Evidence Hub

Disease control and late toxicity in Adaptive Dose Painting by Numbers vs. non-adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a randomized controlled phase II trial

A. De Bruycker, W. De Neve, J. Daisne, T. Vercauteren, W. De Gersem, L. Olteanu, D. Berwouts, S. Deheneffe et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2024

29 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Local recurrence remains the main cause of death in stage III-IV non-metastatic head-and-neck cancer (HNC) with relapse-prone regions within high 18F-FDG-PET-signal gross tumor volume. We investigated if dose-escalation within this subvolume combined with a 3-phase treatment-adaptation could increase local (LC) and regional (RC) control at equal or minimized radiation-induced toxicity, by comparing adaptive 18F-FDG-PET-voxel-intensity-based dose-painting-by-numbers (A-DPBN) with non-adaptive standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy (S-IMRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This two-center randomized controlled phase II trial assigned (1:1) patients to receive A-DPBN or S-IMRT (+/-chemotherapy). Eligibility: non-metastatic HNC of oral cavity, oro-/hypopharynx or larynx, needing radio(chemo)therapy; T1-4N0-3 (exception: T1-2N0 glottic); KPS≥70; ≥18 years and informed consent.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

1-year LC and RC. The dose prescription for A-DPBN was intercurrently adapted in two steps to an absolute dose-volume limit (≤1.75cm3 can receive >84Gy and normalized isoeffective dose >96Gy) as a safety measure during the study course after 4/7 A-DPBN patients developed ≥G3 mucosal ulcers.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were randomized (A-DPBN: 47; S-IMRT: 48). Median follow-up amounts 31 months (IQR: 14-48 months); 29 patients died (17 of cancer progression). A-DPBN results in superior LC compared to S-IMRT with 1- and 2-year LC of 91% and 88% vs. 78% and 75%, respectively…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 29 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free