | 2 (3) | 0 |
| grade 2 | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| lymphedema | |||||
| grade 1 | 6 (9) | 12 (17) | 2 (3) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
| grade 2 | 8 (11) | 2 (3) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 4 (6) |
| grade 3 | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
| grade 4a | 0 | 3 (4) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| fistula | |||||
| laryngoesophageal | 0 | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| laryngocutaneous | 0 | 0 | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 |
| wound healing disorder | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (1) | 0 |
| gastric tube dependence | 24 (34) | 9 (13) | 5 (7) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
abbreviations: RT radiotherapy
awith tracheotomy for acute dyspnea