163
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Increase in Tumor Control and Normal Tissue Complication Probabilities in Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer for Dose-Escalated Intensity-Modulated Photon and Proton Therapy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Presently used radiochemotherapy regimens result in moderate local control rates for patients with advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Dose escalation (DE) may be an option to improve patient outcome, but may also increase the risk of toxicities in healthy tissue. The presented treatment planning study evaluated the feasibility of two DE levels for advanced HNSCC patients, planned with either intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMXT) or proton therapy (IMPT).

          Materials and methods

          For 45 HNSCC patients, IMXT and IMPT treatment plans were created including DE via a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in the high-risk volume, while maintaining standard fractionation with 2 Gy per fraction in the remaining target volume. Two DE levels for the SIB were compared: 2.3 and 2.6 Gy. Treatment plan evaluation included assessment of tumor control probabilities (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP).

          Results

          An increase of approximately 10% in TCP was estimated between the DE levels. A pronounced high-dose rim surrounding the SIB volume was identified in IMXT treatment. Compared to IMPT, this extra dose slightly increased the TCP values and to a larger extent the NTCP values. For both modalities, the higher DE level led only to a small increase in NTCP values (mean differences <2%) in all models, except for the risk of aspiration, which increased on average by 8 and 6% with IMXT and IMPT, respectively, but showed a considerable patient dependence.

          Conclusion

          Both DE levels appear applicable to patients with IMXT and IMPT since all calculated NTCP values, except for one, increased only little for the higher DE level. The estimated TCP increase is of relevant magnitude. The higher DE schedule needs to be investigated carefully in the setting of a prospective clinical trial, especially regarding toxicities caused by high local doses that lack a sound dose–response description, e.g., ulcers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: EHNS-ESMO-ESTRO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Radiation dose-response of human tumors.

            The dose of radiation that locally controls human tumors treated electively or for gross disease is rarely well defined. These doses can be useful in understanding the dose requirements of novel therapies featuring inhomogeneous dosimetry and in an adjuvant setting. The goal of this study was to compute the dose of radiation that locally controls 50% (TCD50) of tumors in human subjects. Logit regression was used with data collected from single institutions or from combinations of local control data accumulated from several institutions treating the same disease. 90 dose response curves were calculated; 62 of macroscopic tumor therapy, 28 of elective therapy with surgery for primary control. The mean and median TCD50 for gross disease were 50.0 and 51.9 Gy, respectively. The mean and median TCD50 for microscopic disease control were 39.3 and 37.9 Gy, respectively. At the TCD50, an additional dose of 1 Gy controlled an additional 2.5% (median) additional patients with macroscopic disease and 4.2% (median) additional patients with microscopic disease. For both macro- and microscopic disease, an increase of 1% of dose at the TCD50 increased control rates approximately 1% (median) or 2-3% (mean). A predominance of dose response curves had shallow slopes accounting for the discrepancy between mean and median values. Doses to control microscopic disease are approximately 12 Gy less than that required to control macroscopic disease, and are about 79% of the dose required to control macroscopic disease. The percentage increase in cures expected for a 1% increase in dose is similar for macroscopic microscopic disease, with a median value of approximately 1%/% and a mean of approximately 2.7%/%.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Predictive modelling for swallowing dysfunction after primary (chemo)radiation: results of a prospective observational study.

              The purpose of this large multicentre prospective cohort study was to identify which dose volume histogram parameters and pre-treatment factors are most important to predict physician-rated and patient-rated radiation-induced swallowing dysfunction (RISD) in order to develop predictive models for RISD after curative (chemo) radiotherapy ((CH) RT). The study population consisted of 354 consecutive head and neck cancer patients treated with (CH) RT. The primary endpoint was grade 2 or more swallowing dysfunction according to the RTOG/EORTC late radiation morbidity scoring criteria at 6 months after (CH) RT. The secondary endpoints were patient-rated swallowing complaints as assessed with the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 questionnaire. To select the most predictive variables a multivariate logistic regression analysis with bootstrapping was used. At 6 months after (CH) RT the bootstrapping procedure revealed that a model based on the mean dose to the superior pharyngeal constrictor muscle (PCM) and mean dose to the supraglottic larynx was most predictive. For the secondary endpoints different predictive models were found: for problems with swallowing liquids the most predictive factors were the mean dose to the supraglottic larynx and radiation technique (3D-CRT versus IMRT). For problems with swallowing soft food the mean dose to the middle PCM, age (18-65 versus >65 years), tumour site (naso/oropharynx versus other sites) and radiation technique (3D-CRT versus IMRT) were the most predictive factors. For problems with swallowing solid food the most predictive factors were the mean dose to the superior PCM, the mean dose to the supraglottic larynx and age (18-65 versus >65 years). And for choking when swallowing the V60 of the oesophageal inlet muscle and the mean dose to the supraglottic larynx were the most predictive factors. Physician-rated and patient-rated RISD in head and neck cancer patients treated with (CH) RT cannot be predicted with univariate relationships between the dose distribution in a single organ at risk and an endpoint. Separate predictive models are needed for different endpoints and factors other than dose volume histogram parameters are important as well. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Oncol
                Front Oncol
                Front. Oncol.
                Frontiers in Oncology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2234-943X
                20 November 2015
                2015
                : 5
                : 256
                Affiliations
                [1] 1OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden – Rossendorf , Dresden, Germany
                [2] 2German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden , Dresden, Germany
                [3] 3German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) , Heidelberg, Germany
                [4] 4Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden , Dresden, Germany
                [5] 5Institute of Radiooncology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden – Rossendorf , Dresden, Germany
                Author notes

                Edited by: Marco Durante, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Germany

                Reviewed by: Wenyin Shi, Thomas Jefferson University, USA; Laura Cella, National Research Council, Italy

                *Correspondence: Annika Jakobi, annika.jakobi@ 123456oncoray.de ; Armin Lühr, armin.luehr@ 123456oncoray.de

                Annika Jakobi and Armin Lühr have contributed equally to this work.

                Present address: Rosalind Perrin, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland

                Specialty section: This article was submitted to Radiation Oncology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology

                Article
                10.3389/fonc.2015.00256
                4653282
                58fb0aab-7749-4794-802f-a8ccad6dcad0
                Copyright © 2015 Jakobi, Lühr, Stützer, Bandurska-Luque, Löck, Krause, Baumann, Perrin and Richter.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 28 August 2015
                : 06 November 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 42, Pages: 9, Words: 6913
                Funding
                Funded by: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 10.13039/501100002347
                Award ID: BMBF-03Z1N51
                Categories
                Oncology
                Original Research

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                photon radiotherapy,proton radiotherapy,tumor control probability,normal tissue complication probability,head-and-neck cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article