Evidence Hub

Adaptive Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: Initial Clinical Outcomes from a Prospective Trial

D. Schwartz, A. Garden, J. Thomas, Yi-Pei Chen, Yong-Bin Zhang, J. Lewin, M. Chambers, Lei Dong

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2011

15 participants · 263 citations

Abstract

Purpose To present pilot toxicity and survival outcomes for a prospective trial investigating adaptive radiotherapy (ART) for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Methods Twenty-four patients enrolled onto an IRB-approved clinical trial. Twenty-two patients were analyzed. Daily CT-guided setup and deformable image registration permitted serial mapping of CTVs and avoidance structures for ART planning. Primary site was base of tongue in 15 patients, tonsil in 6, and glossopharyngeal sulcus in 1. Twenty (91%) patients had AJCC stage IV disease. T stage distribution was 2 T1, 12 T2, 3 T3, 5 T4 and N stage distribution was 1 N0, 2 N1, 5 N2a, 12 N2b, and 2 N2c. Twenty-one (95%) patients received systemic therapy. Results With 31 month median follow up (range: 13-45), there has been no primary site failure and 1 nodal relapse, yielding 100% local and 95% regional disease control at 2 years. Baseline tumor size correlated with absolute volumetric treatment response (p = 0.018). Parotid volumetric change correlated with duration of feeding tube placement (p = 0.025). Acute toxicity was comparable to conventional IMRT results. Chronic toxicity and functional outcomes beyond 1 year were tabulated. Discussion This is the first prospective evaluation of morbidity and survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with automated adaptive replanning. ART can provide dosimetric benefit with only 1 or 2 mid-treatment replanning events. Our preliminary…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical 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: 15 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