| Literature DB >> 32095592 |
Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen1,2, Janne Gornitzka3, Pia Andersen3, Morten Nielsen1, Lars Johnsen1, Anders Smedegaard Bertelsen1, Ruta Zukauskaite2,3, Jørgen Johansen2,3, Christian Rønn Hansen1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: Head and neck cancer; Health economics; Overall treatment time; Radiobiology; Radiotherapy; Workflow management
Year: 2019 PMID: 32095592 PMCID: PMC7033770 DOI: 10.1016/j.tipsro.2019.01.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol ISSN: 2405-6324
Overview of DAHANCA treatment regimens used from 2002 to 2017.
| Conventional 2.0 Gy per fraction | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTV1 | CTV2 | CTV3 | OTT threshold | ||||||||||
| Total dose | # frac | dose/frac | frac/week | Total dose | # frac | dose/frac | frac/week | Total dose | # frac | dose/frac | days | ||
| Conventional fractionation | 66 | 33 | 2 | 5 | 46 | 23 | 2 | 5 | 48 | ||||
| 68 | 34 | 2 | 5 | 46 | 23 | 2 | 5 | 48 | |||||
| 66 | 33 | 2 | 5 | 48 | 24 | 2 | 5 | 48 | |||||
| 68 | 34 | 2 | 5 | 48 | 24 | 2 | 5 | 48 | |||||
| Moderately accelerated | 66 | 33 | 2 | 6 | 46 | 23 | 2 | 6 | 41 | ||||
| 68 | 34 | 2 | 6 | 46 | 23 | 2 | 6 | 41 | |||||
| 66 | 33 | 2 | 6 | 48 | 24 | 2 | 6 | 41 | |||||
| 68 | 34 | 2 | 6 | 48 | 24 | 2 | 6 | 41 | |||||
| Accelerated hyperfractionated | 76 | 56 | 1.36 | 10 | 44.5 | 33 | 1.35 | 10 | 41 | ||||
| Conventional fractionation | 66 | 33 | 2 | 5 | 60 | 33 | 1.82 | 5 | 50 | 33 | 1.52 | 5 | 48 |
| 68 | 34 | 2 | 5 | 60 | 34 | 1.76 | 5 | 50 | 34 | 1.47 | 5 | 48 | |
| Moderately accelerated | 66 | 33 | 2 | 6 | 60 | 33 | 1.82 | 6 | 50 | 33 | 1.52 | 6 | 41 |
| 68 | 34 | 2 | 6 | 60 | 34 | 1.76 | 6 | 50 | 34 | 1.47 | 6 | 41 | |
| Accelerated hyperfractionated | 76 | 56 | 1.36 | 10 | 66 | 56 | 1.18 | 10 | 56 | 56 | 1 | 10 | 41 |
Fig. 1Average overall treatment time. Mean OTT of accelerated and conventional fractionated treatments per year. Whiskers indicate standard errors.
Frequency of protocol deviations per group are given for conventional and accelerated treatment regimes. Resulting p-values of Kruskal-Wallis test between the groups are given as well as 95% CI for each group.
| Conventional | Accelerated | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Threshold deviations | 95% CI | p-value | Threshold deviations | 95% CI | p-value |
| A [<2007] | 66% | 58–73% | 0.046 | 31% | 25–36% | <0.001 |
| B [2007–2012] | 56% | 50–62% | <0.001 | 19% | 15–23% | 0.64 |
| C [2013–2015] | 27% | 21–33% | 0.003 | 17% | 13–22% | <0.001 |
| D [2015–2017] | 13% | 7–20% | 3% | 1.4–7% | ||
Fig. 2Fraction of protocol deviations. Fraction of patients for whom OTT violated national guidelines per year. Whiskers indicate 68% confidence interval, corresponding to 1 standard deviation.