skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Use of a Conventional Low Neck Field (LNF) and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT): No Clinical Detriment of IMRT to an Anterior LNF During the Treatment of Head-and Neck-Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To determine differences in clinical outcomes using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or a standard low neck field (LNF) to treat low neck. Methods and Materials: This is a retrospective, single-institution study. Ninety-one patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were treated with curative intent. According to physician preference, some patients were treated with LNF (Planning Target Volume 3) field using a single anterior photon field matched to the IMRT field. Field junctions were not feathered. The endpoints were time to failure and use of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (as a surrogate of laryngeal edema causing aspiration), and analysis was done with {chi}{sup 2} and log-rank tests. Results: Median follow-up was 21 months (range, 2-89 months). Median age was 60 years. Thirty-seven patients (41%) were treated with LNF, 84% were Stage III or IV. A PEG tube was required in 30%, as opposed to 33% without the use of LNF. Node 2 or 3 neck disease was treated more commonly without LNF (38% vs. 24%, p = 0.009). Failures occurred in 12 patients (13%). Only 1 patient treated with LNF failed regionally, 4.5 cm above the match line. The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 87% andmore » 79% with LNF and without LNF, respectively (p = 0.2), and the 3-year LR failure rate was 4% and 21%, respectively (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Using LNF to treat the low neck did not increase the risk of regional failure 'in early T and early N diseases' or decrease PEG tube requirements.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1];  [3];  [4];  [1];  [3];  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  2. Department of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  4. Department of Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21491538
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 79; Journal Issue: 1; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.10.034; PII: S0360-3016(09)03427-0; Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; CARCINOMAS; HEAD; NECK; RADIOTHERAPY; STOMACH; TOXICITY; TUBES; BODY; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; DISEASES; GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT; MEDICINE; NEOPLASMS; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANS; RADIOLOGY; THERAPY

Citation Formats

Turaka, Aruna, Li Tianyu, Nicolaou, Nicos, Lango, Miriam N., Burtness, Barbara, Horwitz, Eric M., Ridge, John A., and Feigenberg, Steven J., E-mail: sfeigenberg@umm.ed. Use of a Conventional Low Neck Field (LNF) and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT): No Clinical Detriment of IMRT to an Anterior LNF During the Treatment of Head-and Neck-Cancer. United States: N. p., 2011. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.10.034.
Turaka, Aruna, Li Tianyu, Nicolaou, Nicos, Lango, Miriam N., Burtness, Barbara, Horwitz, Eric M., Ridge, John A., & Feigenberg, Steven J., E-mail: sfeigenberg@umm.ed. Use of a Conventional Low Neck Field (LNF) and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT): No Clinical Detriment of IMRT to an Anterior LNF During the Treatment of Head-and Neck-Cancer. United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.10.034.
Turaka, Aruna, Li Tianyu, Nicolaou, Nicos, Lango, Miriam N., Burtness, Barbara, Horwitz, Eric M., Ridge, John A., and Feigenberg, Steven J., E-mail: sfeigenberg@umm.ed. 2011. "Use of a Conventional Low Neck Field (LNF) and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT): No Clinical Detriment of IMRT to an Anterior LNF During the Treatment of Head-and Neck-Cancer". United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.10.034.
@article{osti_21491538,
title = {Use of a Conventional Low Neck Field (LNF) and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT): No Clinical Detriment of IMRT to an Anterior LNF During the Treatment of Head-and Neck-Cancer},
author = {Turaka, Aruna and Li Tianyu and Nicolaou, Nicos and Lango, Miriam N. and Burtness, Barbara and Horwitz, Eric M. and Ridge, John A. and Feigenberg, Steven J., E-mail: sfeigenberg@umm.ed},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To determine differences in clinical outcomes using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or a standard low neck field (LNF) to treat low neck. Methods and Materials: This is a retrospective, single-institution study. Ninety-one patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were treated with curative intent. According to physician preference, some patients were treated with LNF (Planning Target Volume 3) field using a single anterior photon field matched to the IMRT field. Field junctions were not feathered. The endpoints were time to failure and use of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (as a surrogate of laryngeal edema causing aspiration), and analysis was done with {chi}{sup 2} and log-rank tests. Results: Median follow-up was 21 months (range, 2-89 months). Median age was 60 years. Thirty-seven patients (41%) were treated with LNF, 84% were Stage III or IV. A PEG tube was required in 30%, as opposed to 33% without the use of LNF. Node 2 or 3 neck disease was treated more commonly without LNF (38% vs. 24%, p = 0.009). Failures occurred in 12 patients (13%). Only 1 patient treated with LNF failed regionally, 4.5 cm above the match line. The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 87% and 79% with LNF and without LNF, respectively (p = 0.2), and the 3-year LR failure rate was 4% and 21%, respectively (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Using LNF to treat the low neck did not increase the risk of regional failure 'in early T and early N diseases' or decrease PEG tube requirements.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.10.034},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 1,
volume = 79,
place = {United States},
year = 2011,
month = 1
}
  • Purpose: To evaluate the effect of deformable vs. rigid registration of pre-treatment 18F-FDG-PET-CT to intra-treatment 18F-FDG-PET-CT on different standardized uptake value (SUV) parameters and investigate which parameters correlate best with post-treatment response in patients undergoing IMRT for HNC. Methods: Pre-treatment and intra-treatment PET-CT (after 20Gy) scans were acquired, in addition to a 12 week post-treatment PET-CT to assess treatment response. Primary and lymph node gross tumor volumes (GTV-PRI and GTV-LN) were contoured on the pre-treatment CT. These contours were then mapped to intra-treatment PET images via rigid and deformable registration. Absolute changes from pre- to intra-treatment scans for rigid andmore » deformable registration were extracted for the following parameters: SUV-MAX, SUV-MEAN, SUV-20%, SUV-40%, and SUV-60% (SUV-X% is the minimum SUV to the highest-intensity X% volume). Results: Thirty-eight patients were evaluated, with 27 available for classification as complete or incomplete response (CR/ICR). The pre-treatment average tumor volumes for the patients were 24.05cm{sup 3} for GTV-PRI and 23.4cm{sup 3} for GTV-LN. For GTV-PRI, there was no statistically significant difference between rigid vs. deformable registration across all ΔSUV parameters. For GTV-LN contours, all parameters were significantly different except for ΔSUV-MAX. For deformably-registered GTV-PRI, changes in the following metrics were significantly different for CR vs. ICR: SUV-MEAN(p=0.003), SUV-20%(p=0.02), SUV-40%(p=0.02), and SUV-60%(p=0.008). The following cutoff values separated CR from ICR with high sensitivity and specificity: ΔSUV-MEAN=1.49, ΔSUV-20%=2.39, ΔSUV-40%=1.80 and ΔSUV-60%=1.31. Corresponding areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristics curve were 0.90, 0.81, 0.81, and 0.85, respectively. Conclusion: Rigidly and deformably registered contours yielded statistically similar SUV parameters for GTV-PRI, but not GTV-LN. This implies that neither registration should be solely relied upon for nodal GTVs. Of the four SUV parameters found to be predictive of CR vs. ICR, SUV-MEAN was the strongest. Preliminary results show promise for using intra-treatment 18F-FDG-PET-CT with deformable registration to predict treatment response.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the prognostic value of the volume reduction rate (VRR) in patients with head-and-neck cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: Seventy-six patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) and another 76 with hypopharyngeal cancer (HPC) were enrolled in volumetric analysis. All patients received allocated radiotherapy courses. Adaptive computed tomography was done 4 to 5 weeks after the start of IMRT. Primary tumor volume measurement was derived using separate images for the pretreatment gross tumor volume (pGTV) and the interval gross tumor volume. Results: In the OPC group, the pGTV ranged from 6.6 to 242.6 mL (mean, 49.9more » mL), whereas the value of the VRR ranged from 0.014 to 0.74 (mean, 0.43). In HPC patients, the pGTV ranged from 4.1 to 152.4 mL (mean, 35.6 mL), whereas the VRR ranged from -1.15 to 0.79 (mean, 0.33). Multivariate analysis of the primary tumor relapse-free survival for OPC revealed three prognostic factors: T4 tumor (p = 0.0001, hazard ratio 7.38), pGTV {>=}20 mL (p = 0.01, hazard ratio 10.61), and VRR <0.5 (p = 0.001, hazard ratio 6.49). Multivariate analysis of the primary tumor relapse-free survival for HPC showed two prognostic factors: pGTV {>=}30 mL (p = 0.001, hazard ratio 2.87) and VRR <0.5 (p = 0.03, hazard ratio 2.25). Conclusion: The VRR is an outcome predictor for local control in OPC and HPC patients treated with IMRT. Those with large tumor volumes or a VRR <0.5 should be considered for a salvage operation or a dose-escalation scheme.« less
  • Purpose: Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (RA) allows for rapid delivery of highly conformal dose distributions. In this study, planning and dosimetry of RA were compared with conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans of head-and-neck cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Computed tomography scans of 12 patients who had completed IMRT for advanced tumors of the naso-, oro- and hypopharynx were replanned using RA using either one or two arcs. Calculated doses to planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) were compared between IMRT and RA plans. Dose distributions for single arc (n = 8) and double arc (n =more » 4) plans were verified using film dosimetry in three to five coronal planes using a quality assurance phantom. Results: RA plans allowed for a mean reduction in number of monitor units (MU) by nearly 60%, relative to seven field sliding window IMRT plans. RA plans achieved similar sparing of all OAR as IMRT. Double arc RA provided the best dose homogeneity to PTV with a lower standard deviation of PTV dose (1.4 Gy), vs. single arc plans (2.0 Gy) and IMRT (1.7 Gy). Film measurements showed good correspondence with calculated doses; the mean gamma value was 0.30 (double arc) and area of the film with a gamma exceeding 1 was 0.82%. Conclusions: RA is a fast, safe, and accurate technique that uses lower MUs than conventional IMRT. Double arc plans provided at least similar sparing of OAR and better PTV dose homogeneity than single arc or IMRT.« less
  • Purpose: To assess the benefit of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared with conventional RT for the quality of life (QOL) of head and neck cancer survivors. Methods and Materials: Cross-sectional QOL measures (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire C30 and head and neck cancer module) were used with a French multicenter cohort of patients cured of head and neck cancer (follow-up {>=} 1 year) who had received bilateral neck RT ({>=} 45 Gy) as a part of their initial treatment. We compared the QOL mean scores regarding RT modality (conventional RT vs. IMRT). The patients of themore » two groups were matched (one to one) according to the delay between the end of RT and the timing of the QOL evaluation and the T stage. Each QOL item was divided into two relevant levels of severity: 'not severe' (responses, 'not at all' and 'a little') vs. 'severe' (responses 'quite a bit' and 'very much'). The association between the type of RT and the prevalence of severe symptoms was approximated, through multivariate analysis using the prevalence odds ratio. Results: Two comparable groups (67 pairs) were available. Better scores were observed on the head and neck cancer module QOL questionnaire for the IMRT group, especially for dry mouth and sticky saliva (p < 0.0001). Severe symptoms were more frequent with conventional RT concerning saliva modifications and oral discomfort. The adjusted prevalence odds ratios were 3.17 (p = 0.04) for dry mouth, 3.16 (p = 0.02) for sticky saliva, 3.58 (p = 0.02) for pain in the mouth, 3.35 (p = 0.04) for pain in the jaw, 2.60 (p = 0.02) for difficulties opening the mouth, 2.76 (p = 0.02) for difficulties with swallowing, and 2.68 (p = 0.03) for trouble with eating. Conclusion: The QOL assessment of head and neck cancer survivors demonstrated the benefit of IMRT, particularly in the areas of salivary dysfunction and oral discomfort.« less
  • Purpose: There is increasing evidence that decline in cognitive function following brain radiotherapy (RT) is related to the radiation dose delivered to the hippocampi. In this work we evaluate the feasibility of using IMRT to generate HSRT plans in HNC. Methods: A planning study was undertaken for ten representative patients with HNC previously treated with radical (chemo)-RT using standard IMRT techniques. The hippocampi were delineated according to the RTOG hippocampal contouring atlas, on a T1w- MRI scan that was registered with the RT planning CT. LINAC-based, clinically acceptable, HSRT plans were generated and assessed using the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system.more » Results: Using a VMAT technique, a reduction in hippocampal dose was achievable in six cases. For these cases, the EQD2-D40% of the bilateral hippocampi was significantly reduced by HSRT (p = 0.006) from a median of 18.8Gy (range 14.4–34.6) to 6.5 Gy (4.2–9.5) for the delivered and HSRT plans respectively. Plans were also generated using a fixed-field IMRT technique with non-coplanar beams that were designed to avoid the bilateral hippocampi, resulting in a median EQD2-D40% of 11.2Gy (8.0–14.5). Both HSRT techniques also resulted in lower doses to the whole brain, brain stem, and cerebellum. The HSRT plans resulted in higher doses to some regions of non-contoured normaltissue, but the magnitude of these dose differences is unlikely to be of clinical significance in terms of acute and late toxicity. Conclusion: This study has demonstrated that it is possible, in many cases, to adapt treatment plans for HNC to significantly reduce dose to the hippocampi. This reduction in dose would be predicted to Resultin a significant reduction in the probability of subsequent decline in cognitive function following RT. Our results point towards the need for the collection of prospective data on cognitive outcomes for the HNC patient population treated with radical (chemo)-RT.« less