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

Title: Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Photon Radiation Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer: First Comparative Results of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Abstract

Purpose: We hypothesized that patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) would have lower symptom burdens, as measured by patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, than patients treated with intensity modulated photon therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: Patients were treated for oropharyngeal cancer from 2006 to 2015 through prospective registries with concurrent chemotherapy and IMPT or chemotherapy and IMRT and completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Head and Neck Cancer (MDASI-HN) module at various times before treatment (baseline), during treatment (acute phase), within the first 3 months after treatment (subacute phase), and afterward (chronic phase). Individual symptoms and the top 5 and top 11 most severe symptoms were summarized and compared between the radiation therapy modalities. Results: PRO data were collected and analyzed from 35 patients treated with chemotherapy and IMPT and from 46 treated with chemotherapy and IMRT. The baseline symptom burdens were similar between both groups. The overall top 5 symptoms were food taste problems (mean score 4.91 on a 0-10 scale), dry mouth (4.49), swallowing/chewing difficulties (4.26), lack of appetite (4.08), and fatigue (4.00). Among the top 11 symptoms, changes in taste and appetite during the subacute and chronic phases favored IMPT (all P<.048). Nomore » differences in symptom burden were detected between modalities during the acute and chronic phases by top-11 symptom scoring. During the subacute phase, the mean (±standard deviation) top 5 MDASI scores were 5.15 ± 2.66 for IMPT versus 6.58 ± 1.98 for IMRT (P=.013). Conclusions: According to the MDASI-HN, symptom burden was lower among the IMPT patients than among the IMRT patients during the subacute recovery phase after treatment. A prospective randomized clinical trial is underway to define the value of IMPT for the management of head and neck tumors.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]; ;  [3];  [1];  [3]; ;  [4]; ; ; ; ; ; ;  [1];  [3];  [1];  [3];  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)
  4. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648726
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Journal Name:
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 95; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Journal ID: ISSN 0360-3016
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BIOLOGICAL RECOVERY; CHEMOTHERAPY; CLINICAL TRIALS; NEOPLASMS; ORAL CAVITY; PATIENTS; PROTON BEAMS; RADIOTHERAPY; SYMPTOMS

Citation Formats

Sio, Terence T., Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, Lin, Huei-Kai, Shi, Qiuling, Gunn, G. Brandon, Cleeland, Charles S., Lee, J. Jack, Hernandez, Mike, Blanchard, Pierre, Thaker, Nikhil G., Phan, Jack, Rosenthal, David I., Garden, Adam S., Morrison, William H., Fuller, C. David, Mendoza, Tito R., Mohan, Radhe, Wang, Xin Shelley, and Frank, Steven J., E-mail: sjfrank@mdanderson.org. Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Photon Radiation Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer: First Comparative Results of Patient-Reported Outcomes. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.044.
Sio, Terence T., Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, Lin, Huei-Kai, Shi, Qiuling, Gunn, G. Brandon, Cleeland, Charles S., Lee, J. Jack, Hernandez, Mike, Blanchard, Pierre, Thaker, Nikhil G., Phan, Jack, Rosenthal, David I., Garden, Adam S., Morrison, William H., Fuller, C. David, Mendoza, Tito R., Mohan, Radhe, Wang, Xin Shelley, & Frank, Steven J., E-mail: sjfrank@mdanderson.org. Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Photon Radiation Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer: First Comparative Results of Patient-Reported Outcomes. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.044.
Sio, Terence T., Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, Lin, Huei-Kai, Shi, Qiuling, Gunn, G. Brandon, Cleeland, Charles S., Lee, J. Jack, Hernandez, Mike, Blanchard, Pierre, Thaker, Nikhil G., Phan, Jack, Rosenthal, David I., Garden, Adam S., Morrison, William H., Fuller, C. David, Mendoza, Tito R., Mohan, Radhe, Wang, Xin Shelley, and Frank, Steven J., E-mail: sjfrank@mdanderson.org. Fri . "Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Photon Radiation Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer: First Comparative Results of Patient-Reported Outcomes". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.044.
@article{osti_22648726,
title = {Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Photon Radiation Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer: First Comparative Results of Patient-Reported Outcomes},
author = {Sio, Terence T. and Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona and Lin, Huei-Kai and Shi, Qiuling and Gunn, G. Brandon and Cleeland, Charles S. and Lee, J. Jack and Hernandez, Mike and Blanchard, Pierre and Thaker, Nikhil G. and Phan, Jack and Rosenthal, David I. and Garden, Adam S. and Morrison, William H. and Fuller, C. David and Mendoza, Tito R. and Mohan, Radhe and Wang, Xin Shelley and Frank, Steven J., E-mail: sjfrank@mdanderson.org},
abstractNote = {Purpose: We hypothesized that patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) would have lower symptom burdens, as measured by patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, than patients treated with intensity modulated photon therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: Patients were treated for oropharyngeal cancer from 2006 to 2015 through prospective registries with concurrent chemotherapy and IMPT or chemotherapy and IMRT and completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Head and Neck Cancer (MDASI-HN) module at various times before treatment (baseline), during treatment (acute phase), within the first 3 months after treatment (subacute phase), and afterward (chronic phase). Individual symptoms and the top 5 and top 11 most severe symptoms were summarized and compared between the radiation therapy modalities. Results: PRO data were collected and analyzed from 35 patients treated with chemotherapy and IMPT and from 46 treated with chemotherapy and IMRT. The baseline symptom burdens were similar between both groups. The overall top 5 symptoms were food taste problems (mean score 4.91 on a 0-10 scale), dry mouth (4.49), swallowing/chewing difficulties (4.26), lack of appetite (4.08), and fatigue (4.00). Among the top 11 symptoms, changes in taste and appetite during the subacute and chronic phases favored IMPT (all P<.048). No differences in symptom burden were detected between modalities during the acute and chronic phases by top-11 symptom scoring. During the subacute phase, the mean (±standard deviation) top 5 MDASI scores were 5.15 ± 2.66 for IMPT versus 6.58 ± 1.98 for IMRT (P=.013). Conclusions: According to the MDASI-HN, symptom burden was lower among the IMPT patients than among the IMRT patients during the subacute recovery phase after treatment. A prospective randomized clinical trial is underway to define the value of IMPT for the management of head and neck tumors.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.044},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
issn = {0360-3016},
number = 4,
volume = 95,
place = {United States},
year = {2016},
month = {7}
}