Wai Tong Ng1, Yoke Lim Soong2, Yong Chan Ahn3, Hussain AlHussain4, Horace C W Choi1, June Corry5, Vincent Grégoire6, Kevin J Harrington7, Chao Su Hu8, Kenneth Jensen9, Dora L Kwong10, Johannes A Langendijk11, Quynh Thu Le12, Nancy Y Lee13, Jin Ching Lin14, Tai Xiang Lu15, William M Mendenhall16, Brian O'Sullivan17, Enis Ozyar18, Jian Ji Pan19, Lester J Peters20, Sharon S Poh2, David I Rosenthal21, Giuseppe Sanguineti22, Yungan Tao23, Joseph T Wee2, Sue S Yom24, Melvin L K Chua2, Anne W M Lee25. 1. Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 2. Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 5. Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Center for Molecular Imaging, Oncology, and Radiotherapy, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France. 7. Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China. 9. Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 10. Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Hong Kong and Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong. 11. Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, NRG Oncology and HNCIG, Stanford, California. 13. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York. 14. Department of Radiation Oncology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 15. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. 16. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida. 17. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. 18. Department of Radiation Oncology, Acibadem University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. 19. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital and Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China. 20. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 21. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 22. Department of Radiation Oncology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. 23. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France. 24. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 25. Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Hospital and University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. Electronic address: awmlee@hku.hk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reirradiation for locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is challenging because prior radiation dose delivered in the first course is often close to the tolerance limit of surrounding normal structures. A delicate balance between achieving local salvage and minimizing treatment toxicities is needed. However, high-level evidence is lacking because available reports are mostly retrospective studies on small series of patients. Pragmatic consensus guidelines, based on an extensive literature search and the pooling of opinions by leading specialists, will provide a useful reference to assist decision-making for these difficult decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A thorough review of available literature on recurrent NPC was conducted. A set of questions and preliminary draft guideline was circulated to a panel of international specialists with extensive experience in this field for voting on controversial areas and comments. A refined second proposal, based on a summary of the initial voting and different opinions expressed, was recirculated to the whole panel for review and reconsideration. The current guideline was based on majority voting after repeated iteration for final agreement. RESULTS: The initial round of questions showed variations in clinical practice even among the specialists, reflecting the lack of high-quality supporting data and the difficulties in formulating clinical decisions. Through exchange of comments and iterative revisions, recommendations with high-to-moderate agreement were formulated on general treatment strategies and details of reirradiation (including patient selection, targets contouring, dose prescription, and constraints). CONCLUSION: This paper provides useful reference on radical salvage treatment strategies for recurrent NPC and optimization of reirradiation through review of published evidence and consensus building. However, the final decision by the attending clinician must include full consideration of an individual patient's condition, understanding of the delicate balance between risk and benefits, and acceptance of risk of complications.
PURPOSE: Reirradiation for locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is challenging because prior radiation dose delivered in the first course is often close to the tolerance limit of surrounding normal structures. A delicate balance between achieving local salvage and minimizing treatment toxicities is needed. However, high-level evidence is lacking because available reports are mostly retrospective studies on small series of patients. Pragmatic consensus guidelines, based on an extensive literature search and the pooling of opinions by leading specialists, will provide a useful reference to assist decision-making for these difficult decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A thorough review of available literature on recurrent NPC was conducted. A set of questions and preliminary draft guideline was circulated to a panel of international specialists with extensive experience in this field for voting on controversial areas and comments. A refined second proposal, based on a summary of the initial voting and different opinions expressed, was recirculated to the whole panel for review and reconsideration. The current guideline was based on majority voting after repeated iteration for final agreement. RESULTS: The initial round of questions showed variations in clinical practice even among the specialists, reflecting the lack of high-quality supporting data and the difficulties in formulating clinical decisions. Through exchange of comments and iterative revisions, recommendations with high-to-moderate agreement were formulated on general treatment strategies and details of reirradiation (including patient selection, targets contouring, dose prescription, and constraints). CONCLUSION: This paper provides useful reference on radical salvage treatment strategies for recurrent NPC and optimization of reirradiation through review of published evidence and consensus building. However, the final decision by the attending clinician must include full consideration of an individual patient's condition, understanding of the delicate balance between risk and benefits, and acceptance of risk of complications.
Authors: Thomas Held; Thomas Tessonnier; Henrik Franke; Sebastian Regnery; Lukas Bauer; Katharina Weusthof; Semi Harrabi; Klaus Herfarth; Andrea Mairani; Jürgen Debus; Sebastian Adeberg Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.309
Authors: Wing Lok Chan; James Chung Hang Chow; Zhi-Yuan Xu; Jishi Li; Wing Tung Gobby Kwong; Wai Tong Ng; Anne W M Lee Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Ying-Huai Wang; Hong-Zheng Cheng; Kun Liu; Bin-Lin Cai; Yi Luo; Dan Kan; Jie Zhang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 1.817