| Literature DB >> 35155296 |
Anjali Sachan1, Seema Gupta1, Navin Singh2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multimodality treatment is required for the management of head and neck cancer. Functional impairment and toxicities associated with surgery and radiation accentuate the need to develop innovative therapeutic strategies in the management of these patients to improve survival and reduce toxicity. In this study, we have compared treatment effects in patients of advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer treated by open field and 3DCRT treatment planning techniques.Entities:
Keywords: Dose Response; Head and Neck Cancer; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Effects; Radiotherapy, Conformal
Year: 2022 PMID: 35155296 PMCID: PMC8819266 DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2007-1132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Phys Eng ISSN: 2251-7200
Distribution of cases in two arms
| Frequency | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 21 | 52.5 |
|
| 19 | 47.5 |
|
| 40 | 100.0 |
3DCRT: Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy
Tumor details of head and neck squamous cell cancer patients
| Variable | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| LARYNX | 14 | 35.0 |
| OROPHARYNX | 26 | 65.0 |
| Total | 40 | 100.0 |
|
| ||
| BASE OF TONGUE | 18 | 45.0 |
| SOFT PALATE | 3 | 7.5 |
| SUPRAGLOTTIC LARYNX | 14 | 35.0 |
| TONSIL | 4 | 10.0 |
| VALLECULA | 1 | 2.5 |
| Total | 40 | 100.0 |
|
| ||
| M/D | 29 | 72.5 |
| P/D | 2 | 5.0 |
| W/D | 9 | 22.5 |
| Total | 40 | 100.0 |
|
| ||
| T1 | 1 | 2.5 |
| T2 | 4 | 10.0 |
| T3 | 26 | 65.0 |
| T4A | 7 | 17.5 |
| T4B | 2 | 5.0 |
| Total | 40 | 100.0 |
|
| ||
| N0 | 8 | 20.0 |
| N1 | 8 | 20.0 |
| N2 | 1 | 2.5 |
| N2A | 6 | 15.0 |
| N2B | 2 | 5.0 |
| N2C | 8 | 20.0 |
| N3B | 7 | 17.5 |
| Total | 40 | 100.0 |
|
| 15 | 37.5 |
|
| 16 | 40.0 |
|
| 9 | 22.5 |
|
| 40 | 100.0 |
IVA, IVB; Nodal tumor stage
Distribution of patients by radiation induced dermatitis and mucositis and response
| Variables | Open Technique (Frequency) | 3DCRT Technique (Frequency) | χ2 (df) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||
|
| 10 | 10 | 0.1.00(1) | 0.752 |
|
| 9 | 11 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| 19 | 2 | 0.358(1) | 0.550 |
|
| 16 | 3 | ||
|
| ||||
| Grade1 | 1 | 12 | 13.201(2) | 0.001 |
| Grade 2 | 16 | 9 | ||
| Grade 3 | 2 | .0 | ||
|
| ||||
| Grade1 | 1 | 1 | 1.591(2) | 0.451 |
| Grade 2 | 9 | 14 | ||
| Grade 3 | 9 | 6 | ||
|
| ||||
| Grade1 | 9 | 12 | 0.530(2) | 0.767 |
| Grade 2 | 3 | 2 | ||
| Grade 3 | - | - | ||
3DCRT: Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy
Mean target coverage and doses to organ at risks in two arms.
| Radiotherapy Technique | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open Technique (N=19) Mean ± SD | 3DCRT (N=21) Mean ± SD | Df | P-value | |
|
| 98.34% ± 0.014 | 97.44% ± 0.013 | 38 | 0.822 |
| 44.00 ± 10.07 | 44.71 ±1.11 | 38 | 0.097 | |
|
| 42.88± 10.41 | 41.30 ± 7.96 | 38 | 0.294 |
|
| 51.98± 13.66 | 47.95± 5.70 | 38 | 0.202 |
|
| 51.75± 13.83 | 46.74 ± 10.20 | 38 | 0.866 |
SD: Standard Deviation, 3DCRT: Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy, Df: Degree of freedom, PTV: Planning Target Volume